sci.physics.particle

On Apr 1, 1:08=A0am, PD wrote:
> On Mar 31, 4:51=A0pm, Michael Helland wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 31, 2:47 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 31, 4:07 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 31, 1:40 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 31, 1:21 pm, Michael Helland wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 31, 11:02 am, PD wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 31, 12:56 pm, Michael Helland wrot=
e:
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm not saying it shouldn't be looked at. But geez, if you=
use this as
> > > > > > > > > a guiding *principle*, you'll NEVER get anything done.
>
> > > > > > > > 1. no black hole
> > > > > > > > 2. black hole appears and then disappears
>
> > > > > > > > You're saying those are the only possible outcomes because t=
hat's how
> > > > > > > > the theory works.
>
> > > > > > > No, I'm not saying those are the ONLY two possible outcomes. T=
hose are
> > > > > > > the only two *likely* outcomes based on what we know. Other *u=
nlikely*
> > > > > > > outcomes are certainly not dismissible, but are not considered=
enough
> > > > > > > of a likelihood to warrant stopping work on the LHC.
>
> > > > > > "It's not a big deal"
>
> > > > > > That sure sounds like a dismissal to me.
>
> > > > > > "Our theories say it isn't likely, so it's not."
>
> > > > > > Contrast this with:
>
> > > > > > "Our experiments say it isn't likely, so it's not."
>
> > > > > > Only one of those statements I can get behind.
>
> > > > > > Guess which.
>
> > > > > It might be of interest to observe that the controversy has made i=
t's
> > > > > way to the popular blogwires for general hooting and cat-calling:
>
> > > >http://gizmodo.com/374066/cern-to-morons-large-hadron-collider-wont-d=
...
>
> > > > "The LHC is actually designed to probe the boundaries of physics, an=
d
> > > > while a 2003 safety study did conceed that micro black holes or
> > > > magnetic monopoles may be formed, they would be short-lived and offe=
r
> > > > no threat."
>
> > > > Let me put it this way.
>
> > > > What direct evidence is there that a black hole evaporates?
>
> > > The fact that the same processes that would create them at LHC (or at
> > > least, insofar as we think they would be created) are also at RHIC and=

> > > in cosmic rays, among other sources. At RHIC, we actually think we
> > > have evidence of evaporating black holes, from some distinctive
> > > indications in the data. If the black holes were created and did NOT
> > > evaporate, we would have certainly seen them at RHIC (and in cosmic
> > > rays).
>
> > Thanks for the information, and your patience.
>
> > Is it possible that Black Holes were not created at RHIC, and that the
> > LHC will create them?
>
> Anything is *possible*. It is also possible that, despite our pretty
> large confidence that the sun is going to be in a stable hydrogen-
> burning phase for the next couple billion years, the sun could go nova
> overnight due to a process we're unaware of. Is there any way to pause
> this evening and estimate the likelihood that the sun will go nova
> overnight? No, because we have no way to estimate the likelihood of
> something completely unknown about the sun happening. Everything that
> we know about the sun, including theoretical models that have been
> strongly validated by experiment, say that this won't happen, and
> THAT'S what we know how to estimate. This doesn't rule out a surprise
> by any means, but we have no way AT ALL to estimate the likelihood of
> a complete surprise.
>
> Now, go through that same mental exercise for black holes and RHIC and
> cosmic rays and LHC.
>
> Then ask yourself if you should turn on the light switch this evening
> when it gets dark, given your complete and utter inability to predict
> the likelihood of something unknown and foreign to your expectations
> happening.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Or is that based on theory?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

---------------------
MR PD
i am veryimpressed by your pionnering revolutionary mood
which is very very un typical for you untill now ! (:-)
anyway
i noticed that i never saw in your posts
a ?? question mark
i alway see the !!!! exclamation mark (:-)
whichj is typical to proffessors that stand before students
and must do thier impression pose on young students
or else they will loos ther 'status ' . or attaention .....

that is typical as well to lawyers
not to real scintists
even the most revolutionay scientsts along history
uswed a lot of the ?????? question marks
before making ther verdicts
and still at t he end of the day
they knew that they are taking chancess
but
wisely .......after a long series of examination
and thinking
and in our case
we are not playing childrens games ...
we handls a 'toy' that is mighty big

ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------