Large Hardon Collider

[Eliseos]

Well, I tried finding the source through citations in Wiki, but the article cited comes up with "this article no longer exists" or something.

There is a reason this citation was removed from wiki. Only credible sources can be used on wikipedia, and there are so many people watching various articles that they have knowledge in, that a suspicious source will be scrutinized almost immediately.

Not going to get into the actual science of it, everyone else covered pretty much everything. All the good discussion happens when I'm at class

[Kaylia]

Well, I tried finding the source through citations in Wiki, but the article cited comes up with "this article no longer exists" or something. I've seen "1 in 50 million" thrown around a lot in regards to the topic, but if it really is just a BS number, then my bad. D:

I think the primary issue I've come across is the assertion by LHC critics that while the collisions created by the LHC happen on a regular basis when cosmic rays collide with the atmosphere or whatnot (apologies if I worded it incorrectly), the micro black holes created are moving at such a high velocity that they pass through the Earth without doing anything noticeable, while the ones that the LHC could potentially create would be trapped in the Earth's gravitational field. Is there any validity to this claim?

I forgot the details, but the original explanation I heard for the 1 in 50 millions was a guess based on a theory related to the matter asymetry in our universe.
At the moment, no model is able to give us a satisfying answer to this question (we would need to link QM to GR at least before attempting a serious answer) and using numbers produced by a most likely incorrect model using a hypothetical scenario is stupid. It's very easy to destroy the universe using incorect model, but it doesn't make the real thing more unstable.


I would like to give you a more detailed explanation about the original reasoning, but it's beyond my skill. All I can say is what everyone already repeated...if something could happen, it would have happened already. We know the force involved, we the particles we are dealing with, and such scenario is virtually impossible (or at least, as unlikely as gravity not working when you drop something)



[edit]
Off topic, QM equation like this make me hard.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/7/d...a08e905e32.png
No clue what this one is about, just copy pasted it from CP violation page.

[Kryssan]

If the number you quote was something developed, it was most likely the same thing they use in nuclear power. People don't want to hear what you're asking me can happen can't happen, they want to hear the chance what they're suggesting might happen can happen, even if the proposed idea is an infinite improbability.


In nuclear power, this is called 'lifetime risk'. Its a percentage code developed based on the data from all events related to nuclear power compared to other events that occur in real life to develop a statistic of the probability of someone dying as the result of a nuclear accident.


That being said, if you're curious to know, that number for nuclear power is ~0.04%. Your lifetime risk for dying in a car accident is ~12%, to give you something as a comparison value. So without knowing the source, if the source is credible, I would assume thats where the number originated from for the LHC too. A comparison of events based on equipment/human/miscellaneous failures that have in the past resulted in the loss of human life. That being said, this comparison is a horribly inaccurate one and honestly doesn't cover it all - what it does do is give someone who wants an answer to a stupid question an answer they can understand that they don't realize is stupid to begin with.





If you want to be all crybaby boohoohoo zomg science is gonna kill us all about something, cry about CERN/FNAL's antimatter production. That actually has the potential to level a few countries/states near CERN/FNAL's laboratories, assuming they could find enough funding to make it.

During a year-long period between 1997 and 1998, FNAL produced 1 ng of antiprotons. This was done in the midst of a very large experimental program which did not have sufficient funds to run 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. The instantaneous production rates were around 10^11 antiprotons/hour, so a full year of operation would have produced 8.8 x 10^14 antiprotons. This equates to an annual yield of approximately 1.5 ng, which is 3 to 4 orders of magnitude less than the quantities required for missions using ACMF and AIM.

1 gram of antimatter produces an energy of ~9 x 10^13 joules. 1 nanogram would be 10^-9 grams. In 2001, the US's gross energy consumption was 10^20 joules. Just some reference values for you. Funny, that. I've never heard anyone crying about the antimatter bomb about to kill us all. I can't possibly fathom the reason why (please be sure to read this italicized statement with as much dripping sarcasm as possible for correct effect). Humans don't care about how things are. They only care about the worst things could possibly be utilizing their vast superior intellectual capabilities on subject matter of which they know not.

[Kaylia]

That being said, if you're curious to know, that number for nuclear power is ~0.04%.

4/10 000 die from this? Unless your data was gathered not too long after hiroshima bombing, this number should be lower (or maybe I'm missing something obvious).


Anyway, assuming the threat was valid, a 1:50 million chance to wipe mankind can't be compared to a 1:50 millions chance that an individual get killed. A selfish person wouldn't see the difference, but many wish that mankind progress, even after their death. If we all dies at the same time, it makes everything worthless.

1 gram of antimatter produces an energy of ~9 x 10^13 joules. 1 nanogram would be 10^-9 grams. In 2001, the US's gross energy consumption was 10^20 joules. Just some reference values for you. Funny, that. I've never heard anyone crying about the antimatter bomb about to kill us all. I can't possibly fathom the reason why (please be sure to read this italicized statement with as much dripping sarcasm as possible for correct effect). Humans don't care about how things are. They only care about the worst things could possibly be utilizing their vast superior intellectual capabilities on subject matter of which they know not.

I really want to see an asteroid made of antimatter hit a planet.

[Kilhart]

Your lifetime risk for dying in a car accident is ~12%, to give you something as a comparison value.

That number is surprisingly high to me. o_O

[Kryssan]

4/10 000 die from this? Unless your data was gathered not too long after hiroshima bombing, this number should be lower (or maybe I'm missing something obvious).


Anyway, assuming the threat was valid, a 1:50 million chance to wipe mankind can't be compared to a 1:50 millions chance that an individual get killed. A selfish person wouldn't see the difference, but many wish that mankind progress, even after their death. It's kinda pointless to study it, if we destroy ourselves in the process.

Sure they can. You multiply the statistic for killing one person by the number of humans on the planet, thus deriving the percentage chance of wiping out mankind on the planet. And yes, that would be the point - this is a pointless debate. These statistics are developed with a wide variety of variables that encompass a large scope and are generated to give people who don't care about actually learning the science a number they can associate with. That's it.


Believe it or not, lots of people have died as a result of nuclear power. No, the atomic weapons do not count - those are nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. The lifetime risk associated with nuclear power is a silly value that, depending on the most limiting variables they could apply to given situations, what the proportion of people exposed that would be killed as a result of being exposed in those situations. This number is thrown askew from simple facts such as that of a human being within the shielded volume of an operational commercial reactor would be killed within minutes - but it IS possible that a human COULD access that space, so even though there's no way in hell someone would startup a reactor with personnel locked in the shielded volumes, the potential that it could happen does still exist.

[Eliseos]

That number is surprisingly high to me. o_O

Since you seem to be afraid of even walking out the door for fear of hurting yourself, I give you Neil deGrasse Tyson. This may (probably) have been posted already, but so be it. YouTube - 10 Questions for Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Kilhart]

Since you seem to be afraid of even walking out the door for fear of hurting yourself

That's not my mindset. I simply thought the portion of yearly worldwide deaths attributed to car accidents was much smaller, unless I'm interpreting the concept of lifetime risk incorrectly.

[Woozie]

That's not my mindset. I simply thought the portion of yearly worldwide deaths attributed to car accidents was much smaller, unless I'm interpreting the concept of lifetime risk incorrectly.

Yeah, that's the same thing I was thinking when I saw that statistic. Either I'm misinterpreting its meaning or it's just much higher than I thought. Same with the nuclear power stat. How exactly do people die from nuclear power? And what exactly does the statistic mean? I know you explained it a bit, but I don't understand it. I know 0.04% of the population isn't going to die due to nuclear power, and I seriously doubt that 0.04% of the people who even work for the nuclear power plants will die from nuclear power. That stat just seems way too high, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kryssan]

Not really, car accidents are one of the leading causes of deaths for a reason, and lifetime risk in that particular case is a percentage chance of a person dying from being involved in a car accident, and all the factors that entails.


Let me explain this a little more indepth. This is essentially derived from two functions, though there are more factors, these are the majors as far as NRC is concerned:

• The probability that a person living near a nuclear power plant will die soon after a nuclear accident from radiation released in the accident must be less than 0.1% of the total probability that a person will be killed by any accident.

• The probability of death from cancer for any member of the public following an accident must be less than 0.1% of the total probability that a person will die of cancer from all causes.

Numerically, the stated probability per year that a person will die is 0.04%. This number was derived from a vast variety of studies, the most extensive of which was a safety study of 5 selected nuclear power plants in 1990, and consisted of four fundamental parts: the frequency of core damage (internal and external), radioactive source term inside the containment, the probability of a containment failure, and the calculated off-site consequences. The results of the study were that the likelihood per year of an accident at a nuclear power plant large enough to cause at least one early fatality to the public is in the range of one in one million to one in one billion per year. However, the 0.04% lifetime risk number is not an average probability of all the studies they conducted - it is the most limiting of all the studies conducted, so it is the one used. This comes out to 4 in 10000, as stated previously by Kaylia. Therefore the safety goal of a plant as set by the NRC is to be 1000 times above that limit, or four people in at least ten million for a design basis casualty with radioactive release to the environment.

[Kilhart]

Not really, car accidents are one of the leading causes of deaths for a reason, and lifetime risk in that particular case is a percentage chance of a person dying from being involved in a car accident, and all the factors that entails.

Ohhh, I was misinterpreting it, lol. I had read it as "you have a 12% chance of a car accident happening to you and killing you some time in your lifetime," which made no sense to me, since something like 3% of all deaths in the US are caused by motor accidents.

[Kaylia]

Not really, car accidents are one of the leading causes of deaths for a reason, and lifetime risk in that particular case is a percentage chance of a person dying from being involved in a car accident, and all the factors that entails.


Let me explain this a little more indepth. This is essentially derived from two functions, though there are more factors, these are the majors as far as NRC is concerned:

• The probability that a person living near a nuclear power plant will die soon after a nuclear accident from radiation released in the accident must be less than 0.1% of the total probability that a person will be killed by any accident.

• The probability of death from cancer for any member of the public following an accident must be less than 0.1% of the total probability that a person will die of cancer from all causes.

Numerically, the stated probability per year that a person will die is 0.04%. This number was derived from a vast variety of studies, the most extensive of which was a safety study of 5 selected nuclear power plants in 1990, and consisted of four fundamental parts: the frequency of core damage (internal and external), radioactive source term inside the containment, the probability of a containment failure, and the calculated off-site consequences. The results of the study were that the likelihood per year of an accident at a nuclear power plant large enough to cause at least one early fatality to the public is in the range of one in one million to one in one billion per year. However, the 0.04% lifetime risk number is not an average probability of all the studies they conducted - it is the most limiting of all the studies conducted, so it is the one used. This comes out to 4 in 10000, as stated previously by Kaylia. Therefore the safety goal of a plant as set by the NRC is to be 1000 times above that limit, or four people in at least ten million for a design basis casualty with radioactive release to the environment.

Fancy use of the list tag. I didnt even know you could do that.



Personally, I disagree with this way of doing statistics (if I understand it correctly), because you're going to end up with something well above 100%.

[Khamsin]

How many Christians do you know that don't eat shellfish?

Approximately 2%, in the United States.

[Eliseos]

Saturn was always my favorite planet, didn't notice this until I saw it on the latest news on Wikipedia Rings of Saturn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spoiler: show

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...hoebering2.jpg

[Pirian]

Approximately 2%, in the United States.

It's probably about the same, if not less, for Jew's who don't eat pork.

[Mizango]

Got an email about an hour ago from NGT regarding the OMGDOOMDAY!!! prophecy. 2012 was wrong and completely wrong to begin with and has always been since the beginning of time. If you've read this thread in its entirety you will reach the Apophis section in which it was noted time and time again that if Apophis passed through what we call a "keyhole" zone in space then it would indeed hit us 2036 iirc.

Well long story short he is at a NASA conference today where they announced that they have all but ruled out this even taking place. I feel special in a weird way because I was one of 4 people he sent this too, but considering all the major scientists around the world are at this conference in Orlando I suppose I shouldn't feel that special. But oh well, here is the article for those interested.

Apophis' Odds of Earth Impact Downgraded | Universe Today

Tell Grandma and your delusional mother that jack shit is going to happen so don't sell off all of her worldly possessions or go buying underground bunkers please! I watched Zombieland and saw the trailers for 2012 and omg you should hear the random "YO BRO, THAT'S REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN. BLACK HOLES ARE MOVING TOWARDS THE EARTH AS WE SPEAK"

Again, leave the science to Scientists.

[Marius]

just had a great conversation with my friend doing his PHD with pulsars and he pointed me to this site thought i'd post it incase people didn't know about it.

http://www.galaxyzoo.org/

If you have heard bout it theres also hopefully gonna be a pulsar zoo project within the next year or so which is being setup at the moment.

and just for fun, heres some pulsar sounds:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/Education/Sounds/

[Mizango]

just had a great conversation with my friend doing his PHD with pulsars and he pointed me to this site thought i'd post it incase people didn't know about it.

http://www.galaxyzoo.org/

If you have heard bout it theres also hopefully gonna be a pulsar zoo project within the next year or so which is being setup at the moment.

and just for fun, heres some pulsar sounds:
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~pulsar/Education/Sounds/

BG Search Galaxyzoo Ive been a member of that site for a few years as well. Good to see someone else on the boards is a member there!

[Marius]

i was too lazy to search it but posting it anyway so more people know bout it.
Only just joined up so not actually done anything yet, looks like something worthwhile to do to pass the time.

dunno of the pulsar one is gonna be affiliated with it or not, but if my friend lets me know any more info about it i'll pass it on.

[Mizango]

Oh and yes we will be doing one for Pulsars and Quasars very soon, we released one for help finding Supernovae back in the later part of July of this year. Its free and really fun for anyone interested. If any of you guys need help joining or anything ill be happy to help.

I'm not sure if they still do but you used to have to past a 20 question test after you got a brief run down on galaxy types, supernovae types and general space knowledge to keep the unhelpful tards out.

The review is easy if you just take a few minutes to look over it and get to know your stellar home Ive been trying to get people to join for years, funny you would bring this up lol.