Fine.??I'm not going to dance around it, and go against the better advice of better men to stay away.??
I'm going to start this whole thing with "I do not have a Ph.D. in physics" because I decided that theoretical particle physics was not my cup of tea, but yes, I do have a degree in physics (applied physics, to be specific).??If someone with a Ph.D. in physics would like to correct any argument I am about to make, then by all means do, because it would be appreciated.??But this pseudo-science talk has got to stop in its current form.
Teox, everything you've posted in this thread is basically a load of crackpot theories and wild accusations made by attention-desparate media-junkies who also do not have Ph.Ds in physics.
teOx Wrote:scientists were convinced of that until august 10 when a paper was published outlining that there is definitely a chance of micro black holes forming.
Source???Journal?
teOx Wrote:LHCFacts.org
This is not a source.??This is never a source.??This is a website set up with the express purpose of pushing negative speculation about CERN, and the only semi-credible scientific sources they quote are Dr Raj Baldev (and we'll get to him in a minute) and Otto R?ssler D.M.D (note: NOT Ph.D., his formal education is in immunology), a man with 300 publications in practically as many fields.??I'm not saying he's wrong, but the researchers at CERN have worked their entire careers on the subject of particle physics.??This man has worked in everything from linguistics to chemistry, suggesting that he's either inhumanly smart at everything, or mediocre with a desire for publicity.??I'd pick the latter.??The odds that he is trying to drum up controversy purely to advance his career are pretty good.??He's undoubtedly a very intelligent man, but he's debating against people who are arguably much more intelligent and have the benefit of experience on their side.
Dr Baldev strikes me as another shameless self-promoter (and there are quite a few of them in the physics world as well), mentioning over 500 publications, most likely taken from grad students and postdocs with little to no input on his part.??Oh, and it should be pointed out that he also does not have practical experience in particle physics, he works in non-destructive testing of materials, which is something entirely different than the LHC.??ENTIRELY.
The founder of the site has no discernable scientific credentials to speak of.??And people who run things like this are guaranteed to publish any and all scientific and pseudo-scientific degrees they can get their hands on.??It's a guaranteed thing.??And when we're talking about serious discussion of scientific experiments and particle physics, never bet on the guy who's "read a lot of stuff".??100% of the people I've met like that are considered crackpots for a reason, and never cut it in the physics world.
Now, if this was coming from something like Nature, or Physical Review B, or some other major peer-reviewed journal, then maybe you could take more stock in his opinion.??But the "Big Science is out to get us" argument screams crackpot.??Steorn also claimed "Big Science" was out to get them... and their perpetual motion machine.??This is not an argument credible people use, and it's all over that site.
Would I dismiss all of the information on the site???No.??But I dismiss the site itself as a credible source to be basing arguments from.
teOx Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole kthxbai.
The first line in that page is:
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Secondly: nobody seriously references Wikipedia. it's a great resource, but it's a fast-track to getting your paper and career rejected.?? It's one thing to tell me that I don't have a particle physics Ph.D., I know that, but don't back it up with
wikipedia.??It doesn't exactly scream "I have a detailed background in the subject" either.
Thirdly: If you're inclined to take wikipedia for the questionable source it is, the second paragraph in that source still backs up everything we're trying to say.??Harmless.
teOx Wrote:also i do not accept guarantees from people who cannot spell guarantee right 
And I don't accept science discussion where it's apparent no serious scientific analysis has been done.??It's all well and good to be concerned, but reading a couple sites about micro-black holes and then running around screaming "the sky is falling!" isn't doing anything positive.??Plus, I'd be willing to take the word of the people who theorized, designed, built, and based the majority of their life's work on this project over a website who quotes at best two people unrelated to the entire branch of physics beyond statements to generate high-profile media attention.
Is there a chance that bad things can happen???Sure.??I first heard about the CERN concerns near on 8 years ago, and even then it was a fairly widely-held belief that it was as unlikely as anything to happen.??The whole point about science is understanding the universe and if we were to avoid anything with even the slightest chance of going badly, we may as well just go back to caves and sustenance gathering because EVERYTHING has a risk.??But that's why we have actual, qualified particle physicists working on calculating the risk.
Now if we really want to get into it, I'll call up my friends from undergrad who actually are particle physicists and get their opinion, but honestly, there isn't that much to be worried about.
