Talk:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This article is a joke

Archived and collapsed off topic discussion per WP:TALK

This article is such a joke. The Hadron Collider is by definition and design to be used to produce heretofore UNKNOWN results. For the 'experts' to say they predict what they will find, but cannot say for sure what it will be, but then say it is absolutely SAFE is just absurd. What a huge surprise that Peers reviewing are agreeing with the declarations of safety. though they have no clue either what the experiments will acccomplish. The Peers are on the same government dole that CERN is on ... what would you expect them to say? And this fallacious argument from authority ... 'after all the experts said' I mean really ... DUH. One of the dimwit Cern scientists commenting on the safety said, "well if it were dangerous to the Earth I would go somewhere else!" Really? Where exactly?? The Earth-Centered-Universe and the Flat-Earth theories were also propped up by authority, and maintained by experts ... Ptolemy's formulas for predicting the movements of the planets work just as well today as they did then ... but his premise was WRONG. This article and the main article were surely conceived by parrots. DasV (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This just in, global scientific conspiracy bent on destroying the Earth, news at 11. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed our ignorance is vast. The people best qualified to comment have necessarily invested years of their lives in pursuing particle physics, and are therefore highly interested, and therefore highly biased in favor of pursuing the subject. Yet those attacking have their own biases, but less knowledge. So what are we to do? Stop all scientific investigation across the board, and stay in bed because of fevered imaginings of danger? For the universe is a very dangerous place, only a fool could fail to notice. Those who would meddle in profound things, "the affairs of wizards" (philosophy the most) risk much, "for they are subtle, and quick to anger". At the end, one must choose how to live, and how to die. Wwheaton (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point both this article and of what the LHC actually does. Which is a shame, really, because it seems to be the opinion shared with a very vocal minority who do not understand either. The fact is, the unknown results they speak of can only really happen in a certain way in that they have to fall within certain perimeters. There are things that people think this thing will do, that it can't do. Which is where the huge misunderstanding lies, and why this article exists. When they say unknown, they do not mean that it will cause "unforseen consequences", they mean that it might produce certain things that will change our outlook on physics. THMRK1 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A very good question Wwheaton ... what's the solution? What’s the Backup Plan for things going awry? Contrary to your assumption that - The fact is, the unknown results they speak of can only really happen in a certain way in that they have to fall within certain perimeters. – THMRK1 there is no such certainty regarding vastly increasing collision energy; if there were then there would be no point in performing the experiments. Besides the logic is convoluted; they are not quite sure what the results of the experiments will be but they are ABSOLUTELY sure that there is no danger. You cannot have it both ways. I suggest you peruse the experiments that led to the atomic and hydrogen bombs, and the experimental explosions themselves. You will find that the energy yields were an order of magnitude greater than their predictions. You will also find that a number of Peers, yes other just as qualified scientists, were concerned that the reactions would not dampen at the levels predicted, which proved correct, and they were also concerned that the hydrogen bomb might flare the hydrogen in the atmosphere and make it rather unusable for those of us who have a habit of breathing. Of course this was poo poo’d by those who wanted to make the test. Luckily for us the atmosphere was not destroyed, and of course we have all these wonderfully useful weapons now. The point is many scientists would gladly tinker apart the universe to see what makes it tick, and they will find no persuasive argument for not doing so. This includes the CERN fans. Cutting edge physical experiments ALWAYS come with risk. The question is whether what might be discovered is worth it. The experiments will likely not produce mini black holes, but they likely will not add much to understanding physics either; theoretical physics remains mostly dogmatic and comparable to religion nowadays anyway due to an insufficient grasp of logic and metaphysics. And it is unlikely in the extreme that they will find anything actually useful in the real world to apply their findings to. To that add the monetary cost to people who have no interest in the experiments anyway, and then sell your project. Me I’m not buying, and the propaganda articles are not convincing. DasV (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not Wikipedias place to cast judgement or come to conclusions on any subject matter and can only demonstrate that which is reliably sourced, isn't original research and is verifiable. Currently the article meets all of these guidelines, as currently there have been not one single published paper that corroborates your fears, and yet there are thousands that corroborate this article. ^Khukri 09:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that what DasV (seriously?) proposes is not a solution at all, it is apparently simply to lie down and die in the absence of some unattainable absolute certainty (we can't do an experiment if the results are unknown?!), while a deeper understanding of nature—which has the potential to address some of the huge problems of the world that are actually in our face—is ruled out of bounds because someone can imagine a doomsday scenario that has no support among those who understand the physics. By the consensus of the European democracies that have constructed it, by the consensus of the community of physicists (who, after all, share another bias by also desiring to live), and by Wikipedia process requiring credible sources: DasV's argument fails on all counts. Wwheaton (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You mean my fears that the experiments will likely not produce mini black holes, but they likely will not add much to understanding physics either? Or my fears that that they will not find anything actually useful in the real world to apply their findings to? Or my fears that it is an extremely expensive undertaking that is paid for by taxpayers who will likely never have any use or even understanding of the results? Which part of the article dispells my fears? Which published paper corroborated the danger of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD? It might well be that Wikipedia's purpose is to parrot orthodoxy and dogma; regurgitate government sources word for word. But that doesn't change the nature, or value, of the material. DasV (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you're getting the hang of Wikipedia, it's nothing to do with your fears or the dispelling of them, it is about as you put it parroting that which is verifiable. Whether it's regurgitated dogma or not, it holds up to scrutiny, so far nothing else has and hence is Wikipedia's duty to show it as such. I don't know about Mount Vesuvius you're best of asking on that talk page. ^Khukri 14:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Well now you got my original point. The laughable articles were conceived by parrots and consist of nothing more than handouts from CERN ... probably written by the dimwit that would 'go somewhere else' if he thought there was any danger. One would have to assume that had Wikipedia been around say 40 years ago the articles on Smoking would assure everyone it was a very safe habit ... and would list the findings of the studies underwritten by the tobacco companies ... since it's 'verifiable'. Such material assures that orthodoxy and dogma remains. Of course if there is a real safety problem the 'verification' might not be possible ... not by human beings anyway. Polly-want-a-cracker? LOL DasV (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Myself, I think the article is appropriately balanced mainly because no one really credible (aka, qualified physicist) is really concerned. It seems most of the people filing lawsuits and such aren't qualified in Physics. This article lists: A botanist, a biochemist and a chemistry professor. There is one German physicist with concerns and maybe that could be expanded on somewhat. But the majority of qualified officials have ruled that the LHC is safe.... If you can find more people who have an educational basis to make opposing arguments from, feel free to add them. Pstanton 20:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

I see that my comments have been vandalized. Apparently maintaining the orthodoxy and dogma is not enough ... now we will have censorship of the discussion. DasV (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This thread is off topic per WP:TALK so I'm collapsing it. DasV, you need to address the topic of improving the article. This is not a forum. Verbal chat 12:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for new article:

Please see my discussion here. _Talk Islander 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope

I added a detail concerning the hacking incident but another editor has removed this on the apparent grounds that the matter is covered on the LHC main page and that it does not concern the safety of the particle collisions. Neither of these reasons seem adequate. This article is a spinoff which exists to cover safety matters in greater detail and so will tend to amplify such matters rather than ignore them. And the hacking incident does touch on safety in several ways and has been reported as such. The extent to which the facility is protected against saboteurs and mischief-makers is a proper aspect of the safety topic and so we should include it. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The article specifically deals with the Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, not with operational security issues, which are outlined in the LHC main article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The safety concerns raised on this page concern the physical results of the collisions if I understand correctly - even if hackers had access to the control system they could at best damage the collider itself by seering the particle beam into the magnets or into the detector. They couldn't increase the center of mass energy of example (at 14 TeV it is running at it's maximum Energy, determined by the radius of the collider).--84.163.91.129 (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, those are precisely the reasons why I deleted the Colonel's edit. I apologize for not contacting him first, but this hacker story had already been added to and removed from this page a couple of times with exactly the same debate. It is true however that, while this is an article about the safety of particle collisions at the LHC (i.e. the doomsday scenarios) the title itself is a bit more general and seems to encompass also the issues of operational safety. Would the other editors consider changing the title into a more specific one? (e.g. Safety of particle collisions at the LHC)? Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I support this proposal per "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)". The article does not discuss whether the LHC machinery adequately protects CERN employees from harmful radiation or falling crane loads, for example, nor whether the hacking incident could have disabled crucial environmental safety controls (But, really, the hacker story is more of a security issue, than a safety concern). Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations, I propose that this article be moved to "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider". The current name should be turned into a redirect since the Peskin article cites this page. --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What do the other editors think of this proposal? --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, the scope is limited to the doomsday scenarios and I think it should be reflected in the title. I think your choice is about as precise as it can get. ^Khukri 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Done --Phenylalanine (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have appreciated more time for other editors to comment on this change. I do agree that the article scope needs to be restricted to the global, planetary safety issue, but I am not clear about the need for a change in title, nor the choice that has been made. Wwheaton (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wwheaton, I apologize for rapidly moving the page. I renamed the article because "Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)" states that an article title should precisely reflect the topic of the article, and I believe that the current title adequately reflects that topic. Do you have an alternate suggestion? Here are two sources in the article using a very similar title: "Review of the safety of LHC collisions", "Statement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider". --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, really. I do not have a better suggestion, but I hoped for some from the group. My main problem with what we have is that no one coming in blind searching for an article on the subject would find it at first. But of course the links from the main LHC article are there, and the redirect from the old title. I guess in general I think it would be good to wait a day or two for comments before acting on substantial issues placed up for discussion. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA On Hold

This article is generally very good. It's well referenced and has a very balanced POV on a subject where neutrality could be difficult to maintain. There are however a few changes I feel need to take place.

In general, the article explains the science very well but I think both strange matter and Hawking radiation are both terms that could use a very brief explanation in article in reference to the context they are being used in. So for Hawking radiation, explain about how it decays black holes and explain what strange matter is in the context of strangelets. Further, I had to read the direct quote from the safety report on the LHC in the micro-blackhole section 3 times before I understood that it was saying that cosmic-ray collisons with neutron stars or white dwarves would create micro-blackholes that would remain on these stars in the same way a micro-blackhole created by the LHC would remian on earth, but since neutron stars and white dwarves still exist they can not be dangerous. Therefore I think this quote should be written out differently so it is easier to understand.

I also feel that the article should have a section specifically on how the media covered the safety of LHC, since alot of public concern about it's safety would have been strongly influenced by the media and the fact that the media is listed as one of the bodies in the lead of the article raising concerns over the safety of the LHC. Therefore I think the third paragraph of the safety concerns section should be turned into a subsection, and expanded upon. This should include comments on how the media covered the safety issues. Was the media often biased towards the reporting only of the dangers of the LHC? Or did the major media outlets stress the research that had occured to deem the LHC safe (which I know for example the BBC did).

This article will be watched for seven days whilst these changes are made. If no imporvment is made after seven days the article may be failed without notice. If you have any questions or comments please ask me here or on my talk page. Good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been requested a few more days be allowed to make the changes in the article. This is fine, good luck! Million_Moments (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Addressing GA suggestions

Thank you for your careful review. I will try to address the points you raised. I must admit, at first glance, that I'm not sure how to go about detailing the media reactions to the safety issues. Specifically, I will have to be very careful to avoid WP:SYN and WP:NOR issues. Any suggestions? Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All I am look for is a few statements along the lines of "The major media broadcasters *inster two or three names here* had siginificant coverage of the launch of the LHC and it's safety concerns, but their coverage also included the fact that safety reports had deemed safe*add refs here to news articles* where as *insert names here* only covered the doomsday scenerios of the device*insert refs here*" That way all you are doing is describing the news coverage of specific broadcastersand not generalising which could be construed as original research. This may sound odd but alternatively you could write a section like the critical responce sections of articles on television episodes or books. See Partners in Crime (Doctor Who), a featured article, which has a good critical responce section. In this instance you could write it is The Times reported that "many people feared the end of the world on wednesday" but pointed out "through safety reviews had found the LHC to be safe." John Smith from The Independent called for "a delay in the experiment whilst safety issues were re-examined". Obviously I just made that up...

Does that help? Million_Moments (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi I came across this review and noticed that there was a request for info from the media. So I have put something together below. Obviously the citations need formatting but I am too busy for that, and it is a lot of info so it might need to be cut a bit? Also, it needs to be made to flow better of course ~~(and the internal links might not all be pointed to the right places, but again I've had no time to check)~~, but I think it might be useful for you guys as a start? If not, never mind. Anyway here it is:

CNN mentioned that "Some have expressed fears that the project could lead to the Earth's demise", but it assured its readers with comments from scientists like John Huth, who said that it was "baloney". It also mentioned a report by physicists stating that the there isn't a risk to the collidor, but it did say that the report was not done "independently". [1]

MSNBC said that, "there are more serious things to worry about, ranging from the monster hurricane slamming the Gulf Coast to the chances of a killer asteroid heading our way (estimated background risk: 1 in 500,000 for any given year)." It also allayed fears that "the atom-smasher might set off earthquakes or other dangerous rumblings". The results of an online survey it conducted "indicate that a lot of [the public] know enough not to panic". [2] According to Alan Boyle, "The strange case of the planet-eating black hole serves as just one example showing how grand scientific projects can lead to a collision between science fiction and science fact." [3]

The BBC said, "the scientific consensus appears to be on the side of Cern's theorists" who say the LHC has "no conceivable danger". [4] It also recruited the services of physicist Brian Cox who maintained, "The LHC has absolutely no chance of destroying anything bigger than a few protons, let alone the Earth." He went on to call the safety concerns "symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science". [5]

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that, "the end of the world will not happen on Wednesday, for the simple reason that the LHC will not generate any collisions that day. It also stated that reports were commisioned to check that "such risks are, by any reasonable thinking, impossible". [6]

The Times told its readers to "cancel your plans for next Wednesday, it could be your last day on Earth" but then went on to say that the "doomsayers...were challenged by a report from the scientists behind the project outlining just how safe it is". [7]

The Guardian opened an article with "Mankind is either at the beginning of a great era of discovery, or it's the end of the world." It said "The claims have been dismissed by the courts" but did say that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." [8]

The Associated Press quoted CERN chief spokesman James Gillies, who called the concerns "nonsense". [9]

According to Time, the public had no need to be scared, saying that "even if tiny black holes were to be formed at CERN — a big if — they would evaporate almost instantaneously due to Hawking Radiation". [10]

The Independent reported that, "Few if any sensible scientists believe that these minuscule black holes pose any threat, for instance by merging into a bigger black hole that could swallow up Geneva." [11]

Brian Greene in the New York Times reassured readers by saying,"If a black hole is produced under Geneva, might it swallow Switzerland and continue on a ravenous rampage until the earth is devoured? It’s a reasonable question with a definite answer: no." [12]

The tabloids were less sympathetic to the CERN scientists, with the Daily Mail producing headlines such as "End of the world postponed as broken Hadron Collider out of commission until the spring" [13] and "Are we all going to die next Wednesday?" [14] The Sun gave more time to Rossler with a quote from him saying for instance, "The weather will change completely, wiping out life. There will be a Biblical Armageddon." After the launch of the collidor, it even had a story entitled, "Success! The world hasn't ended". [15]

That is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for, but your right there is alot there and I would say that bnot all of the media outlets who reported a balanced view need to be included. Million_Moments (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but it should be a start for you guys. It was hard writing it without repeating the same sort of language. Btw, is there any reason why this article is at Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider when it could be at Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, which right now is a redirect to here? (And sorry for not signing above). Deamon138 (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deamon138, I want to thank you for this detailed news source info! I really appreciate it. I should get around to addressing the GA recommendations with weekend. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This is what a Wiki is all about! Deamon138 (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Million Moments,

I expanded the information on strange matter and hawking radiation. Is that clear enough?

Also, is the Neutron star argument clearer now?

I just added the above media info in the article, but I'm not sure which sources to cut. Also, the section has to be rewritten to flow properly. I'll be back tomorrow to finish this up.

Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I might cut out a few things as it is a little long. Million_Moments (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I appreciate the work that went into the new section but it seems to me that it is way overblown. There have been hundreds of articles on the end-of-the-world issue in both serious and less-serious media outlets, and just quoting a bunch of them - mostly variations on the same concept that we repeat again and again in the article - does not IMHO bring any useful information to the reader. I would rather prefer something on the lines of what the referee proposed first, i.e. something like The major media broadcasters had significant coverage of the launch of the LHC and its safety concerns, but their coverage also stressed the fact that safety reports had deemed the collider safe, whereas the tabloids chose to improve their sales by fanning the mass hysteria on the doomsday scenarios (ok, perhaps something less polemic). This at least conveys a useful piece of information on the different approaches chosen by the media. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the conversation above, you'll see this had to be avoided as it would technically be original research unless we could locate a reference that stated it. A bunch being quoted allows the reader to form their own opinion. Million_Moments (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean that the quotes help forming the readers' opinion on the quality of the media coverage itself I can agree, but even in that case the section is way oversized w.r.t. its importance in the context of the article. I think it would be enough to give one or two examples of the different tones (serious newspapers vs tabloids). In the present version it looks like we want to give an exhaustive review of the media coverage, which would be at the same time hopeless and useless. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Does the media section look better now? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. One ref missing and I shifted some of the references as I am fussy about having them after direct quotes. Add that ref for me and I will read through the whole article later today if I can. Million_Moments (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

Alot of hard work has been put into this article and I am very happy to say it is now a good article! The science is very well explained, the article is neutral and broad in it's coverage and well referenced. It'd be alot of fiddly work, but one way to perhaps imporve the article would be to use the {{cite news}} template that will format the news story references nicely. The article is getting long, and it's possible the lead may need to be expanded pretty soon. Apart from keeping the article up to date with the latest news, nothing else comes to mind for me! Well done and keep up the good work! Million_Moments (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful review and excellent suggestions. Cheers, Phenylalanine (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect issue

Deamon138, the reason I redirected "Safety of the Large Hadron Collider" here is that the only safety issues discussed in the "Large Hadron Collider" article are the Safety of particle collisions; the other matters concern operational challenges, delays, one security issue and one accident, which are not "safety issues". Furthermore, it's safe to say that 99% of readers typing "safety of the Large Hadron Collider" in the search field will be looking for information about doomsday black holes and the like. In the case that some reader is looking for information about general safety issues and does a search for "safety of the Large Hadron Collider", the reader will quickly see that "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider" is not the article that the editor is looking for. Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Well I was just wondering if this article could include the "general safety" issues as well? Deamon138 (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This question has been discussed fairly extensively in the past year, both here and in the main LHC article, both before and since the main and safety articles were split. The consensus (not perfect) has been to reserve this article for the catastrophic global safety question (which is very complex and involves specialized physics issues), and put the more normal engineering and pedestrian operational safety matters into the main LHC article. You might want to go back and look at the archives of the discussions for both articles to get up to speed on the matter, then bring it back here if you think it needs more consideration. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, you're explanation is good enough for me thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

US Federal Lawsuit Does Not Have Jurisdiction

According to Alan Boyle of MSNBC CosmicLog: [1]

In a 26-page ruling, District Judge Helen Gillmor said that the world's largest particle-smasher was not subject to U.S. environmental regulations because the federal government didn't contribute enough money or play enough of a role in controlling the experiment.

"It is clear that plaintiffs' action reflects disagreement among scientists about the possible ramifications of the operation of the Large Hadron Collider," she wrote. "This extremely complex debate is of concern to more than just the physicists. The United States Congress provided more than $500 million toward the construction of the Large Hadron Collider. But Congress did not enact NEPA for the purpose of allowing this debate to proceed in federal court."

[1] http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/26/1457536.aspx DOOMSDAY LAWSUIT DISMISSED Alan Boyle, MSNBC CosmicLog (September 26, 2008)

--Jtankers (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I will mention it in the article.

Done --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reiner Plaga updates his paper

Reiner Plaga has updated his paper On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders in response to Giddings and Mangano's comments.

New abstract version: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415v2
New PDF version: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.1415v2 (his response to Giddings and Mangano is in the Appendix)

--Phenylalanine (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Dr. Habil. Rainer Plaga concludes "I stand to my general conclusion that there is a residual catastrophic risk from metastable microscopic black holes produced at particle colliders.". Also referenced is Dr. William G. Unruh who supports mBH evaporation but refutes Dr. Hawking's arguments stating "The derivation by Hawking is nonsense, in that it uses features of the theory in regimes where we know the theory is wrong." CERN's Dr. Ellis supports Dr. Hawking's arguments. --Jtankers (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Both Dr. Plaga and yourself need to look into the Unruh effect. You can read his paper on it (published in 1976) here. Enjoy. THMRK1 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated the article with Plaga's response to Giddings' and Mangano's comment (in the "Specific concerns and responses" section). Done --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help with image design

I think this is the perfect image (taken from here)! I don't believe it's free though. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, that is perfect. We can't use the picture, but we should be able to use a similar plot of the same data, citing either Peskin or Giddings & Mangano. -- BenRG (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be awesome! --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a great image idea, and generating a similar one with the same concept would be great. I do think the caption needs to explain the meaning and the logic behind it (maybe referencing a fuller explanation in the text), or else it will be meaningless to the average reader. Wwheaton (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone here that would be able to create a version of this image that we could use in the article? --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Magnetic Monopoles

There is a mention in the early paragraphs about magnetic monopoles possibly posing a danger. I had never heard this before and, to my dismay, it is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Could someone expand on what the specific damage of a magnetic monopole is? I always envisioned them to be harmless. 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)12.24.60.12 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll make a brief description in the article. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, I do not see it. Have you had a chance to make the changes? Thanks. 12.24.60.12 (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Soon to come. Here's a quick link where you can find the info: [16] --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

I tend to agree with the commenter above that Safety of the Large Hadron Collider is a better article name. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For what reason? Please see the discussion in the "scope" section. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of safety concerns

For archival purposes, here is the link to the full text of the "Media coverage of safety concerns" section (as it was before it was trimmed). --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Article

Well done guys for all of you who worked on the article improving what was an article with alot of view points but lacking alot of basis, to what is now a very well written and I hope some find an interesting read. Mainly Phenylalanine for all the hard work on the copyediting, but also to Will's idea for originally splitting it away from the LHC article, to all the other guys who have contributed, removed vandalism, edited and given insight, including James who has been the first to pass on information about the lawsuits, papers etc, and lastly to the fellas from the GA side of things who gave the input to pushing it over the edge so to speak. So well done all. ^Khukri 15:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to thank Khukri for his continued work and attention to this article as well as his suggestions for improvements. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations for achieving a Good Article designation. --Jtankers (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all concerned! Let us toast to the wiki spirit! Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Everyone that's been involved in this article, from it's inception through to the GA award, has been fantastic. Truly a great contribution to Wikipedia. Everyone's done a great job, contragulations! THMRK1 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can now get the main LHC article up to GA status? I can't do the heavy lifting myself, but I can fuss around the fringes and cause trouble.... Wwheaton (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Characterization of Safety Report Author Objectivity

The following statement implies that none of the Safety Report authors were closely related to or vested in the outcome of the Large Hadron Collider experiment which does not appear to be accurate for at least 4 of the 5 members.

"The report, prepared by a group of physicists not involved in the LHC experiments, reaffirmed the safety of the LHC collisions in light of further research conducted since the 2003 assessment."

Similar issue with the statement "not involved in the LHC experiments".

In 2007, CERN mandated a group of five particle physicists not involved in the LHC experiments — the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG), consisting of John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano and Urs Wiedemann, of CERN, and Igor Tkachev, of the Institute for Nuclear Research in Moscow —

--Jtankers (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Both statements are referenced to "The safety of the LHC". CERN 2008 (CERN website); quote: "CERN has mandated a group of particle physicists, also not involved in the LHC experiments, to monitor the latest speculations about LHC collisions." --Phenylalanine (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Jtankers likes to make a big fuss (here and elsewhere) about whether Ellis, Giudice, Mangano and Wiedemann - all staff members of the CERN theory division - are involved in the LHC experiments or not. As far as I know they are not, meaning that none of them belongs to any of the LHC experimental collaborations. They obviously have a professional interest in knowing the outcome of the LHC experiments, but this applies to virtually everybody in the particle physics community, regardless of whether they work at CERN or not. Jtankers should find comfort in the fact that the LSAG conclusions were fully endorsed by independent panels of highly respected physicists - some of whom of Nobel-prize caliber - who are not CERN employees (see refs. [8,9] in the article). And as was pointed out by somebody else in an earlier incarnation of this diatribe, even those bad CERN guys have wives and children that they presumably care about, thus it is in their interest to be as objective as possible when assessing the risk that the LHC will destroy the planet. Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit of a pity that the only people truly qualified to have an independent opinion about the LHC's safety are also deeply interested in physics and (for that very reason) have spent years of their lives studying the questions on which the arguments hinge. This is a circumstance almost guaranteed to rouse the suspicions of those of us who do not trust "establishment wisdom", and given the horrible experiences we have had again and again (mostly in government and business, but some in the sciences) it is difficult to accuse anyone of being paranoid about the subject. I wish I could reassure James and his allies on this aspect of the matter, but it seems inevitable in this case, and I guess we are stuck with it. But it is important that we get it right, because the alternatives are just awful: huge disasters if we fail to perceive real risks, or stopping scientific (and cultural, I think) progress dead due to ignorant hysteria. I must say I look forward to the day when the human species is safely established off the Earth.... Wwheaton (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? What makes you think that on Mars there won't be any more attention seekers and conspiracy theorists? ;-) Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of ways for us to kill ourselves off. Space is big (Mars is just a toehold), and once we get established there, we will be like cockroaches, immortal, at least on a time scale of many millions of years. No doubt there will be catastrophes, as there have been on Earth, but some of us will endure and find better ways to exist. (Cheers!) Wwheaton (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

CERN's The safety of the LHC web site does not claim (or at least no longer claims) that the LSAG members were "not involved in the LHC experiments", it only states that the 2003 Safety Study Group was made of independent scientists "In the light of new experimental data and theoretical understanding, the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) has updated a review of the analysis made in 2003 by the LHC Safety Study Group, a group of independent scientists." (Additionally four of the five are listed as CERN theoretical physicists and the fifth (Igor Tkachev) has a CERN email address and multiple listings on Spires as Igor Tkachev (CERN)). All work as theoretical physicists at CERN and CERN's primary focus is the Large Hadron Collider experiment. The apparent objectivity of the authors of the safety report is relevant and "not involved in the LHC experiments" is misleading or incorrect and should be removed IMHO. --Jtankers (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jtankers, the statement is properly verified by CERN's The safety of the LHC web site:

“

Studies into the safety of high-energy collisions inside particle accelerators have been conducted in both Europe and the United States by physicists who are not themselves involved in experiments at the LHC. Their analyses have been reviewed by the expert scientific community, which agrees with their conclusion that particle collisions in accelerators are safe. CERN has mandated a group of particle physicists, also not involved in the LHC experiments, to monitor the latest speculations about LHC collisions.

”

Thanks for the telegraph link though. Does anyone else disagree or have a reliable source saying or suggesting otherwise? --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC) --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jtankers, you still don't (or pretend not to) understand how CERN works. CERN employs thousands of people, ranging from technicians to engineers to experimental particle physicists to (a smaller number of) theoretical particle physicists. It is perfectly possible to be a CERN physicist without being involved in the LHC experiments: one might e.g. work on an experiment which is not at LHC (there are plenty), or work in the theory division (such as the LSAG authors). Besides, there are lots of particle physics theorists who are not CERN employees but have been in the past (e.g. with two-year postdoc contracts), and even more who visit CERN for short periods to interact with the people there. All of these people might have a CERN e-mail address. In summary, nearly everybody who's anybody in the particle physics community stops by CERN one time or another, but this does not mean that they are involved in the LHC experiments (if not in the very general meaning of being interested in the results). Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to expand on that, there are 2,200 CERN staff currently, and I think about 8,000 physicists involved in CERN experiments from other institutes. ^Khukri 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

More useful sources

--Phenylalanine (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability — arXiv papers, self-published?

Here's a link to a relevant discussion I started at "Wikipedia talk:Verifiability": Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#arXiv papers, self-published?. --Phenylalanine (talk) 03:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'you are insignificant and wrong' argument

It is important to understand that people will come to this page with doubts about the future and need solid answers.

The page exists because some people have safety concerns about the LHC (so to imply that these safety concerns should be given a small amount of space because they are held by the minority of people is clearly illogical).

A large amount of the article is dedicated to repeating the same message. That message is simple and can be written on one line: CERN have reviewed the safety concerns and dismissed them (as you would expect since there is a large amount of money and personal time invested by all concerned). This should be stated once with references. Thereafter any line that repeats the statement should be removed.

The article should be dedicated to explaining the reasoning behind the dismissal of any concerns.

And please remember Fermilab director Pier Oddone when he stated "In this case we are dumbfounded that we missed some very simple balance of forces". 60.242.93.208 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I hope "You are insignificant" would not appear explicitly (or even implicitly) in any Wiki article, nor in these article discussion pages; though such feelings in editors do inevitably slip through now and then (as do "you are part of a conspiracy of evil technologists", alas). Opinions and points of view can certainly be wrong, and have to be weighed on the scales of the opinions of qualified people, reported in reliable sources. I think the Apollo hoax claim is an example of an "insignificant" opinion (in some sense), despite its wide coverage. It has a Wiki article of some length and substance, which in my opinion it deserves.

I think your point asking for a clearer explanation here is good in principle, and I thank you for pointing it out, as it surely needs continuing attention and effort. But such an explanation is quite difficult in practice because the argument is logically fairly complex, and because some of the individual steps really require a very deep understanding of physics and mathematics to evaluate critically. If we were to give the argument fully it would be lengthy, and realistically, very few readers would be able to understand it (I would not, in particular). Essentially all of those who could evaluate it are or have been themselves professionally involved in elementary particle physics; and some would discount their opinions as biased by conflict of interest.

The Challenger accident is the best (ie, horrible...) example I know that shows we must address these matters seriously. I wish we had more Richard Feynman's in the world available to help us now. Brian Greene would be my candidate for the best communicator who is truly expert around today. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and particularly for mentioning Richard Feynman (he was always a favorite of mine as well). The important thing about Feynmans lectures was that he tried to impart a sense of those parts of physics that were not completely understood and to highlight gaps in our knowledge. There does not seem to be enough of that here - that CERN decided to build the LHC implies that much is unknown and unproven - It has only been built to shine a light on what actually happens at these energy levels.

If anyone has expert knowledge on Heuristics and Biases there must also be a place for those theories in this article. 60.242.93.208 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with 60.242.93.208's first statement. This article is very similar to other LHC news articles. Most of this article is an argument from authority without specifics (basically safety being confirmed or concerns dismissed). For folks with a science background, it would be more reassuring to see the actual reasons it is safe fleshed out more. The gamma ray argument is oft repeated, but it would be nice to know that other calculations involving the actual LHC also indicate safety (and why). I'm no physicist, but the "science of the safety" is more reassuring than "X number reviewed it and said it is safe." If there are common arguments against safety, perhaps they could be debunked with the actual science behind it and included in this article. It is somewhat interesting that most other layman articles on safety are written like this, and I am somewhat surprised that a physicist has not written an accessible article focused on the science (instead of just argument from authority). It would be great if a wonk could do that for this wiki article. I am assuming these reports and scientific papers are dense with actual science, but most of the layman articles are light on the actual science. Most of the layman articles leave me fearing that the gamma ray example is all that was considered since it is mainly all I see in the layman articles. --Butternutt12 (talk) 08:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One reason why the article may sound to you as "X number reviewed it and said it is safe" is that Wikipedia is not the place for original research, and it is supposed to report only on information from documented sources (which BTW is a different thing from "argument from authority"). The main lines of the safety arguments are already sketched out in the article, and "folks with a science background" can surely check the references at the end if they need more detail. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think this article would be more interesting if it focused on the science (or expanded the science section). Most of the article is a timeline of safety reviews. I am aware that Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but am puzzled why it is not a place for a layman encyclopedic review of the published science of safety research. "folks with a science background" include millions who do not have the astro-physicist background required to digest the original papers. Which is why it would be neat if a wonk could expand the science section. I'm afraid you've assumed I'm something I am not. I just am more interested in the science. This Wiki is just very similar to news articles, and if space is not a concern, it would be great if a physicist could expand on the science section.--Butternutt12 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I admit that a side remark of mine may have been slightly malicious (I apologize if it caused offence), but be aware that editing other people's posts is an extreme measure that in this case does not seem justified. Coming to the discussion, the section "Safety arguments" summarizes - quite neatly in my opinion - the scientific arguments for the safety of the LHC in a way accessible to the layman (note: it wasn't me who wrote it ;-) I doubt that it can be expanded too much without reaching the level at which one should rather read the original papers, but if somebody competent wants to give it a try I surely won't object (BTW, I do not really understand why you consider the cosmic ray argument insufficient). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

CERN releases analysis of LHC incident

CERN released a press report today detailing the extent of damage from the 19 September 2008 accident, up to 29 magnets will need to be replaced. The cause of the accident ("the cause of the initial growth of connection resistance") has not yet been established.CERN releases analysis of LHC incident (16 Oct 2008) --Jtankers (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This information belongs on the LHC page, not the safety of particle collisions page. Thanks though. Verbal chat 08:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

CERN updates its safety page

CERN has added lots of new interesting material to its safety page. Possibly some information that could be added to the article:

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

--Phenylalanine (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article traffic statistics

Interesting. ;)

--Phenylalanine (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

cheers for that, have forwarded it on to a few people to show the importance of Wikipedia, within the media. ^Khukri 10:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive old section 2

It seems to me that the current Section 2, "Article biased", has become too unwieldy to be useful or really be read. I have taken the liberty of breaking it at the obvious point, before DasV's recent posts. Can someone archive the previous material in that section? I suggest we also consider archiving any threads that have not been active for a month or two—does that interval sound reasonable? This does run the risk of having us repeat ourselves endlessly, but the alternative, of huge sections, seems worse. Wwheaton (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the older threads should be achieved, including all of section 2. If repetition happens we can just point to the archive, hopefully. Verbal chat 12:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Since no one is going to address the lack of any Cost to Benefit Analysis vs. Acceptable Risk, the article will be left with fallicious arguments appealing to authority, pretty much a CERN handout, and there is nothing in the article about science experiments gone wrong, such as the nuclear bomb experiments which have left mutagens in the soil and atmosphere, but were said to be 'perfectly safe' by the scientists of the day, and we have the self-appointed censors (vandals) such as Verbal who remove any discussion elements which they cannot understand or answer, that such as Wwheaton and Khukri do not object to ... why not simply remove any discussion on the article? Let us set forth a new Wikipedia policy ... That which does not agree with current Orthodoxy and Dogma shall not be questioned or discussed. And now the vandal Verbal can expunge this also. DasV (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have warned DasV about making personal attacks, and suggest they review WP:TALK and WP:NPOV. (off topic: Also, the scientists of the day working on the nuclear bomb did not think it was "perfectly safe".) Verbal chat 07:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

DasV, it says at the very top of this talk page "This is not a forum for general discussion of Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." If you wish to suggest any improvements to the article then please feel free. However, these must be reliably sourced and approved by other editors before the article is added too. Please bare in mind that any adjustments made to the article must avoid both WP:SYN and WP:NOR while abiding by WP:NPOV. The current safety concerns within this article contain just about all the information one can reliably source. THMRK1 (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If DasV or anyone else wants to continue the discussion that is being removed, can they please copy it to their talk page and then leave a link here. It really isn't relevant to the topic of this talk page. Thanks. Verbal chat 13:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New paper

There's a new paper out. I thought some of the physicist Wikipedians might want to parse it and reference it in the article. JCDenton2052 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

yeah, it's the paper I was referring to immediately above... Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting papers

Two interesting papers I picked up on google scholar:

--Phenylalanine (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter Wagner at The Daily Show

Watch this and enjoy. It's (beep) hilarious... Is there anybody left out there still thinking that Walter "50/50" Wagner is a scientist? Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny video. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Legend ^Khukri 08:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And here is more mindless fun from the Telegraph. Always on the spot for LHC-related bull***t... Wanna bet that we'll soon find it in the "media coverage" section? ;-) Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A more serious safety concern

It is easy to make light of people's concerns about micro black hole formation, since any generated black holes would lose their energy before they could do any significant damage, but this report from Fermilab makes it clear that VLEC, a matter collider now in the planning stages, has more than sufficient energy to destroy Earth by altering its orbit. David spector (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a spoof, of course, from The Onion. Read and enjoy if you have time on your hands.... Wwheaton (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Otto Rössler .... again

To the editor who keeps adding Otto Rössler's ideas to the article; first of all could I suggest you read this previous discussion on whether he is competent or his ideas are even relevant to the LHC. To summerise, he's not a physicist, his opinions do not have credibility from anyone of note in the physics community, and his ideas have not been published. This is why previous editors have removed your addition as WP:UNDUE, but it also falls foul of WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR & WP:RS to name a couple of guidelines. In the same vein as Walter Wagner, his inclusion in the article is solely due to the fact he gained notability or notoriety in the media, not because his argument carried any weight or have any support from within the physics community, but because the mainstream media picked up on a sensationalist story. Regards ^Khukri 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you misunderstand the purpose of the article it is safety of the LHC not the LHC, for which there is already a page. I see you have already moved all the safety concerns off the LHC page on to this one, now you seem to be saying they should not be here either. How about setting up a new page - "censorship concerns of the safety concerns of the LHC". It is legitimate to record the safety concerns of the LHC on a page entitled "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider" what else would you have here? What would you be able to poo poo? Why not just answer the concerns on this page instead of trying to airbrush them out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.204.195 (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you misunderstood the guidelines I have shown you above, Rössler is already in the article, I have explained this and it's not been airbrushed out. What you are trying to do is add more weight to someone who opinions have been repeatedly shown not to carry any weight outside of the fact he gained press time. Some like to think the fact he's talking doom and gloom it's got to be true, he's a professor he knows what he's talking about, but unfortunately he's not a professor where it counts and his opinions on this subject carry no credibility what so ever in the physics community. If his ideas start gaining creedence in the physics community or he gets published in Nature (and not just a letter to the editor in SciAm) etc then Wikipedia will certainly give it more weight. And as for your your last point, I think the concerns raised by Rössler have been adequately answered in the article, by a number of people and organisiations such as;

“

....they are based on an elementary misunderstanding of the theory of general relativity....this text would not pass the referee process in a serious journal.

”

So what we are looking for is reliably sourced information on why Rössler's self published ideas should be given more weight in the article, because as it stands at the moment he has none, until this is done editors will continue to revert your addition of this material, and please don't cry censorship, the onus is on you to show that Rössler's physics is credible not the other way round. Regards ^Khukri 08:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As Khukri wrote, Rossler is only relevant because of the media attention that he got, and this is adequately described in the article. As to his "scientific" views, anything beyond Rossler argues that micro black holes created in the LHC could grow exponentially would amount to giving undue weight to the unpublished opinion of a random guy. Rossler's views are not shared by anybody in the particle physics community, and the basic errors behind them have already been exposed by people who DO know what they are talking about (as is detailed in the article). Incidentally, it seems to me that Rossler himself tries his best to sound as delusional and crackpottish as he can: he raves about saving the planet from "planetocaust" (whatever) and instituting a new era of planet-wide democracy, and compares himself to Nelson Mandela. Next time I bet he will be Jesus... Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Even an article entitled "Safety of particle collisions at the Large Hadron Collider" has to follow the basic rules that apply to all Wikipedia articles. Rossler's ideas can easily be found on the Internet for anyone who wants review them, but this is not the place. Wwheaton (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

New paper from Casadio et al.

Just a heads-up: a new paper appeared today on the arXiv entitled "On the Possibility of Catastrophic Black Hole Growth in the Warped Brane-World Scenario at the LHC". The authors include Casadio and Harms, who also authored an earlier paper on which R. Plaga based his claim of possible catastrophic consequences from black hole growth. In this latest paper, Casadio et al. study the growth and decay of black holes in their model, and, contrary to Plaga, they conclude that the growth of black holes to catastrophic size does not seem possible. This is just the latest of a string of refutations of Plaga's work. Should we mention it in the paragraph devoted to Plaga's concerns or should we wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (which BTW still hasn't happened to Plaga's paper)? Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Think the article shows that Plaga's paper has been debunked and not published adequately, there are a number of works out there that disprove him, and adding one more I'm not sure if it will really add anything to the article. I had heard a rumour that Wagner was appealing the case but can't find anything, if you can keep your eyes out about it. ^Khukri 14:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, what makes this one work special is the fact that it is written by the authors of the paper that Plaga relied upon when he made his claim. I mean, Plaga says: <in the scenario considered by Casadio and Harms the BH can be dangerous>. But now Casadio and Harms themselves get up and say <no, in the scenario that we considered the BH cannot be dangerous>. I agree, however, that in order to adequately pinpoint the relevance of this latest paper we might have to expand the sentence on Plaga's original claim, and this is undeserved. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: since Oldnoah wants to mention that Plaga posted revisions of his paper, I added the story of Casadio et al. to the paragraph on Plaga. Indeed, Plaga's v2 was in reaction to Mangano and Giddings, while Plaga's v3 was mostly in reaction to Casadio et al. I also unified the references to Plaga's paper: now we only give the link to the arXiv page for v3, where the reader can find links to v1 and v2. There is no point in creating a new reference every time somebody updates his paper on the arXiv. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Eric Johnson legal article at arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480

A scholarly legal article on the problems posed by the LHC for the courts and for those opposed to it is discussed in the MIT Technology Review here. The arXiv article can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5480 The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World, here. It is by Asst. Prof Eric Johnson at the University of North Dakota School of Law in Grand Forks, ND. The article itself is about 90 pages long, and I have not yet read it all, only the Tech Review summary. The abstract begins,

"What should a court do with a preliminary-injunction request to halt a multi-billion-dollar particle-physics experiment that plaintiffs claim could create a black hole that will devour the planet? The real-life case of CERN's LHC seems like a legal classic in the making."

The arXiv seems an odd place to post a legal paper, and it is as yet unendorsed and apparently unrefereed, so it is not clear how (or if?) it should be handled here; in particular it is not about the safety of the LHC, but about the legal problems. There are plenty of lawyers editing on Wikipedia, perhaps they will want to take a crack at it first.

As I have said here before, the technically qualified persons supporting the argument for the machine's safety are almost all arguably affected by conflict of interest. Even those not directly involved with the LHC itself and its experiments (many thousands of PhDs and PhD students, in dozens of countries worldwide) have (evidenced merely by the fact of understanding the issues) necessarily devoted years of their lives to the study of fundamental physics, indicating prima facie that they are themselves intensely interested in the questions the LHC is built to address, and most have career issues at stake as well. Thus the "herd argument" has considerable force. It is a cruel irony that the only people truly qualified to comment about the core safety issue are, by that very fact, arguably disqualified to be considered. Of course, on the other side of the equation, all those qualified people have their own lives and the lives of their children actually at stake, as the NASA folks involved in the Challenger and Columbia disasters did not, and is it reasonable to suppose that all these intelligent people have a death wish?!

At this moment it is my opinion that, if the source is determined to meet our reliability requirements, this issue does need to be treated somewhere, somehow, on Wikipedia, as it develops in external events and literature. The article notes that the issue is really bigger than the LHC itself, as other essentially similar cases can easily be dreamed up as future possibilities. So it seems to me that these matters must eventually be addressed head-on. The Hawaii case was (properly, IMHO) dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, which got that poor judge off the hook, but leaves the substance—the substance of the controversy—untouched.

Johnson seems pretty clearly of the opinion that legal redress is possible and available, even suggesting (VI.B, p 874), based on conflict of interest issues and testability issues, that "it is not clear that any particle physics testimony should be allowed in the courtroom." Oh dear: That can't be right! Wwheaton (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a note on the Law Project talk page, asking for them to take a look. (Lao Tsu said, "Confront your problems", ca 500 BCE) Wwheaton (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now I see a more complete reference for the article is Johnson, Eric E, The Black Hole Case, Tennessee Law Review, Vol 76, pp 819-908, so it has apparently been accepted by that journal, although I do not see the date. The copyright is 2009, as are the arXiv posting dates. I know nothing about the refereeing or repute of the journal, but I assume it's probably acceptable. Wwheaton (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a sentence to the article referencing the Johnson article, since it appears to be Wiki-acceptable. Wwheaton (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Really good article, more a commentary and surprised it's on the arxiv, but good reading nonetheless. Deconstructs the pro-LHC arguments quite well, but I would imagine a judge who had to weigh any injunction would also give a similar level of scrutiny to the Plaintiffs arguments. In this case it notes where Mangano and giddings failed to respond to some of Plaga's argument, but fails to note some of the original issues with Plaga's paper. Though it mentioned others discrediting of Rosslers work, and implies at CERN's behest, it fails to apply similar scrutiny to Rossler's ideas and lends it to much weight by stating that posting on the web could be under certain arguments be seen as a peer review. Still a very good read and the first half certainly lays out alot of the positions very well. Though I am glad however it didn't pander to certain pretend physicists. ^Khukri 09:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the section that summarizes the scientific issues (I have neither time nor inclination for the legal masturbations). The writing is good and - to his credit - the author does not attempt to argue on the physics. This said, the anti-LHC bias is spectacular. The author devotes pages to (lawyeristic, indeed) nitpickings over this or that use of language in the CERN publications, and breezily glosses over the substantial errors that have been pointed out in Rossler's or Plaga's arguments (he just mentions in a few words that mainstream scientists "dismissed them"). An example of this bias is where the author deals with the paper of Casadio, Fabi and Harms: he jokes on the meaning of the word "warped" in the title, but somehow forgets to mention that the paper is a direct refutation of Plaga's argument by the very people who developed the model on which Plaga based his claims. As to why Mangano and Giddings "failed to respond" to the argument on the black hole mass, I have no idea, Khukri is at CERN and might ask them directly. Perhaps they thought it was too stupid to even be addressed. Also, we should consider that research is a bit different from blogging, and busy scientists are not supposed to react every time Mr. Plaga (or whoever else) puts a new version of his paper on the web. The paper has been there for a year and a half by now, IMO it has received much more publicity than warranted by its merits, and still it is unpublished, it has collected only a handful of (critical) citations and nobody else has picked up on its arguments. This means that the paper has been considered irrelevant by the scientific community (although I can see how, to Mr Johnson and his friends, the same facts could be evidence of a worldwide conspiracy to suppress the truth...)

As I wrote above I have only skimmed over the second part, but I doubt that the description Late in 2009 an article has appeared in the Tennessee Law Review[82][83] reviewing the legal situation is accurate. If the attitude is the same as in the science part, I guess that the author promotes his anti-LHC point of view rather than providing an objective review of the legal situation. Finally, I am not in the position to assess the relevance of the "Tennessee Law Review" as a source. Is it an authoritative scholarly journal or just some sort of law-school bulletin? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, some echoes from the blogosphere: here a right-wing nutter from American Enterprise Institute takes Johnson's article too seriously and advocates US military action against CERN, and here an economist blogger makes fun of him. Incidentally, Hassett's column appeared originally on Business Week, but it looks like it has been removed from that website (the invisible hand of the worldwide conspiracy?). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we have to take the legal issue seriously (which is why I posted a query on Wikipedia Project Law), because there must be thousands of very good lawyers who do not know (or care about) particle physics, but who would be happy to be in on "saving the world" from these brutish scientists who are "passionately convinced that the deepest truths" are "independent of human frailty and hubris". Those guys can surely take the matter and do a much better legal job than that pathetic attempt to block it in federal court in HI. The Tennessee Law Review may not be at the very peak of legal renown, but it has been around for a while (vol 76) and in any case let's leave that judgment to the legal community. No matter what CERN's official position, the probability of the LHC causing disaster cannot be zero, because there lots of things we don't know and there is always the possibility of something we don't know killing us. So, 0 < P < 1. I think we have to grant that. So then the battle has to be fought in the trenches, against those who claim P must be truly 0 before the LHC can be allowed to proceed, because of the vastness of the disaster they fear ("infinite"). And then, winning that arguement, we must point out that there is a huge difference between P = 1.E-5 and P = 1.E-15, say, put reasonable limits on what P could be, and then weigh that risk, that cost, against the benefits the LHC offers reasonably offers to human civilization. This is not a roadmap any reasonable judge would relish, but there it is; I think humanity is stuck with it. It is clear that only true experts in fundamental physics have any chance of estimating P, yet Johnson suggests "it is not clear that any particle physics testimony should be allowed in the courtroom." If that judgment were to stand in the courts, then the LHC would surely be doomed, and I think ultimately all basic scientific research with it. Apparently CERN has by treaty fairly robust legal protections against ordinary court suits in Europe, but I cannot believe that those will stand to protect it in the end, given the enormity of the imagined disaster. We really have to meet the issue face to face, and beat it on its merits, or eventually scientific progress could be effectively stopped, if not for the LHC, then in some other future battle. Cheers.... Wwheaton (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The probability that the LHC spits out a giant pink dragon that cooks the entire Universe with its flaming breath is not exactly zero either, but nobody would consider that a reason to block the experiment. It has been often argued that a reasonable way to define an "acceptable" level of risk would be to compare the probability of an LHC-induced catastrophe with the probability of a natural catastrophe, such as, e.g., life on Earth being wiped out by a collision with an asteroid. If it can be shown that the latter kind of event is much more probable, we can presumably live with a tiny additional risk of screwing up the planet by ourselves. As to the argument that no physicist should be allowed to discuss the safety of the LHC in a courtroom, it is equivalent to stating that no lawyers or judges should be allowed to discuss and deliberate on an hypothetical case involving, e.g., the reform of tort law, because they'd have a vested interest in the outcome. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Check this, he got to write an opinion piece on New Scientist. I particularly love the part where he writes CERN employs half of the world's particle physicists; the other half are their friends. Clearly, he thinks that only lawyers should be allowed to steer the development of science (and technology, and medicine, and who knows what else), because being an actual expert on something means being biased about it. I know that New Scientist indulges in crackpots from time to time, but this might be a new low. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep at least ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 19:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thirty days seems a little short to me, could we do it after 90 days? We're kind of slow around here sometimes.... :) Wwheaton (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Done Of course. 90 days it is.--Oneiros (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update

Resolved

This article badly needs an update, with such statements as "The claimed dangers of the LHC particle collisions, which are expected to begin mid-November 2009". MMS2013 14:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

you are right, a couple of sentences on the timeline of the experiment, such as the one you mention in the lead and another in the "Particle Accelerator" section, need to be updated. But it shouldn't be a big deal. On the other hand, I am not aware of any recent developments on the specific subject of the article (i.e. safety of particle collisions). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

updated (and tag removed). Is it OK? Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thanks! :D MMS2013 14:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

recent changes by Oldnoah

Hi, I reverted a wave of changes to the article by the editor Oldnoah and he started reverting them back. Here is my take on some of the issues involved, I suggest that we move the discussion to the talk page instead of starting another futile revert war.

Concerning the sentence Recent results from the December 2009 LHC collisions show a larger than expected number of strange kaons, possibly indicating greater production of strange quarks than had been predicted., I don't know what is the source of the claim (Oldnoah promised a reference but none came). From a very quick perusal of the only two papers available on the first LHC data, i.e. this of ALICE and this of CMS, I don't see any mention of an excess of kaons, please correct me if I am wrong. Anyway, even if it was true that strange quarks are produced more copiously than has been predicted, this would have very little relation with the probability of actually producing strangelets. Those hypothetical strangelets are, roughly speaking, a loosely bound state, and as such they are less likely to be produced at higher energies than at lower energies. This is not the conclusion of the LSAG report, but rather its starting point, based on the earlier literature on the subject.

update: as appears from his talk page, Oldnoah thinks that the CMS article on the first collisions at the LHC reports an excess of kaons. In fact, the paper shows data for charged hadrons, i.e. the combination of charged pions, charged kaons and protons. I could not find any mention of a specific excess of kaons. Anyway, as I mentioned above, this has nothing to do with the production of strangelets. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

update (II): an anonymous editor (Oldnoah?) inserted a description of the CMS "excess". I corrected it on several points: 1) I cited both CMS and ALICE for fairness; 2) both papers refer only to "charged hadrons" and do not differentiate among pions, kaons and protons; 3) the description of what a kaon is was only functional to Oldnoah's strangelet agenda and anyway could have been replaced by a hyperlink; 4) the 14% excess (w.r.t. the prediction of a particular computer program used in the analysis) refers to the increase in the production rate when the center-of-mass energy goes from 0.9 to 2.36 TeV. Anyway, I don't think that the Safety article is the right place for this information, which BTW only means that the programs used for the analysis must be tuned to reflect the higher-energy behavior of the data. When the dust settles I would rather move it to the main LHC article or drop it altogether (if we must report on any paper we will soon be swamped). Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the question of whether the LSAG authors are involved or not with the LHC experiments, it obviously depends on the definition of "involved". The statement in the article that they are "not involved in the LHC experiments" refers to the fact that they are theoretical physicists and they are not members of any of the experimental collaborations, a fact that can be easily checked (again, please correct me if I am wrong). On the other hand, it can be argued that they are connected to CERN one way or another and that they obviously are interested in the outcome of the experiments. However, the first condition applies to a good chunk of the professional particle physics community (virtually everybody who's anybody in the field passes by CERN sooner or later) and the second condition applies to all of it. I am not particularly fanatic about that statement and I could consider removing it altogether, but turning it into "involved in the LHC experiments" seems deliberately misleading to me.

update: in a new wave of reverts, Oldnoah gave up the "involved in the LHC experiments" in the lead, and replaced it with "funded by CERN but not involved in the LHC experiments". Also, in the section CERN-commissioned reports he replaced "CERN mandated a group" with "CERN funded a group". Now, I understand Oldnoah's wish to stress that the members of the LSAG (well, at least four out of five) are affiliated to CERN. I see no problem with that: it is not a mystery after all, it's written on the cover page of the LSAG paper and duly reported in our article (besides, the LSAG paper has subsequently been endorsed by numerous panels and organizations unrelated to CERN). On the other hand, "funded" suggests that they got special money for that tasks, which seems unlikely to me and anyway is not supported by evidence. As a compromise, I suggest to replace "funded by CERN but not involved..." with "affiliated to CERN but not involved..." in the lead. In the section CERN-commissioned reports, on the other hand, the CERN affiliation is already spelled out explicitly, so I would simply revert "funded" into "mandated". Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the Daily Show video: I just watched it again and laughed as loud as the first time, it's really good stuff. Anyway, in the video Wagner does not mention mathematical models, the exchange between him and John Oliver is pretty much as described in the text. This said, I would like to stress that the section is about the media coverage of the safety concerns, and the relevant fact here is that Wagner appeared (and, sorry to say it, was somewhat ridiculed) in a highly popular comedy show such as The Daily Show. His personal understanding of statistics is not particularly important here and does not require to be elaborated on. For what concerns his academic titles, why insist? Wagner is only relevant in this article as one of the plaintiffs in the Hawaii lawsuit. Whether or not he is "high-school/college math and science teacher and former astrophysicist" plays no role in the picture, and since the information is not sourced we might as well drop it.

Finally, Eric Johnson was wise enough not to get entangled in the details of the physics arguments, and focused his review on communication issues and on the legal aspects of the case. This is why his (highly biased, IMO) article is mentioned in the section on legal challenges and not in the section on the physics.

Now Oldnoah please take some time to discuss the issues on the talk page and do not disrupt further the article. It's late in Europe so I won't see your replies (if any) until tomorrow, in the meantime the US-based among the regular editors might weigh in. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Oldnoah. I have reverted your latest reversion, not because I am certain about the issues, but to give time for editors to think, and for discussion here on talk. I am in a rush preparing to give a paper myself (not relevant to particle physics; alas, which I left four decades ago... :-( ), so I probably cannot contribute materially to this discussion for a fortnight, if indeed I ever can. Cheers, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the Kaons addition by Oldnoah, as this is irrelevant to the explanation of the LHC itself as the lede into the safety arguments within this article. It would be more applicable to a results section within the LHC article, noting this unexpected increase. however trying to draw original research conclusions as to what this means or could imply is not the purpose of either page. ^Khukri 13:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lacking a reaction from Oldnoah on the various issues discussed above, I will implement the changes that I proposed. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict: I was going to remove the school teacher and astrophysicist comment, but Ptrslv72 did it first. Being a teacher certainly isn't a qualification to be able to comment on the LHC safety aspects, and I would like to see references citing him being astrophysicist. As I stated to James Tankersly ad infinitum, Wagner is only in the article due to the fact he received considerable media exposure and notoriety and certainly not as a qualified expert on the subject. ^Khukri 13:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was posting comments in the "talk" section of the Oldnoah Usertalk, as that was where Ptrslv72 was posting comments. I'll post here instead hereafter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I watched the Daily Show video too, and I believe that John Stewart was poking quite a bit of fun at Ellis in his office, making him say "what", coming up from behind stacks of paper, etc. The subsequent Christmas video of Ellis as "Yucatan Jones" is equally hilarious. Shouldn't we put that in too, with appropriate links? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not watch the video very carefully, otherwise you would have noticed that it was John Oliver, not Jon Stewart. And while this might not be relevant to our article, I would say that Ellis, differently from Wagner, appeared to be in control of the situation and did not come off as a moron. Concerning the CERN Christmas play, it is not relevant to the "Media Coverage" section. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

more edits

There are new changes from an anonymous editor, presumably Oldnoah. In the section on "Media Coverage", he added a sentence

On February 23, 2010 the mainstream publication New Scientist carried a review of the risk.

this oozes POV: 1) "mainstream publication" means "see? it's not crackpottery!". Also, "Carried a review of the risk" is misleading, suggesting that New Scientist endorses Eric Johnson's view. As I wrote in another thread, the article is presented as an Opinion piece, i.e. it only represents the opinion of the author. If we want to keep this sentence in the "Media Coverage" section it surely must be rephrased. However, I would find it more appropriate to move the citation down to where we mention Johnson's paper, with at most a short sentence such as "a summary of the paper later appeared as an opinion piece in New Scientist", or something similar. Before acting on this I would like to hear the opinion of other editors.

In a second change, he added two items to the subsection "Other publications" of the section "Safety Reviews": a "web-published" article on the LSAG report by some Mark Leggett, and an entry on a sort of blog called Science Guardian. It surely does not escape Oldnoah's attention that the other papers described in the subsection have all appeared in peer-reviewed scientific journals, and this is what we mean here by "publication". Web-publishing does not mean publishing, and the two items have no place in this section. I'll revert these changes if nobody else does it first. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to delete the phrase "mainstream publication", I have no objection. However, New Scientist has been around for decades and is a reputable science publication (of sorts). Also, all articles in all magazines are "opinion" pieces, unless specifically endorsed by the publisher (as in a Letter from the Publisher) which is very rare. They go through a review process before inclusion in that particular magazine, and one must presume that New Scientist reviewed Dr. Johnson's article by their process (with which I am not familiar). There is a certain degree of acceptance by going through that process; just as publication on arXiv shows that the article at least received endorsement from a few others eligible for arXiv publishing; as compared to viXra which publishes virtually anything with only minimal review (checking for defamation, plaigarism, etc.).

With respect to Science Guardian and Dr. Leggett's article, if "publication" means published by a print media (which might also have a web-based publishing) or 'peer-reviewed' format, then perhaps those articles could be placed in a separate section for "non peer-reviewed publications"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For what reason, their content and credulity is debatable for the very same reason that Otto Rossler's ideas did not meet the required benchmark, as they hadn't been reviewed or published. ^Khukri 20:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

current results

OK, here's what was posted. Someone wanted it discussed first before being included in the article. It is entirely factually accurate.

How can including the current results not impact on the safety issue? One would expect that the current results directly lets the reader know whether they support the risk argument, or the safety argument, no? Let the reader decide with the information provided. Otherwise, why even have this web-page? If there are no valid objections soon, I will repost it.

"The first p-p collisions at energies higher than Fermilab's Tevatron p-pbar collisions have been published on arXiv, yielding greater-than-predicted charged hadron production.ref The CMS paper reports that the increase in the production rate of charged hadrons when the center-of-mass energy goes from 0.9 TeV to 2.36 TeV exceeds the predictions of the theoretical models used in the analysis by 14%.ref"

You have to demonstrate that this is a safety issue first, otherwise put it in the results section of the LHC, so far you haven't. ^Khukri 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The actual results dictate the safety. There. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Erm come again, the results dictate safety, how? OK then lets try a different tact, go find me a reliable source that says these results are a safety issue? ^Khukri 21:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As Khukri writes, a new result might support neither the risk argument nor the safety argument, it might simply be completely unrelated to the safety issue, as in this case. I would add that it is not up to Oldnoah to demonstrate that this is a safety issue, this would fall in original research. He should either find a reputable source that connects the new result with the safety issue (good luck with that) or drop the matter. As to describing this result in the LHC article, we can do it now, but very soon we will be swamped by little "new results" of this kind and we will have to apply some sort of selection. BTW, Oldnoah remember what I wrote in your talk page: the precise number for the discrepancy depends on which program they use for the theoretical prediction: 10% if they use PYTHIA and 14% if they use PHOJET. There is no special reason for giving one number instead of the other, which is why even the popularizing article that you quoted just says the researchers found that the number of those particles increased faster with collision energy than was predicted by their models. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what Roland (of CMS) was quoted as saying: "These results show us that our expectations were not completely wrong, but we have to modify things a bit." In other words, their models were not completely wrong, only partially wrong. Does that relate to safety? It certainly implies that the models showing complete safety with zero risk might also be wrong. How wrong must it be before it implies a risk? Of course, expecting mesons was pretty easy to predict. There will be even more mesons at higher energies too (my prediction). I submit these are safety/risk questions, and this is something for the readers to decide, not the editors. And yes, we might put that the discrepancy (how wrong the models were) ranged from 10% to 14%, depending upon which model was used. Anyone else other than Khukri or Ptrslv72 want to weigh in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 21:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all please sign your comments using ~~~~. Secondly, that it shows the zero safety might be wrong is your interpretation not a reliably sourced comment, as Ptrslv72 has tried to explain to explain to you three times why, this is no big deal and certainly not your boogie monster in the corner. Thirdly, it is not up to the reader to decide if it warrants inclusion, it is up to the Wikipedia guidelines as to whether it warrants inclusion as reliable information PERTAINING to the article. As we have said previously this might warrant inclusion in the LHC article, but has no bearing on the safety article, until you find a source that meets WP:RS andisn't original research. ^Khukri 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'offending' section has been included in the LHC article proper. I believe it should be included here as well, and I will look for additional sources, or other editors, to concur. Those results might very well indicate a safety issue, and it is 'up in the air' as to whether that is correct. Since it is expected that it will be quite some time before potential strangelet production could commence from Pb-Pb collisions, I will not fret about this now.Oldnoah (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

The article by Ord et al.

Hi, I see that Oldnoah added the following paragraph to the section on "Specific concerns ad responses":

On October 30, 2008 Toby Ord, Rafaela Hillerbrand and Anders Sandberg published an article on arXiv generally critical of safety reviews when there are catastrophic risk potentials, referencing in particular the LHC safety review that it might have had an underlying fundamental flaw. "Using the risk estimates from the Large Hadron Collider as a test case, we show how serious the problem can be when it comes to catastrophic risks and how best to address it."

First of all, even to a non-native speaker like me this sounds like very bad English: "referencing in particular the LHC safety review that it might have had an underlying fundamental flaw". Huh? And the sentence quoted immediately below is not particularly informative on the conclusion of the paper.

Anyway, I think that the paper should not be referenced in this section. Indeed, the section deals with people who voiced concerns on the physics involved in the LHC collisions, claiming (as Rossler did) that Einstein's general relativity is incorrect and Hawking's radiation does not exist, or (as Plaga did) that dangers to the planet might arise from an excess of Hawking's radiation (BTW, I wonder how the anti-LHC crowd can promote these two contradictory points of view at the same time). Conversely, Ord's paper does not point out supposed flaws in the LHC safety arguments. It only tries to estimate the risk that those arguments are flawed, based on a probabilistic reasoning whose validity has not - as far as I know - passed peer review (indeed, the paper has appeared on the arXiv, but it is buried in the "Physics and Society" section, it has collected no citations so far and it is still unpublished).

Note, moreover, that in the section "Safety concerns" we already write:

Based on such safety concerns, US federal judge Richard Posner, Future of Humanity Institute research associate Toby Ord and others have argued that the LHC experiments are too risky to undertake,[19][20][21][22]

can you see the difference? Some people (Rossler, Plaga) have expressed concerns on the physics, and others (including Ord) claim that those concerns make the risk unacceptable. In summary, I am going to remove Ord from the "Specific concerns and responses" section, as he is already mentioned in the proper context in the "Safety concerns" section. If Oldnoah really feels strongly about linking the arXiv paper he might do it by adding a reference at the end of the sentence that I quoted above. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I made the suggested change, though there does not seem to be any valid reason for Ptrslv72's reasoning. All of the concerns are based on the physics, which shows a risk. The Ord paper focuses on the pro-LHC assertions of 'no-risk' as being possibly fundamentally flawed. My apologies to Khukri for misidentifying him, rather than Ptrslv72 in my comments as the person who had made the change.Oldnoah (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Differently from the papers discussed in the "Specific concerns and responses" section, the Ord paper does not claim to be pointing out flaws in the safety review. At the bottom of page 13, it says:

While the arguments for the safety of the LHC are commendable for their thoroughness, they are not infallible. Although the report considered several possible physical theories, it is eminently possible that these are all inadequate representations of the underlying physical reality. It is also possible that the models of processes in the LHC or the astronomical processes appealed to in the cosmic ray argument are flawed in an important way. Finally, it is possible that there is a calculation error in the report.

see? it does not point out any specific flaw, it just states that there might be one somewhere. The paper is not about the physics of particle collisions at the LHC, it's a speculation on the proper way to estimate the risk of catastrophic events, whatever they might be. BTW, please parse your comments in the talk page with colons, and next time you add a reference try to make it look like the others (author, title etc.), instead of just linking a PDF file. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will make a more detailed reference in the future. Didn't want it deleted for adding too much information!Oldnoah (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Kanti's paper

From what I see in your latest edit, you don't seem to have gotten the message. BTW, what makes you think that Kanti's paper is "more authoritative" than those already referenced? Giddings-Thomas has 587 citations, Dimopoulos-Landsberg has 600 citations, while Kanti's paper (which appears to be the writeup of a lecture at a summer school) has only 22 citations. Can you explain again why we should cite it in addition to the other two? Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the Kanti paper? http://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.2218v2 . It gives a detailed historical background for the idea of extra dimensions, and is a well-referenced research article in theoretical physics. I suppose it is a subjective view as to which is "more authoritative", as they are all authoritatively written. I happen to like her approach the best. Certainly I have no problem with adding the others as well.Oldnoah (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

You don't get it: the other two papers are already there, they are the first two references ([59] and [60]) in the sentence

Although the Standard Model of particle physics predicts that LHC energies are far too low to create black holes, some extensions of the Standard Model posit the existence of extra spatial dimensions, in which it would be possible to create micro black holes at the LHC at a rate on the order of one per second.[59][60][61][62]

Those are the "classical" papers on black-hole production at the LHC, as shown by the number of citations. I was questioning your statement that Kanti's paper is more authoritative than those two. This said, I am not necessarily against citing it in the article (but as ref.[61], not [63]). I just don't see the point in adding one more technical paper that anyway is accessible only to the specialists (as are refs.[59] and [60], after all: their presence in the article is justified more by their "classical" status than by the effective usefulness to the average wikipedia readers). Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature (topic 5.3)

I would like to ad a third point at topic 5 Safety arguments, after 5.1 Micro black holes and 5.2 Strangelets, called: 5.3 LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature. This is an argument discussed by Vasily Sokolov in his article: AССELERATOR LHC: "NEW CHEMISTRY". The review of not considered risks. where he points out:

The concrete picture of shock collisions of space particles and particles in colliders essentially differ. Colliders are absolutely physical destroyers. To compare absent-minded space beams and colliders, it is possible only formally. And by a principle of shock interaction and by reached result these accelerators differ very strongly.

File:Vasily Sokolov1.jpg

I also discussed the argument of a "Chain Reaction" on the www.lhcportal.com/Forum under topic Creating "Sparks" but haven't found any scientific references for it. Michel_sharp (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the science side to others, but from a Wikipedia standpoint, the CERN position has been published and has been reviewed extensively, as far as I can see the above position has had neither (though please correct me if I'm wrong) which puts it into the realm of original research. Cheers ^Khukri 11:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unpublished crackpottery. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I kindly ask you to remove that comment because of Incivility Michel_sharp (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I meant no incivility to you, apologies if you took it that way. "Unpublished crackpottery" refers to the material in Vasily Sokolov's link, and I stand by that judgement. Coming to the point, this article is not a repository for every piece of original research that an amateur posts on his blog. The MBH and strangelet issues were taken by the scientific community seriously enough to produce a response (the LSAG report and the others), so are rightfully included among the safety concerns. If and when Mr. Sokolov's arguments pass peer review, or at least elicit a public response from the particle physics community, we will consider including them in the article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that not all the hypotheses posted by Vasily Sokolov are of major value such as MBH, but this argument that he brings up, of a not correct analogy between natural cosmic-ray collisions and those created by the LHC is imho a valid one. Therefor I also added the reference to the article below. Calling the whole article "crackpottary" comes across as, throwing away the baby with the bath water. But I accept your response, and like you suggest a lot more back up references are needed, and over time it might be added correctly.Michel_sharp (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Some references right here on Wikipedia:

Cosmic ray

... cosmic particles arrive individually, not in the form of a ray or beam of particles.

vs. Large Hadron Collider

... particle accelerator, intended to collide opposing particle beams ...

This also clearly states that "LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature" and is no way shape or form "crackpottary"Michel_sharp (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You are supporting two points of view that are in contradiction with each other, you might want to choose one before continuing. As far as I can see from the drawing that you attached above, this Sokolov claims that colliders differ from cosmic rays because the interaction in a collider involves only two particles while the interaction in a cosmic ray collision also involves the particles surrounding the target. On the other hand, the sentences from Wikipedia that you quote above seem to go in the opposite direction: cosmic rays involve individual particles while colliders collide bunches of particles. In fact, I would say that both arguments are flawed: the center-of-mass energy involved in a high-energy cosmic-ray collision is much larger than the energy that binds the target particle to its neighbors. Thus cosmic-ray collisions with energies comparable to those reached at the LHC are to all practical purposes two-particle processes (i.e., both the projectile and the target can be considered as free particles). On the other hand, the protons in a bunch at the LHC are separated by distances that are much larger than the size of a proton (they are even larger than the size of an atom, see this link) thus, just as is the case of the cosmic-ray collisions, the collisions at the LHC can be seen as involving only two individual particles. Anyway, as I argued above, reliable sources should be found before any of this stuff can be considered for the article, and Sokolov's blog does not qualify. The link on Pb-Pb collisons that you post below seems more intriguing (it's just a conference contribution, but at least it is written by actual physicists). I'll try to have a look at it tomorrow, because right now it's quite late in my time zone. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To keep things clear I want to ad one topic: "LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature" this topic might have more subtopics therefor the plural of arguments. You can say on the subject of humans that there are black and white ones, this opposition doesn't take away the fact of the existence of humans, and your arguments have the intention to play the one against the other to avoid the the fact that "LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature".

But to clarify the difference between the 2 arguments:

1. The picture shows the difference of two cars (particles) crashing head on (LHC) vs. one car hitting a bunch of parked cars (Nature).

2. The wiki quotes, represent the argument of a collision between two series of cars (particles) coming from an opposite direction (LHC) vs. one hitting a bunch of parked cars (Nature).

Like you point out, up front it are always two-particle processes of individual particles colliding with each other, but the whole process is different in the LHC vs. Nature, and this fact is imho a valid argument to say that "LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature". Michel_sharp (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In both of your analogies, the cars would be so far apart from each other that the presence of other cars in addition to the two cars that collide would be irrelevant. Anyway, this can be iyho "a valid argument to say that LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature", but it does not appear to be such in the opinion of the people who are relevant to this article, i.e. the members of the particle physics community. You must find reliable sources for this argument (I mean, reliable sources that identify it as a safety issue) before we can consider including it in the article. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to refer to this paper: Exotic Physics at the LHC with CASTOR in CMS by E. Norbeck and Y. Onel

Pb-Pb collisions with the LHC will have an energy 28 times that of Au-Au collisions studied at RHIC. With this huge increase in energy a wealth of new phenomena is almost assured. Because of the much larger mass number, Pb-Pb events can be expected to show exotic phenomena that is beyond the reach of cosmic rays.

This says that "LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature" Michel_sharp (talk) 14:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I read the paper and couldn't find anything that substantiates the statement in the abstract, so it's not 100% clear to me what the authors had in mind. However, I guess that when they say Pb-Pb events can be expected to show exotic phenomena that is beyond the reach of cosmic rays, they simply mean beyond the reach of the cosmic-ray collisions that can be studied on the Earth. The point is that a small fraction of cosmic rays are indeed made of heavy nuclei, but the Earth is surrounded by its atmosphere, thus these heavy nuclei can only interact with the lighter nuclei that make it up (oxygen, nitrogen and so on). However, as explained in the LSAG report as well as in the original report on the safety of RHIC, cosmic-ray collisions involving only heavy ions do indeed occur in astronomical bodies that are not protected by an atmosphere, such as the Moon. The fact that the Moon still exists indicates that these collisions are not dangerous. In summary, even the Pb-Pb collisions planned at the LHC have analogues in nature, they have not been studied before on Earth but they are not dangerous. I should add that, in addition to the cosmic ray argument, the LSAG report brings forward several other reasons to rule out risks from strangelet production in the heavy-ion program. As is already written in the article, every conceivable mechanism for strangelet production is more effective at lower energies than at higher energies. Strangelets have not been produced at the RHIC nor at earlier, lower-energy colliders, therefore it is even less likely that they will be produced at the LHC. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

agreed, I also think this paper is slightly outdated as well with statements like because the appearance of events above the GZK energy threshold which we know isn't possible now as I understand it. Anyway, I'm trying to find an updated version of the CASTOR abstract as we speak. ^Khukri 09:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not outdated, check out Supersymmetry on the other hand that report on the safety of RHIC is 7 years older. Michel_sharp (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is outdated, as its now pretty well documented that you can't get cosmic rays above the 5×10¹⁹ EV Greisen Zatsepin Kuzmin cut off, where as this is written clearly before the threshold was fully understood looking at the wording. ^Khukri 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not according to this article The GZK cutoff "AGASA claimed to have observed cosmic ray events with energies above this cut-off (see e.g. Has the GZK suppression been discovered, by Bahcall and Waxman)". And why does it say in the upper right corner of the Wikipedia Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray "Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high?" Michel_sharp (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway if you check the wiki Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit page you'll see that there is a lot of controversy about this subject.Michel_sharp (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another blog, try this ^Khukri 16:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Like suggested earlier "head on" Pb-Pb events don't occur in nature at such high energies as in the LHC. The moon can be hit by singular high-energy cosmic ray particles, but the proton being hit is rather stationary. Also may I point out that the moon has no atmosphere and that it's surface is covered with Regolith and has no atmospheric pressure. Note: "Astronauts have reported that the dust from the surface felt like snow and smelled like spent gunpowder." source: Regolith

Regolith is like the material in a fire extinguisher; superfine powder which is more effective that water: The first fire extinguisher of which there is any record was patented in England in 1723 by Ambrose Godfrey, a celebrated chemist. It consisted of a cask of fire-extinguishing liquid containing a pewter chamber of gunpowder. source: Fire extinguisher

In other words the moon is a death to dust reduced completely burned up place , and not analog to our vibrant planet or any other planet that has an atmosphere, to slow down cosmic-ray particles. Michel_sharp (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely the point, and you don't seem to have understood the safety argument. The Moon has no atmosphere, so the heavy nuclei in cosmic rays are free to reach its surface without being slowed down, and they can hit other heavy nuclei that lay there. In summary, "head on" Pb-Pb events at such high energies as in the LHC (and even higher) have occurred on the surface of the Moon for billions of years and the Moon is still there. Get it? Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did understand the safety argument, but you don't seem to understand mine, let me clarify; protons hitting earth are shielded by the atmosphere and when they hit the top of the atmosphere they collision can loose it's energy backwards versus the open space, sideways through thin air and cascade down before hitting earth itself, reducing these cosmic rays to peanuts. On the moon when they hit the surface they can loose their energy straight into space there is no atmospheric pressure just like on the top of an atmosphere and loose the rest of it's energy in the fine dust that covers the moon and that is like a fire extinguisher. This is not comparable to the setting in which LHC works, where the cascading happens right on and in this planet. Michel_sharp (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about??? Lose their energy straight into space and the rest in the dust??? A fire extinguisher??? The concern about heavy-ion collisions is that they might create lumps of strange matter (=matter containing a lot of strange quarks) that in turn might convert the surrounding ordinary matter into more strange matter. Under that point of view, your Regolith dust is just ordinary matter, such as the one that you find on the Earth. The laws of physics are the same on the Earth and on the Moon, if the phenomenon does not occur on the Moon it will not occur on the Earth. During this discussion I assumed that you knew at least the basic concepts of particle physics. If that is not the case (as your unfamiliarity with the concept of reference frame also seems to indicate - see below), I see no point in continuing to waste my time. Bye, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are overreacting here, like you say: "The concern about heavy-ion collisions is that they might create lumps of strange matter that in turn might convert the surrounding ordinary matter into more strange matter." this scenario is the representation a chain-reaction. For a chain-reaction to maintain its environment needs to provide sustainability, so the surface of the moon or the top of an atmosphere might temper the continuation of normal matter transforming into strange matter, while on earth it might not be tempered. Also during the phase of normal matter turning into strange matter it is likely that there would be a generation of energy necessary to sustain the chain reaction, when this happens on the surface of the moon that energy could vaporize quickly while on earth not. Just like a candle needs the right circumstances to burn, a strange-reaction would need it's specific settings. These parameters are regards seriously in chemistry and the studies of explosions (safety) but apparently not in particle physics, as the article by Vasily Sokolov was quickly dismissed as "crackpottary". Michel_sharp (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's because particle physics deals with phenomena that occur at energies much larger (or, which is the same, at distances much smaller) than those characteristic of chemistry, energies/distances at which concepts such as "atmospheric pressure" or "fire extinguisher" are meaningless. Mixing concepts and languages of different disciplines is indeed one of the hallmarks of crackpottery. Anyway, as I wrote above, I see no point in continuing this discussion. I'll just ask you not to modify the article without first producing published academic references (not original research) for any statement you might want to add about the safety of the LHC. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit to bold to state that the one has got nothing to do with the other. When it comes to measurement there is not necessarily a difference, check out for instance the amount of material needed to make an atomic bomb going:

Critical Mass

A small sphere of pure fissile material, such as uranium-235, about the size of a golf ball, would not sustain a chain reaction. Too many neutrons escape through the surface area, which is relatively large compared with its volume, and thus are lost to the chain reaction. In a mass of uranium-235 about the size of a baseball, however, the number of neutrons lost through the surface is compensated for by the neutrons generated in additional fissions taking place within the sphere. The minimum amount of fissile material (of a given shape) required to maintain the chain reaction is known as the critical mass. Increasing the size of the sphere produces a supercritical assembly, in which the successive generations of fissions increase very rapidly, leading to a possible explosion as a result of the extremely rapid release of a large amount of energy. In an atomic bomb, therefore, a mass of fissile material greater than the critical size must be assembled instantaneously and held together for about a millionth of a second to permit the chain reaction to propagate before the bomb explodes. A heavy material, called a tamper, surrounds the fissile mass and prevents its premature disruption. The tamper also reduces the number of neutrons that escape. Nuclear Fission Bombs

I don't see what's wrong with saying that the dust of the moon would not "tamper" a chain-reaction on the moon, while atmospheric pressure on earth could. Michel_sharp (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you can keep coming up with fire extinguisher and moon dust analogy with Ptrslv72 all day, but until this is published by a reliable source and isn't your own musings or original research then I'm sory Wikipedia isn't the place to continue. I've already said I'm looking into an update on the castor absract, as Ptrslv72 said the paper itself doesn't reflect what is written in the abstract and it looks a bit 'unusual'. So I think unless something new comes up in the mean time we haven't seen enough verifiable evidence for a new section. ^Khukri 19:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the part "the proton being hit is rather stationary" in your comment, what matters is the energy in the center-of-mass reference frame of the two particles, and this can still be considerably higher than the energy of the collisions at the LHC. Check e.g. the link that I gave you earlier. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought I should throw in my two-cents worth. The Center of Momentum (aka Center of Mass) is the proper reference frame for single particle collisions, such as p on p, or Pb on Pb. The p on p COM of the LHC is lower than p on p of nature (protons striking the Hydrogen nucleus in the upper atmosphere, etc.). However, it has been suggested that if strangelets are formed in nature from such collisions, their high forward momentum would cause them to subsequently disintegrate as they interact with subsequent nuclei, i.e.shattering them; whereas strangelets created at the LHC by high-E p on p collisions are relatively much slower, and would instead come to rest 'unscathed'. I have not yet found authoritative discussions/articles in that regard on that distinction between nature and the LHC.

Additionally, and likely far more importantly, the intended Pb on Pb collisions of the LHC, at the proposed COM energies, do not occur in nature anywhere in our vicinity of the solar system. While there are Pb cosmic rays at high energy, which if they collided head-on would replicate the LHC Pb-Pb collisions, these would be extremely rare taking place in the deep reaches of the galaxies. Instead, the Pb on Pb, for example, on the surface of the moon has a COM energy LOWER than the LHC for Pb-Pb collisions. This is discussed in the earliest RHIC safety article as well as the LSAG article. Only by asserting that Pb-Pb of the same energy as p on Pb are the same thing can you obtain higher COM energies in nature. That is why the LSAG article tries to make the argument that higher energy collisions at the LHC for Lead is "less likely"to produce strangelets than at the RHIC, because the authors know that the equivalent Pb-Pb collisions at the LHC are not to be found in nature. However, the conclusion that the LHC Pb-Pb collisions is "less likely" to produce strangelets than the RHIC collisions is a subjective theoretical conclusion, not supported by empirical evidence (because it isn't in nature, and the LHC has not done those collisions as of this writing). In essence, the theorists who have speculated on strangelet formation haven't come up with any method by which strangelets might form, and so they assert that it is "unlikely" that they will form. It appears, however, that the early LHC data suggesting an enhancement in strange-quark production (when the Tevatron energies were exceeded by 10% with the first LHC collisions last December, 2009) might actually suggest a plausible mechanism for strangelet production, by a very large strange-quark production, once Pb-Pb collisions commence. There are at least some theorists who have experimental tests prepared for the LHC for strangelet detection following Pb-Pb collisions, which surely they would not be funding if there was no reason whatsoever to believe that strangelets might form.Oldnoah (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Oldnoah, how many more times do I have to tell you that the CMS paper does not suggest "an enhancement of strange quark production", let alone "a plausible mechanism for strangelet production"? It's all in your head!!! Point out statements like that in the CMS paper or let the matter drop. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ptrslv72, technically you are correct, the results of last December's 2.36 TeV p-p collisions show an enhancement of strange-quark product, not strange quarks per se. Specifically, it is reported that there was an increase (10% to 14%, depending on the model used) in kaons beyond what had been predicted by models in place prior to the experiment. Kaons, of course, are strange quark product. The R&D reference cited earlier is currently down with 'technical difficulties', but here is another reference to the increase in kaons by MIT. ( http://www.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/lhc-results-0205.html "When protons collide, their energy is predominantly transformed into particles called mesons — specifically, two types of mesons known as pions and kaons. To their surprise, the researchers found that the number of those particles increased faster with collision energy than was predicted by their models, which were based on results of lower-energy collisions." ) So what the experimental results suggest is that there is either an increase in strange quarks combining to form quark product, or an increase in strange quarks allowing for more strange quark products, or both. Now, perhaps you wish to examine only the CMS paper. I examined that one (which reported an increase in charged hadrons, which are kaons and pions, as well as other charged hadrons), as well as the reviews by knowledgeable entities such as R&D and MIT in which those authors interviewed the CMS team members to elucidate their findings still further. Who knows, maybe they got their facts wrong, but I personally doubt it. However, if you wish to still question whether there was an increase in kaon production beyond what had been predicted, why don't you interview CMS team members yourself? Of course, your continuing denial of the obvious is all in your head, but so far as I know, in no one else's head.Oldnoah (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

At this point, I don't understand if you are playing dumb or if you really don't get it. Unless you have access to the raw CMS data (which I don't) you have to base your statements on what is written in the CMS paper. Now, the paper does not report "an increase (10% to 14%, depending on the model used) in kaons beyond what had been predicted by models in place prior to the experiment" as you keep claiming, nor does the MIT article. I challenge you to find a sentence like that. What the paper reports, is that there was an excess in the production of charged hadrons - a term which denotes collectively pions, kaons and protons. Nowhere in the paper is the excess broken down into its kaon, pion and proton components. It might be that the excess is driven mostly by kaons, in which case you might well say that more strange quarks are produced than expected. On the other hand, it might be that the production of each of the three hadron species - pions, kaons and protons - is enhanced by 10-14% with respect to the expectation, in which case whatever is causing the excess in charged hadrons would not be specifically related to strangeness. Finally, it might even be that the excess is driven mostly by pions, in which case you would be seeing a deficit in strange-quark production with respect to up- and down-quark production. In summary, nothing in the information available to the public suggests that the charged-hadron excess is specifically due to strange-quark production, and your insistence on this issue is only functional to your strangelet agenda. On the top of that, even if there was an excess in strange-quark production with respect to the prediction of PYTHIA, how this would translate in "a plausible mechanism for strangelet production" is also all in your head. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. the only difference between the CMS paper and the MIT link that you quote is that the latter only mentions charged mesons (pions and kaons), which I suppose are produced more abundantly than protons and thus make up the bulk of charged-hadron production. But this does not change a thing in what I wrote above: unless the data show a significant excess in the production of kaons relative to the production of pions, which is not mentioned anywhere in the CMS paper, the 10-14% excess mentioned in the CMS paper has nothing to do with strangeness (let alone with strangelets). Your insistence in talking about "an excess of kaons" instead of "an excess of charged hadrons" is a willful distortion of the facts. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be deliberately misreading what I wrote. The author of the MIT article, Anne Trafton of the MIT News Office, wrote: "This week, a team led by researchers from MIT, CERN and the KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics in Budapest, Hungary, completed work on the first scientific paper analyzing the results of those collisions. Its findings show that the collisions produced an unexpectedly high number of particles called mesons — a factor that will have to be taken into account when physicists start looking for more rarer particles and for the theorized Higgs boson." Later she wrote: "In the new paper, submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics by CMS, the physicists analyzed the number of particles produced in the aftermath of the high-energy collisions. When protons collide, their energy is predominantly transformed into particles called mesons — specifically, two types of mesons known as pions and kaons. To their surprise, the researchers found that the number of those particles increased faster with collision energy than was predicted by their models, which were based on results of lower-energy collisions." Yes, she did not say that both pions and kaons increased equally. But she did not say that there was a major discrepancy between the increase in kaons compared to the increase in pions, either, and so I am assuming that the increase was roughly the same for both. Shame on me for such an outlandish assumption. Because the CMS was led by MIT, and because she is with the MIT News Office, I am also assuming that she had opportunity to verify her facts, even if they were not reported in the original CMS arXiv paper. Again, shame on me for such an outlandish assumption. I did not say that that represented an increase in strange quark production; but rather an increase in strange quark PRODUCT production; i.e. an unexpectedly higher number of kaons. This could have been because of larger number of strange quarks being produced; or it could have been because the strange quarks were interacting to form product (rather than decaying) at a faster rate than had been believed would be the case. You are the one who seems to have a fixation that there was nothing unexpected in these results.Oldnoah (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Your assumption is not outlandish, and this is precisely my point. When you go around claiming that "the data show an excess in the production of kaons" instead of "the data show an excess of kaons and pions" you are deliberately distorting the truth, suggesting that there is some unexpected effect specific to the production of strange quarks. In fact, the data show an excess in the production of charged mesons, but, for all we know, the ratio of pions to kaons among those charged mesons is not significantly different from what predicted by the models (at least, nothing in the CMS article points in that direction). If the increase is roughly the same for both kaons and pions it means that, whatever it is that has to be adjusted in the models to account for the new data, it is most likely not something specific to the strange-quark distribution. As a result, nothing suggests that the products of collisions at even higher energies will be richer in strange quarks - as a fraction of the total number of quarks - than predicted by the current models, so these results don't have any obvious implication for your beloved production of strangelets. And as I wrote above, even if the products of higher-energy collisions were richer in strange quarks than currently predicted, the fact this "might actually suggest a plausible mechanism for strangelet production" is entirely your speculation - unless you can come up with a credible reference for this "plausible mechanism". Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted MIT for clarification as to whether the excess of kaons and pions (as reported by Ms. Trafton) was equally distributed, or favored pions, or favored kaons. In any event, an excess of kaons implies an excess of the ability of strange quarks to form kaons, or else an excess of strange quarks; compared to what had originally been believed in the model used prior to the experiment. And yes, it would also imply an excess of factors for pion production, as well. The models pertaining to strangelet formation all rely upon the presence of strange quarks. If there are not enough strange quarks, then strangelets would not form. While an excess of strange-quark kaons does not prove strangelet formation would occur, it does tend to suggest that models which rely upon a sufficiently copious abundance of strange quarks might fare better if there are even more strange quarks, or they combine more readily, than originally believed. It doesn't prove it, but in my book it does suggest it. And no, I have not read a specific paper showing strangelets are now more likely to be produced, so I won't be putting my 'original thought' on the main page (unless I get something quite dramatic back from MIT!).Oldnoah (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

I do realize that this discussion is straying from the purpose of the talk page (which is to discuss improvements to the article) but I should add a last comment: the decay of strange quarks is mediated by the weak interaction and occurs on a time scale much larger than the time scale of their hadronization. Thus, I suspect that virtually all of the strange quarks produced in the collisions are turned into kaons or other strange hadrons. An excess of strange hadrons would just mean that more strange quarks are produced than expected, not that "they combine more readily than originally believed". Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If I may I would like to add one more comment. When it comes to atomic bombs, there is an event that neutrons are released causing neighboring atoms to split or fuse. A similar process might happen at higher energies than previous Pb-Pb-experiments, where particles could burst almost instantly into pieces, and jet straight away with far higher energies than previously witnessed, causing a chain-reaction analog to that of atomic fission. For "naysayers" I would like to ad a qoute from Ernest Rutherford:

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." Ernest Rutherford

Boy was he wrong, and as a wild guess Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray collisions could even represent such a small chain-reaction, producing the energies that "are theoretically too high". It doesn't take an Einstein to come up with such an idea, but frankly I don't see any scientific writer getting a paper published that handles such a speculative hypothesis, therefor we find ourselves in a negative loop that prevents us from bringing up valid arguments.

An other factor that holds back the publication of some hypothetical arguments are the high stakes on financial and academic level. Even the fact of causing global fear, propagates negative bias from the particle-science community. Also the eagerness of getting this project going, or the fear of being called a "crackpot" puts all the experts in a less neutral position than is beneficial for global safety. These influences can also be witnessed by the final editors of this wiki-page, causing this article partly to become a promotional instrument, rather than an objective representation of the facts, there is a twist to this whole thing. Michel_sharp (talk) 12:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be fixated on this chain-reaction analogy, but stating that your favorite scenario "might happen" is not enough. Can you provide reliable scientific sources that address this scenario? If it is just your personal (or some other blogger's) speculation, it falls in the domain of original research and you should not use Wikipedia as a soapbox for advertising it. A Wiki article can only report on the debate in the scientific community, based on reliable sources. It is not meant to contribute to the debate. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

~~::Good point, it makes me realise who's "advertising soapbox" the front-page of this article actually is.~~Michel_sharp (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This sort of statement annoys me, and was something James Tankersley used to keep coming up with. CERN have to get all their papers peer reviewed, published, hold themselves up to every scrutiny, and yet you, Vasily Sokolov, Otto Rossler, Rainer Plaga, Walter Wagner, Luis Sanchez seem to feel that your ideas is above this process. All they do is get media space by hand waving, screaming disaster scenarios, without having their 'opinions' held up to any form of scrutiny, and then kids kill themselves because of it. CERN do everything, by all the recognised procedures, yet these 'people', for want of a better word, don't feel they are held by the same constraints and yet their opinions are supposed to carry weight. Well when they get published THEN they can carry weight and be considered for inclusion in this article, but until then they will only be noteworthy as scaremongering crackpots who get media attention. ^Khukri 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is what I referred to earlier; "CERN have to get all their papers peer reviewed, published, hold themselves up to every scrutiny", so the chance that a simple hypothetical paper that isn't inline with existing science's expectations, is quite impossible to publish because of all the interests that are at stake, and if one would like to get one published it would cause people to go and kill themselves, that is pure intimidation. Have you also accused and threatened the people that came up with "stranglets" or "Micro-black-holes" for this? And yes the moment you say something might happen, the logic conclusion could be that of extreme proportions but that comes naturally with the terrain. I not saying something will happen, all I say it might and I have the right to do so, hell it's not even more than normal that people questions this type of nuclear tests. Michel_sharp (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC

No it's not intimidation, it's fact, a senseless death caused by people who do not have the courage of their convictions to submit their ideas for peer review. You are saying it 'might', based on what scientific grounds? where is your research paper, where are your facts, where did you get this might end the world doom mongering prophecy. Your might is the same weight as it will create a rip in the space time continuum and little pink fluffy unicorns will flow forth. Of course it's not impossible to get published, even the numpties who thought water had a memory managed to get published before it was pulled. If you had any argument that held up to scrutiny of course it would get published. But everytime someone steps up and says the LHC will destroy the world they get pulled to shreds because their theories are based on basic misunderstandings of physics. As I said to Tankersley there are thousands of physicists in the world, you think every single one is intimidated, not one single physicists values his life over his profession? Doesn't it sound even a bit implausible? There has been one paper by someone with a physics background that was put on the arxiv, it wasn't published it wasn't reviewed, but CERN responded. Everyone else are not experts in the field, we have biochemists who are using contradictory science proven wrong 80 years ago, we have botanists, sci-fi writers, and language teacher, but no physicists in high energy physics. Michael Crichton summed up quite well in speech about the state of science and said retired scientists are always the first to start to question if the science is dubious, as they have nothing to lose. Not even retired physicists have come forward raising concerns. But every single time, the conspiracy theorists reach for the intimidation card, "of course there's a problem but physicists are too scared to speak up". This is the same approach the intelligent design apologists tried in the 90's and early 2000's it was called Teach the controversy, but there wasn't one there and there isn't one here. It's all assumptions and what you think with absolutely no basis in fact. So I challenge you to find me the peer reviewed concerns, that don't have holes a grad student physicist could drive a bus through, until that time it's just more hand waving about your own personal fears with no basis in science. ^Khukri 18:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you go completely bananas let me explain the "might":

1. The Safety Report itself says; "...the particles produced in cosmic-ray collisions typically have different velocities with respect to the Earth from those produced by accelerators, so the circumstances are not directly comparable." This already simply says "LHC-experiments have no analogues in nature"

2. The Safety Report doesn't mention a chain-reaction as I describe it, even the word "jet" doesn't appear in it, the discussion is mainly about MBH and "Stranglets". Like I said it's a very simple idea analogy to fission, I cannot understand why it isn't missing. Fact is, there is a lot unknown about this "spraying" process, and in cosmic-rays, that the report likes to use as a reference, it has been impossible to find out what particles are involved in the collisions. Also like I've pointed out in nature it is not a beam like in the LHC, even 2 single cosmic-rays hitting each other head-on doesn't happen.

3. We can never predict what will happen, like an expert said: "if physicists could be sure that they can calculate every possible outcome of experiments like the LHC in advance the actual experiment would be obsolete and thereby a waste of money and efforts."

4. We haven't got a perfect understanding of what the high-end spectrum of cosmic rays are, they are still being studied just as it says in that blog you referred to.

5. I also posted that link about safety because it is just very difficult, even unpredictable, to measure what would happen if something would start to explode at a sub-atomic level, without having a precedent.

Now I find it brave of you to take up the gloves to defend and comfort the people who are mentally unstable, and that's technically probably the right thing to do, but fact is that we just don't know what will happen for sure. Anyhow like you suggest, I will compose a paper and see where it will go. Who know's I might be coming back with something valuable for this article. Cheerio Michel_sharp (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it disingenuous or even hypocritical that you dismiss the fears of a 16 year old kid as mentally unstable, when you have been filling these very pages with YOUR fears. ^Khukri 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A dear friend of mine killed himself because his girlfriend broke up with him, fact was that he was already a long time out of balance, and I suppose that it's the same for this girl. I don't dismiss her fear or the distress of the situation, not at all. But that's not a reason for others not to brake-up with their partner, or to have this discussion. I'm not fearful about this whole LHC thing and at no point in this discussion have I intended to generate fear, I'm only interested in the technical part of the story. I would appreciate it if you would do the same. I even find it a pity that you want to bring this discussion down to a personal accusation. I have said before that I have my doubts about the ability of you guy's to be neutral in this discussion, and your last comment seems to prove my point, you skip technical motivations and play the emotion card, just to intimidate.Michel_sharp (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

btw I forgot to ad this point:

6. Collisions of cosmic rays already trigger sometimes small disasters:

In the upper atmosphere, cosmic rays striking air molecules within thunderstorms can supply the relativistic electrons which trigger a breakdown in "runaway" mode. The breakdown region is a conductive plasma many tens of meters long, and it can supply the "seed" which triggers a lightning flash. Runaway_breakdown

Michel_sharp (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<unindent>All thoroughly very interesting, but these are just your musings and nothing to do with the article i.e WP:OR. So as I said above I'll wait till you post a paper or something along those line that the LHC will cause these phenomena. Because as it's stand it's you putting 2 and 2 together and .... anyway. ^Khukri 10:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

granted Michel_sharp (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that I thought Michel_sharp's analogy of the friend committing suicide over a breakup does not mean people should not break up, etc. was a good analogy. There is every reason to discuss safety issues, which was not being done effectively by CERN until the issues were raised by outsiders. That being said, I find the diagram that heads this section to be misleading. The alleged "beam" of the LHC isn't even actually a beam, per se, but rather a series of bunches of particles. Each bunch would contain millions of protons (or Lead nuclei if Lead is accelerated) in a very small volume. But the spacing between the particles in the bunch is on the order of 1,000 times the 'diameter' of the particle. Perhaps Khukri could post better detail on this. I believe the spacing might actually be closer to 10,000X the diameter of a proton. And almost all of the particles in the bunch, when it 'collides' with a bunch going in the opposite direction, simply pass by each other without interaction, zipping around the LHC ring for another go at collision. That is because of the very wide spacing between particles. Only on rare occasion do some collide, and then it is not usually head-on. So as a consequence, even with millions of particles in each bunch, only a few actually collide. There is not much opportunity for multiple interactions from nearby adjacent particles. If something's going to happen, it'll almost certainly be from the collision of two particles only (Pb-Pb; or p-p).Oldnoah (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Thanks, I tried to explain this to Michel_Sharp a few threads ago (the one about his car-park analogy) but he did not pick up. Some information about collisions at the LHC can be found e.g. here, it would appear that the distance between protons in a bunch is of the order of 0.1 micrometers, i.e. 100,000 times the "size" of a proton which is something of the order of a femtometer. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Oldnoah, thanks for the extra clarification, my understanding of "the beam" was indeed far to vague, as Ptrslv tried to explain me a already earlier. And my beam vs. single particle argument is indeed, like Ptrslv pointed out, not valid enough. To come back to the image, I think it doesn't represent beams but; two particles coming from opposite directions (LHC) vs one that collides with a stationary one (nature). And that leads us back to Ptrslv's comment: "what matters is the energy in the center-of-mass reference frame of the two particles, and this can still be considerably higher than the energy of the collisions at the LHC.", this is where you guys started debating and where I honestly have to do a lot of catching up to do. Anyway better images are always more than welcome, cheerio Michel_sharp (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Oldnoah, please do not think I'm trying to stifle discussion, but firstly Wikipedia is not a discussion forum and can only refer to that which meets it's robust criteria for inclusion. In theory there is only black and white, that which can be cited as verifiable warrants inclusion. My rant above was primarily that CERN have to meet these criteria, and yet others are not held by the same rigorous demands. They feel their ideas must be still included in Wikipedia and then they create panic in the media, citing information that has had no approval whatsoever but is just their idea of the day. Snide comments, as Michael did, commenting on the content impugning the article and it's authors I find to be a cheap shot, questioning their motives. That is wrong and I find it very similar to the MMR situation in the UK, though they at least got published. Debate and discussion should be encouraged but let it be on an equal footing or a discussion of peers. ^Khukri 10:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought that you would do as you said and encourage debate, but after this statement you haven't helped to answer one of my questions that wouldn't have been to hard for you to reply on. Therefor I question, your motivation for editing this page. And I don't feel comfortable with the above comment of yours, you simply accuse me here of deliberately wanting to create panic, and want to classify me along with a so called anti-science group. I find this an intimidation against the people who strife for awareness and pose questions, like I have been doing all along. My "Snide" and critique to the editors of this page, was an honestly funded motivation because of the difficulty of even bringing up an argument about the arguments, because even this particular argument could also be seen as on onset for creating Panic. So I would appreciate it if you removed the accusation. Michel_sharp (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Khukri did not answer your questions because he found that somebody who writes stuff like "jets disperse into 2 directions" or asks for "speed, weight and energy of the different types of jets" doesn't possess enough background information to allow for a meaningful discussion without a preliminary course on particle physics. At least, this is why I did not answer, and I must say that I admire Oldnoah's patience for at least giving it a shot. Of course there is nothing wrong with your curiosity on the subject, but, as I wrote below, the talk page of the Safety article is not the right place to satisfy it. Indeed, the purpose of the talk page is discussing the improvements of the article, which must be based on reliable sources and not on original research. When you proposed a modification of the article, Khukri and I argued that the material that you wanted to include was unsourced, and that should have closed the discussion. It is certainly not by accusing others of bias that you will get them to volunteer to fill the gaps in your understanding of particle physics. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a book from Don Lincoln, wherein he says:

"The SPEAR accelerator collided electrons into positrons. Of relevance for this discussion were the particular types of interactions where the electron and positron annihilate into a photon, which then convert into a q-q pair. According to the above discussion, what one should see are two jets of particles, and further they should be exactly in opposite directions. Fig. 4.19a clearly indicates such a signature …"

There were also other examples in his book where jets spray in different directions, I thought it was a general occurrence, but judging from your response it isn't. Why I mentioned "speed" and such is because OldNoah said that "The jet striking an oncoming proton would have far less energy than a collision of two protons. It would simply cause the 'adjacent' particle to collide with the jet material, at far lower energy than had it collided with an oncoming proton." I just wanted to get an idea of what energy differences he is talking about and one we could expect in the LHC. In the exiting tests it are full frontal collisions of protons, transforming partly into Jets, I would think that the more intense the collisions become the more velocity these Jets would have. If the partons in these Jets would have spin, the more spin they would have the higher the impact would be, and perhaps even the chance to smash a neighboring proton. Like the barrel of a gun has lands, to generate a spinning bullet that has more striking power than a passive one. I know all a bit simplistic thinking but anyway, once any numbers would show up, it would become very clear what the reality of the situation is, and my quest can come to an end. Michel_sharp (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1) The jets in your citation "spray" in opposite directions (in the reference frame of the laboratory) because they are produced in the collision of two particles carrying opposite momentum. On the other hand, the "jet" produced in the collision between a high-energy cosmic ray and a stationary target (e.g. a nucleus in the Earth's atmosphere or in the Moon's surface) would only go in the direction of the original ray (in the reference frame of the Earth or the Moon) and would not "lose its energy backwards". Try to visualize the difference between the two cases with billiard balls.

2) It's not even clear what you mean by "speed" and "weight" of the jets, how could anybody provide "numbers" for them? The fraction of the proton's momentum carried by the various partons is described by functions called parton distribution functions, is that what you are looking for?

3) "Spin" as a quantum-mechanical property of a particle is not quite the same as the spin of a bullet, and your "striking power" analogy makes little sense when applied to the collision of point-like objects such as the partons in the protons.

4) Finally, in defence of poor Rutherford, you might want to check the difference between "atom" and "nucleus".

Now, it's certainly not a fault if you lack the basic physics background to grasp these (and other) concepts, and your interest in the subject is commendable, but you cannot expect others to teach you a physics course in the talk page of the "Safety of the LHC" article. More importantly, you cannot expect to be allowed to include in the article claims based on your loose analogies between stuff that you know and stuff that you don't. I shouldn't have lost my patience as I did on Friday, but I really have no time for this and - for the umpteen time - this page is not the right place. And as I mentioned above, you won't get people to teach you stuff by accusing them of bias and censorship. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1) What about Backspin - Clip I could see stuff flying on the moon in all directions.

2) The cosmic-rays that are flying in, or the LHC -beams are put in an energy reference frame, so I thought that for Jets a similar schedule would exist, because like OldNoah said "jets would have far less energy", but how much is "far less" in numbers?

3) Spin as a quantum-term is indeed not the same but don't the cosmic-ray protons have some rotational momentum, and the partons a similar frequency, depending on the collision that creates them?

Sorry for being pushy. Michel_sharp (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1) See? this is what happens when you take analogies too literally... The partons involved in the collision are point-like particles colliding at relativistic energies, they are not macroscopic rolling spheres that feel the friction of a green carpet, so there is no "backspin". You should not assume that any phenomenon that you can understand from everyday experience is fully replicated at the subatomic level, nor should you apply straight away to high-energy particle physics concepts that you may have picked up from chemistry or whatever else it is that you are expert of.

Going back to the cosmic rays: in any reference frame, the total momentum of the particles created in the collision must be the same as the sum of the momenta of the two incoming particles, and the same is true for the total energy. In a reference frame in which one of the particles is at rest, the total momentum of the products of the collision will be equal to the momentum of the incoming particle, i.e. as seen from the Earth (or the Moon) the "jet" as a whole will go in the direction of the original cosmic ray. But this is precisely what I did not want to do, i.e. spend hours trying to explain to you basic concepts of physics. There are good textbooks for that.

2) your sentence seems unintelligible to me, but please don't even bother explaining what you mean, ask directly Oldnoah.

3) the partons are pointlike particles, so they don't "rotate", at least not according to the usual meaning of the term. They do have indeed an "intrinsic" angular momentum (i.e. the spin) but it has nothing to do with their "striking power".

Goodnight, Ptrslv72 (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

1) That was actually a bit of a joke, but if I may come back to the billiard balls. When they hit at high speed, a pretty load sound-wave is produced so there is a loss of energy in a non particular manner, and in to all directions of the room. Doesn't every collision of particles produce a similar multidirectional energy-wave, a loss of energy that is put into the collision by speeding up (charging) the particles. Hence the tamper in atomic bombs and the moon/top-of-the-atmosphere argument, where there is no or minor atmospheric pressure, to loose all that sort of energy, versus down here at ground level.

2) If we know at what speed these jets move and how much energy they contain, one could measure and predict how much striking power they have, but I'll ask OldNoah.

Again sorry for the trouble, your comments are very much appreciated, helping to clarifying the facts. Michel_sharp (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you double check the section. Prior to your snide comment about advertising soapbox on the 6th you will find I tried to point you in the right direction with respect to Wikipedia's guidelines on a couple of occasions in much the same vein as Ptrslv72 has just said above. So the fact you make the first accusations about trying to bias the article and soap boxing when I have not cast judgement on your reasons for trying to include unpublished material into the article I think is nothing short of revisionism. Don't be surprised when you do walk into a talk page trying to push unreviewed science into an article, when you have been told politely it's not been reviewed and then you question their motives, to find you are grouped with those who only have their own interests and self aggrandizement at heart. So you may wish to think about striking your own comment by using the <s> </s> before demanding of others to do likewise. ^Khukri 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done.Michel_sharp (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, from my part you can cut it all out, it would make the topic a bit lighter, I don't know if that's in-line with wiki-policy.Michel_sharp (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have one last question about the comment where Oldnoah says; "There is not much opportunity for multiple interactions from nearby adjacent particles.". Can't the protons ricochet and interact with the matter of the surrounding infrastructure, a link to a discussion page or reference paper would be great, sorry for squeezing this one in, I know it's off topic, but I had to ask. Michel_sharp (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, at that speed, they don't ricochet, they splat. Even if they did riochet and retain their full energy, it's just transposing the question. The nuceli in the surrounding material is also very far apart from each other, compared to the diameter of a proton, and the 'diameters' of the nuclei of the surrounding material are not much bigger than that of a proton Same distance scales between a nucleus and a neighboring nucleus of the surrounding material (Helium, or steel, or whatever) as referenced by Ptrslv72 in his excellent link here. I should add, however, that there has been some talk of igniting a fusion reaction in the Carbon dump by deposition of a huge amount of energy should the beam-spreader fail. But that is an entirely different type of scenario.Oldnoah (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

But jets cross these distances easily with high speed and they can contain many particles, having some hitting force. Jets also disperse into 2 directions, and on the moon or the top of an atmosphere half of them would disperse into space while this isn't the case below ground level. What would be the main flaw of such a concept? Michel_sharp (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Only a very tiny portion of the debris would jet and strike an 'adjacent' particle. What would happen then? The jet striking an oncoming proton would have far less energy than a collision of two protons. It would simply cause the 'adjacent' particle to collide with the jet material, at far lower energy than had it collided with an oncoming proton. This would not cause a 'chain reaction'.Oldnoah (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Ok thanks, do you know perhaps of a reference table/paper that represents the speed, weight and energy of the different types of jets. I can not find one, and it would clarify a lot for me. Michel_sharp (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an addition wouldn't it be logic that the harder the particles collide the harder the "partons" could jet, or is this also a misconception? Michel_sharp (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You might try Gunther Roland at MIT, as he is one of the lead CMS team collaborators. He could provide a parton energy distribution as a function of collisional energy in the ranges already explored. Generally speaking, at higher energies, one obtains an ever increasing number of quarks emerging from the "Dirac Sea" which combine to form mesons and other charged and uncharged hadrons, though it would seem that the energy spread would also shift upward somewhat with increasing energy. But I do not have a precise answer on that. Check with MIT or other CMS collaborators to see what they have so far as empirical evidence. We already know that their model for 110% of the Tevatron maximum was wrong, so I'm waiting to see what their model for 120% would be. Or maybe Khukri could provide a reference source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoah (talk • contribs) 23:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I don't want to be annoying, but... Since it seems by now clear that - at least for the time being - we won't be adding a section 5.3 to the article for lack of reputable sources, wouldn'it be more appropriate to continue Michel_sharp's education on his (or Oldnoah's) private talk page? After all the header of the page reads "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". I'll admit that I myself contributed to the noise in the past few days, but now might be a good time to wrap it up. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that.Oldnoah (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Granted, although if a link or reference to those numbers might be found it would be best for anyone to post it over here. Because someone else who's interested would have to start scoping Olnnoah's or my talk-page for that final answer. Thanks for helping me with my questions. Michel_sharp (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Cooke's Method of hazard elicitation

A recent issue of Nature^[1], suggests a methodology for obtaining more reasonable estimates of risk than those we have mostly discussed in this article. It is accompanied by an example on the failure of dams when their cores start to leak. The method entails a weighted average over expert opinions, each accompanied by an uncertainty range, with the weights determined by the experts' performance on a set of "seed questions". It seems to me this might point the way to a more rational and reliable methodology for dealing with issues of this kind. I think this reference may deserve a place in our article. OWBSID^* -- Wwheaton (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

^*: "Often Wrong, But Seldom In Doubt"

^ "A route to more tractable expert advice" by Prof. Willy Aspinall, Nature, 21 January 2010, p 294; accompanied by an editorial on the problem of climate change, which poses somewhat similar problems.

Welcome back. How was your talk/presentation? I'll check the article and post my view shortly.Oldnoah (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

OK, thanks. I was at the High Energy Astrophysics Division meeting of the AAS in Hawai'i, showing some promising results we been getting via tomographic imaging in the low-energy (30 keV to 2 MeV) region, using the limb of the Earth as an occulting edge. Of course any winter meeting on Hawai'i is likely to be "OK". :-) BTW, I have since sent an e-mail to Prof Aspinall, asking him if he has any suggestions relevant to this article. Verifiable external references linking to the LHC problem may be hard to come by, though. Wwheaton (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's the direct link to Aspinalls' paper: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/pdf/463294a.pdf for those who might be interested in reading it. I used to surf the North Shore of Hawai'i in the winter (waves of 5 meters or more), but I don't have the swimming strength these days to safely do so. At times, it'd take me a full hour to make it back to shore, swimming full-speed, if a good set came in.Oldnoah (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Sounds far too much like hardwork for me :)

Good article, highlights what I think is interesting is not Cooke's approach itself, as I think quantifying the actual expertise of someone is very subjective in itself even with the test questions, but it demonstrates alot of what's wrong about the 'educated' guess work that goes into theoretical model's themselves. This in itself is the endemic of; scientist say X or x predicts end of the world, that are used as appeals to authority in the media. A good example I saw the other day was that whaling contributes to global warming because of the carcasses locking up carbon when they sink. Sounds logical but when you looked at the details, it was a model of an estimate, that didn't take into account seabed ecology, that came under a huge banner headline that grabbed attention. It was someones guess. Anyway I digress, I think it's a good article but not sure how it should be included in the article, unless this approach had been applied to all the LHC scenarios. But not sure how you could quantify the expertise of say Mangano or Giddings against Rossler. See what others say, I'd be interested to see in what way it could/would be included. ^Khukri 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we got serious problems, and the physics is just a small part of it. That issue of Nature seems to have deliberately devoted much of its commentary section to the whole complex of such troubles at the boundary of science, society, and epistemology. There's four pages on the global warming tempest, 2 pages on Cooke's method, and a two-page piece by a law professor at Yale on communication between "the community of experts" and the public, plus the lead editorial. I think I'll send that infamous legal paper of Eric Johnson (above) to the guy at Yale, and see what he says. Sometimes democracy seems hardly worth the trouble.... Oldnoah, when I was a little kid I first met the Pacific Ocean down in Panama, where my poppa was a medical intern. It was a great experience, yet sobering at the same time. Then in 1968 (on a visit to see the Apollo 8 TLI burn) I went snorkeling at Hanauma Bay in Honolulu, which was very tame, but fantastic. (We live in great times, do we not?!) Wwheaton (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What irony. I went snorkeling in Hanauma Bay in January, 1968 for my first time. Vacation from California with the family. But I graduated to surfing as well. Makapuu, Sandys (Obama's favorite beach, but tame compared to most), Panic Point, Makaha, Pipeline, Sunset, and Waimea on Oahu, primarily body surfing. A little on the outer islands too. Sure do hope our kids and their descendants will be able to continue to have those experiences.Oldnoah (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah

Hawaï, ironically I used to love to watch Magnum on tv ; )

I think it is an interesting article I would suggest to put under the topic Safety reviews and call it Future Safety Reports here is a suggestion for the text:

An article in Nature by Willy Aspinall, Cabot professor of "natural hazards and risk science" at Bristol University, suggested to use: "The Cooke method of expert elicitation" for difficult regulatory decisions, like: "formulating US Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidelines on the safety of nuclear materials and technologies." This is a method developed by risk analysis Roger Cooke at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, that implies a ‘rational consensus’ as a way to quantify uncertainty and improve decision-making. The method is an mathematically advanced way to weigh and pool scientific advice.

Just a first attempt, what do you guys think? Michel_sharp (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that falls foul of WP:CRYSTALBALL and still not ascertained a link between the two. We need to look at it from the readers point of view and demonstrate that the two are linked for it notable for inclusion in this article. I think it's a good article but not sure how it should be included here, primatily because this methodology hasn't been applied to the LHC risk analysis in a verifiable way. I wrote something a while back which I think is pertinent here about relevance and interactions between subject matters. ^Khukri 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see regarding the suggested title the word "Future" falls indeed directly under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Aside to that, if professor Apinall would have said for European instead of US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it would have been appropriate. Isn't that difference of who's commission it is, irrelevant to the subject matter of "Safety of particle collisions" in general, be it in the US, Europe or anywhere else in the world? Michel_sharp (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nail on the head, I think we need something that unequivocally links the two for it to be included otherwise it's two different subject matter that share a common bond of safety. though it mentions the word Nuclear I think/feel it needs a tighter link to CERN if someone can find it being applied to the CERN (or protagonists) analysis then it's an instant winner. Cheers ^Khukri 22:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Than I would like to suggest to start a new overall Wikipedia-topic called "Safety of particle collisions" Michel_sharp (talk) 09:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not overly in favour as I'm not convinced that it would meet WP:NOTABLE, whereas the LHC on it's own did meet this guideline primarily because of the furor in the media at the time of it's start up in 2008. Just a couple of pointers, if you do watch out for WP:CONTENTFORK secondly all the sources you use to create the article would need to meet WP:VERIFY, not fall foul of either WP:NOR, or WP:REDFLAG. If you need pointers on the guidelines just ask, but please be very careful not to let it fill with blog and unreviewed opinions pieces. And remember you cannot create the link for the reader, take the Cooke methodology above, to include it in that article you would need to demonstrate that the two were linked with a verifiable source, that it was applied to a particle accelerator in a recognised manner, and not an opinion that the one could be used on the other. Cheers ^Khukri 09:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we could rename this page and remove "at the LHC" from the tittle Wikipedia:How_to_rename_(move)_a_page. This would be beneficial for future projects and give the possibility to include the safety of collisions issues from the past, it would give a broader perspective. The LHC could still remain the main topic for this moment in time. Michel_sharp (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Black Hole Production at the LHC: A Review of the Risks

A new paper surfaced called "Black Hole Production at the LHC: A Review of the Risks" by Alam Rahman link. I think it could be included at "Other publications", or as an "External link" and who knows perhaps later on under "Safety arguments" under MBH. I don't think it has been peer-reviewed, but than again John Ellis' speech at the "External link" topic hasn't been either, and actually a part of a topic in this paper questions some of his statements. So it might be interesting to include it in this article to hear what the critics have to say. Cheerio Michel_sharp (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.242.140 (talk)

We will consider including this "paper" in the article when it becomes part of the scientific discourse, i.e. when it is published in a peer-reviewed journal or at least - as Plaga's paper - when it elicits some reaction from the physics community. For the time being, its status is not different from Sokolov's blog that you were discussing earlier on, even though it looks slightly more "sciencey". BTW, note the abundance of "TEXT UNDER REVISION" statements and the disclaimer at page 3 that "the author is not a physicist and so [the paper] focuses on very basic problems with the evidence and arguments presented thus far". I am always amazed by the ease with which some people admit that they are not specialists of a topic, then in the same breath claim to have detected basic flaws that must somehow have escaped the attention of dozens of experts... Finally, I honestly don't understand what you mean with your sentence about Ellis' talk. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What I meant with Ellis, is that when someone shows up on tv, his or her comments are accepted, but when comments are addressed in the blogosphere or on forums they rather stay neglected. Anyway you are right it needs to be more part of the general scientific discourse before it can be added. I just wanted to mention that there is a new paper, perhaps I'm just a bit to bold to include new stuff. greetings Michel_sharp (talk) 11:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.201.242.140 (talk)

Well, Ellis in one of the LSAG authors, and in that talk he was presenting the LSAG results, which were indeed peer-reviewed and endorsed by several panels of physicists. It wasn't me who added that link, but I don't think that it violates the rules for relevance. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

earthquakes?

There is growing talk online on blogs and conspiracy theory websites about a connection between the LHC and the high number of major earthquakes in the past few months. Does this warrant mentioning here?--69.248.225.198 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's the same type of correlation between global warming and the disappearance of pirates. But shhhhh don't tell them that Haiti etc happened before the LHC started collisions, so lets not let a good fact get in the way of a half baked conspiracy theory. ^Khukri 05:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review

If peer review were anything other than a guarantee of consensual mediocrity, groupthink and the preservation of power relations, the consensus among academic economists would have been to predict the recent global economic crash. On the contrary, however, only a few, mostly marginalised economists actually saw the crash coming and said so. I hope the same thing is not true in physics--it would be more difficult to recover from that kind of collapse. (NB I'm neither an economist nor a physicist, just a healthy skeptic.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.189.18 (talk) 19:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry these talk pages are not a blog or for your personal theories, but to discuss improvements to the article that meet Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and sourcing. Regards ^Khukri 09:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The comment about peer review is directly related to the preceding discussions on this page, since peer review is constantly cited as something implicitly good, or at least better than non-peer-review.85.2.7.136 (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of this encyclopedia written by volunteers and non-experts (eg, "anyone" can edit), peer review is better than non-peer review. However, that's a discussion for another place (there are plenty of pages to discuss wikipedia policies). This page is about improvements that can be made to this page.

Also, thanks editors! I'm a non-physics guy, who is still (somehow) fascinated by what the LHC can show us about the universe. I was glad to see that it was safe, and since the universe hasn't been sucked into an anthropgenically created black hole, I'll get back to worrying about real problems... Quietmarc (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Probable source of the micro black hole worry; why it cannot happen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Possibly the first mention (1980) of tiny black holes being formed in high-energy colliders, at least in a popular medium, was in Thrice Upon a Time, a science fiction book written by James P. Hogan. In fact, it was the main premise of the book. The book indicated that prior to the actual testing of the collider, no one knew for sure whether they would be produced or not, or if they would be destructive. However, the destruction of the earth by a small swarm of orbiting micro black holes, which happened in the story (in one timeline), is actually seen as impossible by physicists. A rigorous physical explanation is a bit lengthy, but a simple summary requiring minimal physics is this:

A black hole has a finite amount of energy, and gets more when matter or energy falls into it.
For a black hole to destroy the earth, it would need to contain a sufficient amount of energy. Note: a micro black hole containing enough energy to attract the entire earth would be way too large (bigger than the earth) to be called "micro", which should end the proof there. But I digress...
The energy added by a micro black hole engulfing its diameter (or so) of stuff on and inside the earth is far less than the power required to eat through that matter (proof by reductio ad absurdum on the size of the hole and its energy/lifetime). Note: The earth's distruction could only be accomplished by a large black hole, which contains enough energy and lifetime. Such a massive black hole cannot be constructed by humans, so it would have to be an astronomical body.
The amount of energy stored by a single collision event into a black hole (even if a collider can generate them) cannot be larger than the energy that the collider puts into that single collision.
Even though colliders are powerful, that power is trivial compared to the task of destroying the earth (otherwise, a weapon far, far more powerful than a nuclear bomb would have been constructed or theorized).
Therefore, a micro black hole cannot destroy the earth. QED

The question of whether a swarm of micro black holes created by running a collider over a period of months or years could destroy the earth is similarly resolved by realizing that each MBH has a short lifetime and small energy (swallowing capacity), so its energy would be dissipated as heat and the MBH would vanish long before it could swallow a significant amount of matter. This small amount of heat would be conducted away long before another MBH of the swarm would enter that particular place. The full energy of the swarm, therefore, would gradually be added to the earth's natural heat over time and eventually radiated into space, creating no harm. Note: remember, this is a simplification. David Spector (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As you can read in the banner on the top, this page is not a forum on the safety of the LHC, it is meant only for discussing improvements to the article. Moreover, any such improvement must be based on reliable, verifiable sources, not on original research. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, I am sure your argument, DS, is incorrect. Hawking's BH evaporation is widely accepted but not yet established, and if it is wrong, then BHs could have a long life. Then all a micro BH need do is swallow a single quark to grow, and gain energy. And then swallow another, etc. A slow process, probably, but likely proceeding at an exponentially increasing rate. Best, Wwheaton (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Closed as per WP:FORUM and WP:TALK. ╟─Treasury Tag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hawaii lawsuit dismissed

Hi, can somebody (Khukri?) insert this in the article? I would do it myself but I am busy at the moment. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 10:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, I did it. Cheers, Ptrslv72 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry saw your edit too late :/ ^Khukri 23:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

[1] "A route to more tractable expert advice" by Prof. Willy Aspinall, Nature, 21 January 2010, p 294; accompanied by an editorial on the problem of climate change, which poses somewhat similar problems.

[1]