yes exactly classical black holes, I was to understand it was in 2001 maybe here: published 27 September 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 161602 If the scale of quantum gravity is near TeV, the CERN Large Hadron Collider will be producing one black hole (BH) about every second. The decays of the BHs into the final states with prompt, hard photons, electrons, or muons provide a clean signature with low background. The correlation between the BH mass and its temperature, deduced from the energy spectrum of the decay products, can test Hawking’s evaporation law and determine the number of large new dimensions and the scale of quantum gravity. Which was also the inspiration for a new york times article that there was the idea that Mbh's could be created in a lab (note nothing to suggest Mr Wagner as a source for the idea). (note the date sad day Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Sorry cannot provide the links
The fourth post on this thread rebuts it. We haven't heard anything new since then. Wagner takes pains not to discuss any one model of destruction of the Earth because concrete models are far more easily dealt with than a stack of what-ifs.
Thank you Rpenner but i was more looking for Walters Theories. He said something about "It wont be an issue until lead collisions at high energies are undertaken" What does he mean by that?
Letters to the Editor, July, 1999, Scientific American, page 8: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28218663/Bonus-Poster (It takes a little while to load, it's the entire issue.) Both letters were highly edited prior to publication. I had written about the topic for about a decade in private correspondence before this was published.
Why would it be a problem with Lead on collisions at higher energies? What energies are we talking about and when will the lead on collisions happend? What kind of collisions will they be doing now?
News: Webcast from CERN control room on morning of March 30 as they attempt to collide two beams of 3.5 TeV protons head-on. √s = 7 TeV. Schedule: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/lhc-first-physics/webcast/ Webcast: http://webcast.cern.ch/lhcfirstphysics/
Now we have had LOTS of collisions at 7 TeV. Well, who were right? I think we know that by now. I think that the anti lhc people sould appology to the public because they have made allot of people worried.
Unless, of course, Dr.Kanti is correct and MBHs can't form under 8 TeV. And strangelets require even higher energies from the Pb-Pb collisions a few years from now? And, we still don't know what is being created - that will take some time for analysis.
They did it. Read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8593780.stm See my sarcastic post, with part of this BBC news in Paul's thread at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2510456&postcount=1887
Walter: No -- if Dr. Kanti is correct, then any "produced black hole will evaporate instantly after its creation" and therefore the LHC is safe at any speed. You don't have the credentials needed to slice and dice Dr. Kanti's review paper into just the parts you want to hear. And please explain why Pb-Pb collisions need higher energies, when there are only about 420 nucleons involved, with a binding energy of less than 0.000009 TeV/nucleon and the strange quark masses less than 0.00013 TeV/c² . √s = 7 TeV would seem to be the wrong scale.
April Fool's ridicule: http://www.physicscentral.com/buzz/blog/index.cfm?postid=6213900775430323108 (SPAIN) Serious news: http://www.lne.es/sociedad-cultura/2010/04/01/mundo-sobrevivio-choque-cosmico/894950.html (but mistaken in trivia when it says no antimatter) "La comunidad científica descartó desde el primer día cualquier cataclismo, pero nada como las malas noticias para tener éxito." "The scientific community dismissed from day one any cataclysm, but nothing succeeds like bad press." (BRAZIL) Wagner on the PR circuit: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/mund...fim de mundo diz oponente do lhc 9444462.html "Agora ele desvia sua atenção para as partículas quark, cujas experiências começam em alguns meses. “Elas vão acontecer em um volume bem maior que a colisão de prótons, e só temos teorias do que pode acontecer”. Enquanto isso, espera o resultado de sua apelação e prepara um artigo analisando os problemas de segurança do LHC, que espera publicar em uma revista científica de peso." "Now he turns his attention to the quark particles, whose experiences begin in a few months. "They will happen in a volume much larger than the collision of protons, and we only have theories of what may happen." Meanwhile, awaiting the outcome of his appeal and prepare a paper analyzing the safety problems of the LHC, which expects to publish in an important journal." More important than the letters column of Scientific American?
That was from my April 30, 2009 post 131. Is it possible that the Court is intentionally targeting their next Honolulu appearance in mid-June 2010? Or is it possible that the court clerks still can't make heads or tails out of the baseless claim that US Dollars are the only money to be considered by US Statues? (I'm sure the IRS has plenty of precedent otherwise.) Place your bets now. State court action 3PC08-1-000097 is on hold until at least April 14th as we await the reaction to another motion to disqualify a judge who won't recuse himself. Since the other judge is concerned about time, the trial (if any) should start really soon afterwards.
The federal appellate court is in San Francisco, not Honolulu, which is the only place where the next court appearance could be. The 3PC case, as shown by the filed documents, will next have a motion to dismiss before a new judge, dismissing the case on the basis that the public record shows no crime occurred, and that Mrs. Wagner had the legal status she signed a corporate document with.
That's just as baseless as your "Dollarz iz teh onleez moneez" argument. Local Circuit Rule 34-1 reads: "Appeals, applications for original writs, and petitions to review or enforce orders or decisions of administrative agencies may be heard at any session of the court in the circuit, as designated by the Court. Cases are generally heard in the administrative units where they arise. Petitions to enforce or review orders or decisions of boards, commissions or other administrative bodies shall be heard in the administrative unit in which the person affected by the order or decision is a resident, unless another place of hearing is ordered by the Court." And a note attached to these local rules describes these administrative units. "COURT STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES ... C. (1) Judges. The Court has an authorized complement of 28 judgeships. Upon the attainment of senior status, a judge may continue, within statutory limitations, to function as a member of the Court. There are several senior circuit judges who regularly hear cases before the Court. Although San Francisco is the Court’s headquarters, most of the active and senior judges maintain their residence chambers in other cities within the circuit. The residences and chambers of the Court’s judges, including its senior judges, are indicated in the listing of judges within these Rules. The Court has established three regional administrative units to assist the chief judge of the circuit to discharge his administrative responsibilities. They are the Northern, Middle and Southern units. The senior active judge in each unit is designated the administrative judge of the unit. • The Northern Unit includes the districts of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Eastern and Western Washington. • The Middle Unit includes the districts of Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, Northern and Eastern California, and the Northern Mariana Islands. • The Southern Unit includes the districts of Central and Southern California. Cases arising from the Northern Unit will normally be calendared in Seattle or Portland, from the Middle Unit in San Francisco, and from the Southern Unit in Pasadena. Cases may also be heard in such other places as the Court may designate." (Emphasis added)
"Cases arising from the Northern Unit will normally be calendared in Seattle or Portland, from the Middle Unit in San Francisco, and from the Southern Unit in Pasadena. Cases may also be heard in such other places as the Court may designate." http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/rules/rules.htm#1109149 The case is from the middle unit, and it would be a great exception to have it heard anywhere else other than San Francisco. Of course, the Court can do whatever it wants, even have it heard in D.C., but that's not going to happen. I see no reason why they would incur great expense to have all of them fly to Honolulu to have it heard there when no one is asking for that.
It's not like your case is going to heard en banc but by a three-judge panel, and the Court has long had planned to have February, June and October hearing dates in Honolulu for 2010. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/calendar/2010sitdates.pdf Its practice seems to be to have 3 sessions of hearings in Honolulu per year, as stated in the note above the rules. Paragraph G (4). So it's not like they would be running any special expense for a Hawaiian hearing. Here's the cases for Feb 2010 in Honolulu : http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/12/15/nhi02_10.pdf October 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/09/14/nUH101409.pdf October 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/09/22/nhi10_09.pdf May 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/03/19/nhi05_09.pdf February 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/01/26/nhi02_09.pdf February 2009: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/calendaring/2009/01/26/nUH021309.pdf When you claim to be an attorney or scientist, assertions made without basis look like an attempt to argue from authority -- you substitute the value of your own personal reputation and history for evidence of the claim. And when you are wrong, it weakens all your unsupported claims.
I was informed by the clerk that they did not meet in Honolulu. It looks like I was misinformed, and they seem to like to take Hawaii vacations a few times a year. Thanks for the correction.
I should also mention that no party has asked for an oral hearing before the appellate panel, and I believe they will make their decision based on the pleadings that have been filed.
