Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   CERN - Large Hadron Collider and the Very Early Universe
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 46 of 59 (497379)
02-03-2009 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Taz
02-03-2009 8:41 PM


I know TAZ you are having fun with this but want to put this to bed once and for all this stupidity, for all the scientifically illiterate LHC doomsdayers.
Cosmic rays (consisting of individual protons, electrons and helium nuclei), with energy over 1,000,000 times higher than that which the LHC will ever produce, hit the atmosphere of the Earth every day quantities absolutely dwarfing what is being used in the LHC and other accelerators around the world. If the energy levels of these subatomic particles are such a danger producing stranglets and mini-black holes gobbling up the Earth in the process, this would have already occurred innumerable times in the Earth's 4.5 billion years history.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Taz, posted 02-03-2009 8:41 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 02-04-2009 3:24 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 50 by fgarb, posted 02-04-2009 7:28 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 47 of 59 (497396)
02-04-2009 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate
02-03-2009 10:29 PM


What, can't I have some fun watching sci fi?
Your critique of my posted video is like a critique of star trek.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-03-2009 10:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2009 5:49 AM Taz has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 48 of 59 (497427)
02-04-2009 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Taz
02-04-2009 3:24 AM


What, can't I have some fun watching sci fi?
Your critique of my posted video is like a critique of star trek.
LOL. Yes, but there a lot of people out there that take Star Trek seriously and think Star Trek is real or at least really, really want it to be.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Taz, posted 02-04-2009 3:24 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by onifre, posted 02-04-2009 2:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 49 of 59 (497527)
02-04-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate
02-04-2009 5:49 AM


Yes, but there a lot of people out there that take Star Trek seriously and think Star Trek is real or at least really, really want it to be.
Yeah but they aren't the type of people that will be procreating so don't worry, DA.
But, just to stir the pot a bit, the Star Trek senario is plausable and something physicist see happening in the distant future.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-04-2009 5:49 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 50 of 59 (497591)
02-04-2009 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate
02-03-2009 10:29 PM


Hi DevilsAdvocate. I'm not much of a poster these days, but I feel the need to speak up about this one. I agree that this guy is being very deceptive, but things are not as simple as your post makes it sound either. The cosmic ray analogy is a powerful one, but there are a number of possibly relevant differences between cosmic rays and the collisions at the LHC that prevent it from being perfectly reassuring.
Cosmic rays (consisting of individual protons, electrons and helium nuclei), with energy over 1,000,000 times higher than that which the LHC will ever produce, hit the atmosphere of the Earth every day
Yes. Those are some of the most powerful rays ever measured, but this comparison is a bit unfair. What is more fair is to look at it from the perspective of one of the protons in the LHC collision. From the proton's perspective it is at rest, and the beam striking it is enormously higher in energy than when it is considered in the lab frame. If you do the proper transformation your factor of 1 million is really closer to a factor of 100.
Secondly, you can argue that the cosmic rays are not a good model for the heavy ions that the LHC will occasionally collide. These collisions of clusters of hundreds of particles, each individual one of which is at a lower energy, could conceivably lead to something dangerous that cosmic rays and proton collisions do not produce.
Thirdly, and perhaps importantly, what if dangerous particles (black holes or whatever) are produced in super-high energy cosmic rays all the time. They would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the earth. It's crazy to think about, but what if their cross section for interaction with the earth becomes tiny at these high speeds, and they pass through it just like a neutrino. For an electrically neutral stable black hole, this seems quite likely. In contrast, a similar black hole (or whatever) produced at the LHC could conceivably be produced with less than escape velocity, and so it would be caught by the earth's gravity, perhaps in an orbit that is inside of the earth itself. This could possibly provide it with time to behave dangerously.
In the end, we can't rely on experiments or observations to be 100% sure this is safe. We have to trust the calculations and theory at some level, which I for one, am not trained to understand. I have been informed that it is theoretically impossible to conceive of stable mini black holes. And that even if black holes are stable, the cosmic rays would produce them, there would be some which are charged, and they would have already been captured by the earth and destroyed it. Indeed, the latest safety reports suggest that if there were a black hole trapped in the earth, and we assume that they consume material at a rate slow enough for astronomical bodies to have the observed lifetimes, then there is no way it could take less than billions of years to grow large enough to become dangerous.
Well, I hope the theorists have done their homework properly ... and about strangelets as well as black holes. As an experimentalist who does not have a year+ available to go out and learn quantum gravity, etc, I will just have to take their word that the LHC is safe. Or maybe I don't ... I'm fine with taking a tiny risk of catastrophe in the name of big science. I could imagine others might disagree though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-03-2009 10:29 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2009 8:28 PM fgarb has replied
 Message 53 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 11:59 AM fgarb has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 51 of 59 (497595)
02-04-2009 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by fgarb
02-04-2009 7:28 PM


It's simpler than that with black holes in this case, at least as far as determining risk.
A black hole is not a literal hole that simply sucks in matter. Black holes are the result of extremely densely packed matter, and have a gravitational field that warps space to the point where light is trapped if it passes within the object's event horizon.
However, a black hole doesn't magically gain a stronger gravitational pull simply because it's a black hole. If you packed 2 protons worth of mass densely enough to form a black hole, the gravitational pull of the resulting object would still be equivalent to the 2 proton masses you began with.
At the scales we're talking about for the LHC, any resultant black holes would have extremely weak gravitational fields (odd to say that about a black hole, but we're talking about black holes with less mass than most atoms). The event horizon in such a case would be tiny, even on an atomic scale - and the gravitational pull generated would be just as insignificant as anything else of the same mass. It would be insufficient to break any sort of bond at all. The strong and weak atomic forces, electromagnetism, everything is stronger than gravity at those scales. The black hole wouldn't be able to "consume" anything at all, because it wouldn't have enough force to pull anything to it.
Black holes as we typically understand them have masses equivalent to thousands or millions of Suns. The reason they're so powerful is because they're so massive, in some cases single objects less than a solar system in diameter that comprise a significant fraction of the mass of an entire galaxy.
Microscopic black holes have nearly no mass. They couldn't "consume" a water molecule, let alone the Earth - one of these black holes wouldn't even be able to break the bonds that hold the Oxygen and Hydrogen atoms bound together.
The problem here is that people hear "black hole" and immediately think of the typical star-swallowing monsters we detect in space. The sorts of black holes we may generate with the LHC are virtually nothing like their larger cousins.
If you took the mass of the Earth (roughly 6e24 kg) and condensed it into a black hole, the event horizon would have a radius of only 8.9 mm.
Can you imagine the radius of a black hole containing the mass of only a few protons?
That's not "microscopic." That's beyond even femptoscopic.
This on top of the fact that black holes evaporate over time through Hawking radiation. A black hole with a mass of 2.28e5 kg would only last for 1 secondbefore evaporating completely. How long do you think a black hole with just a few atoms worth of mass will take to evaporate? Far faster than it can acquire new mass, given that its gravitational force is insufficient to really do any of that anyway.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by fgarb, posted 02-04-2009 7:28 PM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by fgarb, posted 02-05-2009 3:28 AM Rahvin has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 52 of 59 (497616)
02-05-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Rahvin
02-04-2009 8:28 PM


Hi Rahvin -
I agree that mini black holes are supposed to disintegrate immediately according to theory. But this is something that can only be theoretically understood until we find a way to study some real black holes up close. So some of the good folks at CERN have done some theoretical studies where they assume that black holes are stable and see what happens. I think the fear would be that such a stable black hole that's inside the earth might be capable of occasionally consuming a particle every once in a while and growing. Any scenario where the LHC is capable of producing mini black holes is also one where gravity blows up and becomes very powerful on small distance scales. Your argument that it is too weak to break atomic bonds seems reasonable in a hand wavy sort of way, but it sounds like there are some models where the black hole would absorb matter in a dense environment (this really is beyond my field of expertise). So I'm glad that they've made these studies and determined that if any rate of consumption would be high enough to be dangerous, it would also be high enough that some of the dense stars that we see would have been consumed long ago. The relevant paper can be found here.
I'm willing to take the author's word that this is safe, at least in the case of black holes. I'm simply pointing out that you can't say "cosmic rays", wave your hands, and prove that the LHC is safe beyond all doubt. That's pretty convincing, but you have to also dig into the meat of some very complicated physics models to approach certainty. I wouldn't even bring this up if the fate of the world weren't possibly involved. . But I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Rahvin, posted 02-04-2009 8:28 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 53 of 59 (497661)
02-05-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by fgarb
02-04-2009 7:28 PM


Yes. Those are some of the most powerful rays ever measured, but this comparison is a bit unfair. What is more fair is to look at it from the perspective of one of the protons in the LHC collision. From the proton's perspective it is at rest, and the beam striking it is enormously higher in energy than when it is considered in the lab frame. If you do the proper transformation your factor of 1 million is really closer to a factor of 100.
Can you site your source on this, because I believe the 7 TeV energy level is taking into consideration the kinetic energy of the each beam of protons at top energy levels accelerating at 0.999999991 the speed of light, not at rest. The combined kinetic energy of these two beams colliding at near light speeds is 14 TeV as shown here: LHC Machine Outreach.
The below illustration depicts this:
You are right in that the center-of-mass collisions for cosmic rays are more on the par of 100+ TeV as shown here: Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes. However, with the Earth's 4.5 billion year lifespan and the nonexistence of astrophysical data indicating mini-black growing into super massive black holes elsewhere in the cosmos, how likely is it that humans could at less than 1/10th the energy create a quantum-black hole that would instead of evaporating will rather increase in size and threaten the planet, when this hasn't occur once with a constant barrage of cosmic particles during the Earth's 4.5 billion year history?
The following quote illustrates the logic behind the defense for the LHC (and other particle accelerators) well:
Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions, ''Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. 35, 115004 writes:
Other astronomical bodies are even larger. For example, the radius of Jupiter is about ten times that of the Earth, and the radius of the Sun is a factor of ten larger still. The surface area of the Sun is therefore 10,000 times that of the Earth, and Nature has therefore already conducted the LHC experimental programme about one billion times via the collisions of cosmic rays with the Sun - and the Sun still exists.
Moreover, our Milky Way galaxy contains about 1011 stars with sizes similar to our
Sun, and there are about 1011 similar galaxies in the visible Universe. Cosmic rays
have been hitting all these stars at rates similar to collisions with our own Sun. This
means that Nature has already completed about 1031 LHC experimental
programmes since the beginning of the Universe. Moreover, each second, the
Universe is continuing to repeat about 3x1013 complete LHC experiments. There is
no indication that any of these previous “LHC experiments” has ever had any
large-scale consequences. The stars in our galaxy and others still exist, and
conventional astrophysics can explain all the astrophysical black holes detected.
Secondly, you can argue that the cosmic rays are not a good model for the heavy ions that the LHC will occasionally collide.
I guess you are talking about the ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) component/detector part of the LHC which is measuring the less energetic lead ion collisions. Also, we have been doing ion collisions for the past 20+ years now without any significant problems. For example, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in NY is the most powerful heavy ion accelerator in the world and has been operating for nearly 8 years. BTW, it had the same doom and gloom cloud as the LHC project. Guess what, there have been no problems. This paper discusses some of the same objections given for the RHIC which are also being brought up again for the LHC: Review of Speculative "Disaster Scenarios" at RHIC.
These collisions of clusters of hundreds of particles, each individual one of which is at a lower energy, could conceivably lead to something dangerous that cosmic rays and proton collisions do not produce.
Such as? Are you talking about stranglets? Or something different? As far as stranglets, the less energy being used to combine large conglomerates of particles i.e. ions, the greater likelihood they have of producing a stable stranglet particle. Since the LHC will smash ions together at higher energies than that of the RHIC any potential issues with creating stable stranglets would have already raised its ugly head in the 10+ years other ion colliders have been online.
Again we are only replicating at lower energy levels what is already happening elsewhere in the cosmos.
Thirdly, and perhaps importantly, what if dangerous particles (black holes or whatever) are produced in super-high energy cosmic rays all the time. They would be traveling at the speed of light relative to the earth. It's crazy to think about, but what if their cross section for interaction with the earth becomes tiny at these high speeds, and they pass through it just like a neutrino. For an electrically neutral stable black hole, this seems quite likely. In contrast, a similar black hole (or whatever) produced at the LHC could conceivably be produced with less than escape velocity, and so it would be caught by the earth's gravity, perhaps in an orbit that is inside of the earth itself. This could possibly provide it with time to behave dangerously.
However, particle physicists state that these quantum black holes will dissipate rapidly due to the Hawking radiation and into the component particles from which they originally were converted from as shown here: Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions . Also since neutron stars and other sources of high energy cosmic radiation due not have this issue of stable black holes consuming them than this is an indicator that our much less energetic particle beams are not going to be a danger.
In the end, we can't rely on experiments or observations to be 100% sure this is safe.
Nothing in life much less science is 100% but it is pretty close to 99.999999999 ad infinitim % safe.
We have to trust the calculations and theory at some level, which I for one, am not trained to understand. I have been informed that it is theoretically impossible to conceive of stable mini black holes. And that even if black holes are stable, the cosmic rays would produce them, there would be some which are charged, and they would have already been captured by the earth and destroyed it. Indeed, the latest safety reports suggest that if there were a black hole trapped in the earth, and we assume that they consume material at a rate slow enough for astronomical bodies to have the observed lifetimes, then there is no way it could take less than billions of years to grow large enough to become dangerous.
True.
Well, I hope the theorists have done their homework properly ... and about strangelets as well as black holes.
These guys are humans just like us. You really think they would not do there homework on this? You think they want the Earth to be swallowed up by some engulfing micro-black hole or become a supermasive stranglet?
As an experimentalist who does not have a year+ available to go out and learn quantum gravity, etc, I will just have to take their word that the LHC is safe. Or maybe I don't ... I'm fine with taking a tiny risk of catastrophe in the name of big science. I could imagine others might disagree though.
I think we can all be rest assured from the mere existence of our planet, solar system, galaxy and universe over past 14 billion years that if anything like this could happen i.e. Murphy's Law that it would have already happened.
Just my 2 cents.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by fgarb, posted 02-04-2009 7:28 PM fgarb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 12:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 55 by fgarb, posted 02-05-2009 6:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 54 of 59 (497665)
02-05-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by DevilsAdvocate
02-05-2009 11:59 AM


Myself writes:
I think we can all be rest assured from the mere existence of our planet, solar system, galaxy and universe over past 14 billion years that if anything like this could happen i.e. Murphy's Law that it would have already happened.
Of course that might be why we have'nt found any ET life out in the rest of the cosmos. Maybe they built a LHC type device once they reached a certain phase in the evolution of there civilization and wiped themselves out. Oooh, cool theme for a sci-fi book!

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 11:59 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5390 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 55 of 59 (497717)
02-05-2009 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by DevilsAdvocate
02-05-2009 11:59 AM


Hi Devil's Advocate,
I agree with you on just about everything here, I'm just arguing the details. I want to see the LHC go ahead ... hell, I'll be looking for a job if it doesn't. I just am not willing to tell the public that this won't destroy the planet unless I really am *sure* of it. All I can say is, a doomsday scenario seems very unlikely to me based off of what I do know of cosmic rays (these are reassuring because the are *similar*, but they are not the *same*) and past colliders, the theorists have done calculations showing that it's safe, and I don't think they'd say that unless they really were sure.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Can you site your source on this, because I believe the 7 TeV energy level is taking into consideration the kinetic energy of the each beam of protons at top energy levels accelerating at 0.999999991 the speed of light, not at rest. The combined kinetic energy of these two beams colliding at near light speeds is 14 TeV as shown here:
You Lorentz Transformed to the rest frame of the cosmic rays, I Lorentz Transformed to the rest frame of one of the protons in the collider. Either way you become about a factor of about 10^4 closer, so the most powerful cosmic rays are really only effectively about 10^2 more powerful than the LHC. I think we are in agreement on this. That certainly makes the collider seem safe (though if anyone builds a super-LHC that reaches >100 TeV this argument breaks down) ... it's only the possibility of cosmic rays being artificially safe because of their boost or LHC collisions being dangerous in the heavy ion case that someone could legitimately worry.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
The following quote illustrates the logic behind the defense for the LHC (and other particle accelerators) well:
I agree with the quote completely.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
I guess you are talking about the ALICE (A Large Ion Collider Experiment) component/detector part of the LHC which is measuring the less energetic lead ion collisions.
ALICE and CMS will study these, and yes, those are what I was referring to. It is conceivable that heavy ions may have some dangerous property in high energy collision that does not exist for proton collisions, or in cosmic rays which tend to have low atomic number. But yes, RHIC was safe at lower energies.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
fgarb writes:
These collisions of clusters of hundreds of particles, each individual one of which is at a lower energy, could conceivably lead to something dangerous that cosmic rays and proton collisions do not produce.
Such as? Are you talking about stranglets? Or something different?
As an agnostic, I would prefer not to speculate on what will happen when we study the new conditions created at the LHC. There is no reason to think anything dangerous would happen, and cosmic rays do give some reassurance, along with the calculations of the theorists.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Nothing in life much less science is 100% but it is pretty close to 99.999999999 ad infinitim % safe.
Absolutely! (Though I would rather not to speculate on the probability). There is a tiny chance that something devastating will happen despite how safe past colliders were, despite how safe similar cosmic ray collisions are, and despite everything the theorists can come up with. But if we're going to consider highly unlikely scenarios, there is probably a much more likely tiny chance that something truly wonderful and revolutionary will come out of this like warp drive technology. Research into the unknown is always potentially dangerous, but it has worked out well for us throughout all of human history. I prefer not to operate in a state of fear of the unknown, but I would rather be honest that the risk is not zero and let the public decide.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
These guys are humans just like us. You really think they would not do there homework on this? You think they want the Earth to be swallowed up by some engulfing micro-black hole or become a supermasive stranglet?
Steve Giddings goes ice climbing for fun. He's brilliant and I trust what he says, but I think his standard for what is safe is a little bit different than mine.
Well, I think that all adds up to at least a nickel for me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 11:59 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 8:19 PM fgarb has not replied
 Message 58 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 8:35 PM fgarb has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 56 of 59 (497728)
02-05-2009 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by fgarb
02-05-2009 6:05 PM


I think we are pretty close to agreeing here.
I guess I am just more worried about dying by getting hit by some insane driver during my 75 mile commute back and forth to work every day, than by getting gobbled up by a self-induced black hole or some other world destroying science project.
Of course we are talking about the fate of the entire planet and mankind so I can see where an abundant amount of caution is important here.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by fgarb, posted 02-05-2009 6:05 PM fgarb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by bluescat48, posted 02-05-2009 8:27 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 57 of 59 (497730)
02-05-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by DevilsAdvocate
02-05-2009 8:19 PM


I agree. Considering some of the drivers I see, It would be about about a hundred times more likely that I would die from being hit by one of these drivers than I would from a "Black hole" from a Collider.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-05-2009 8:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 58 of 59 (497731)
02-05-2009 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by fgarb
02-05-2009 6:05 PM


As an agnostic, I would prefer not to speculate on what will happen when we study the new conditions created at the LHC. There is no reason to think anything dangerous would happen, and cosmic rays do give some reassurance, along with the calculations of the theorists.
I predict we will open up a worm hole to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by fgarb, posted 02-05-2009 6:05 PM fgarb has not replied

  
lincdean 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5524 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-11-2009


Message 59 of 59 (498483)
02-11-2009 4:28 AM


The present technology unleashed is Linc Energy. It would be helpful for civilians in daily life. That technology was introduced by,
http://www.lincenergy.us
Edited by Admin, : Administrative action.

http://www.lincenergy.us

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024