Could the world end in nine days?
- Thread starter chrisuncleahmad
- Start date
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Well...I'd better get working on having sex again. 9 days doesn't leave me a whole hell of a lot of time.
Vanilla Bear
Bears For Life
This machine is awesome! Yes it can make little black holes and no, it will not destroy our world dammit! Why do so many people think that?! Uninformed mob! 
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
I always knew the French would destroy the world.
Vanilla Bear
Bears For Life
Its in Switzerland.
The short answer is no but one can always hope.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Phew. Good news everyone. I just talked to my good friend Christopher Cross and this is what he had to say...
"It's all right, I think we're gonna make it..."
"It's all right, I think we're gonna make it..."
PlasmaTwa2; said:
Actually it's in both.
see map on page five here: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00001009/01/OAI_Voss.pdf
Location of site entrances here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
This machine is awesome! Yes it can make little black holes and no, it will not destroy our world dammit! Why do so many people think that?! Uninformed mob!
This device is awesome and it can potentially answer many important questions (or discover new ones).
However, I think you might be being a bit categorical and condescending to the poor "uninformed mob".
CERN is also too categorical in it's statements. The situation is not so full of absolutes. The LHC states "LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern."
The fact is, nobody actually knows for certain what is going to happen. That's the point. If we knew what was going to happen we would not need to experiment.
Nobody can definitively state that it absolutely "will not" lead to global disaster. The best that can be done is to try to determine the expected probability. An accurate number is difficult to arrive at because any conclusions reached must rely on how closely we assume observable phenomena (such as cosmic ray collisions) correlate with what will occur at the LHC. If there were perfect correlations, we would simply observe them. Furthermore, current conclusions rest on several theoretical assumptions (such as decay via Hawking Radiation) that although widely accepted are still theoretical in many respects and not wholly understood in every context. (Can black holes evaporate if their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime?) The problem is, to better understand this we need to better understand relativity as it exists in the sub-atomic realm of quantum mechanics - which is what this experiment is trying to do. Until then there is a lot of playing around with equations. Not many absolute answers.
However, one thing is certain and that's nobody is 100% certain.- categorical statements by CERN only reveal their lack of true objectivity.
Some points of contention have been:
1) Can a few scientists make a decision for the entire world even if they are comfortable with the presumed low odds? Even if those odds are .00001%?
2) Can we trust an organization that has already invested 4-6 billion Euro to establish it's own objective committee (Scientific Policy Committee) to review its own safety report (LSAG) findings?
http://dsu.web.cern.ch/dsu/of/csspc.html
Section - Safety of particle collisions - 2nd paragraph - and footnote 32:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
3) The final safety report was released in June 2008 without much publicity. Is 2 months enough for scientific peer review?
I am not really taking a side on whether the LHC is a good thing or a bad thing overall.
I do feel that there should have been a more comprehensive and objective review process.
I'm afraid you may be right.
We may better understand the origin of the universe and the nature of matter (or as Brian Cox puts it in his charming accent "What makes stoof stoof")
(What makes stuff, stuff)
:1orglaugh
I'm inclined to take more of a .. and pardon the reference, but.. doom 3 stance. The video game. If you're going to build particle colliders and all sorts of advanced nonsense that could *possibly* damage, destroy or otherwise 'fuck' with the planet around it.. it makes sense to build it on a planet far away. LIKE MARS!
I know, I know.. there's a .0000000078th's of a chance of it every actually doing anything.
But humans made that number. Humans made the device. There's always, always room for error.
And besides.. FUCK THAT! I'M SAILING!
I know, I know.. there's a .0000000078th's of a chance of it every actually doing anything.
But humans made that number. Humans made the device. There's always, always room for error.
And besides.. FUCK THAT! I'M SAILING!
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Christopher Cross is going to save the world!
FYI - I like that song. Especially when I drink beer to it.
It's about as likely as someone double posting, wouldncha say?
OH SHIT! ::explosions'n'death'n'decay'n'dammit'i'wanna'play'fallout'3::
THIS JUST IN: BLACK HOLES SPOTTED BETWEEN THE MOON AND NEW YORK CITY!
The scientists scrambled to apologize and warned citizens the best they can do is faaaallll in loooooove!
Similar threads
