12-01-09, 03:24 PM #201
12-18-09, 12:13 AM #202
12-18-09, 03:28 AM #203
I saw a talk by John Ellis about the first LHC data earlier in the week. He's the guy who was on The Daily Show with Walter and who said 1.5K is 'fuckin' cold'. Big grey beard and a messy office.
He joked "Here's the first analysis of the collisions..... and no black holes!". Everyone in the room laughed, a fair few probably thinking of Walter since the clip of The Daily Show got emailed around the department when it was on.
12-18-09, 09:09 AM #204
John Ellis is also one of the authors of one of the few papers I found online attempting to model violations of quantum physics. (Y'know -- that unevidenced thing which has to be added to similarly unevidenced GR violations to begin the work to model long-lived TeV-scale black holes which no physics based on empirical observations suggests could be dangerous.) I get the idea that some people once thought neutral kaons were such violators, but I guess the consensus might be that flavor and mass eigenstates aren't the same, which would be confirmed by neutrino experiments.
12-19-09, 03:08 AM #205
February 2010 dates have been set in the appellate court and still no sign of Wagner's appeal going forward. (Wagner currently has a Feb. 8 data in Hawaiian State Court, so right now it doesn't look like he'll have to be in two courtrooms at the same time.) But even if he wins, the most he asked for was a trip back to District Court.
No sign of anyone with relevant expertise that would survive voir dire chiming in on Wagner's side. No sign of a physics argument. No sign of an evidence-based argument.
Finally, LHC is in standby, ready to resume in Feb. 2010.
12-24-09, 12:16 PM #206
Here's a good link to John Ellis doing just that:
One can only hope that their physics is better than their acting.
12-24-09, 12:35 PM #207
I love how you're trying to come off as the informed voice of reason when you're nothing by a fraudulent hack. It's quite funny.
12-26-09, 05:40 PM #208
Well Wagner since you have completly FAILED to answer or show any physics of your own on the subject (still waiting for those answers btw), it's fair to say his physics is indeed better than yours, and come to think of it so is his acting...
Why wont you answer the questions? why wont you show us the theories that say 350%, why dont u tell us your real credentials and what you are a doctor in???
12-26-09, 06:12 PM #209
He's nothing more than a glory-seeker that likes to see his name in the news, a lot like the couple that crashed the White House dinner. In truth, he's nothing but a waste of an individual AND wastes the government's money (yours and mine) on court actions that can't go anywhere.
12-29-09, 12:20 PM #210
I am not a lawyer and I also have some difficulties understanding the american processes, but I would like to understand if the process against LHC is now over or not, and whether it is who "won".
I tried reading this thread, but I didn't understand.
12-29-09, 02:50 PM #211
Winning in US court is not final until the US Supreme Court is given the chance to weigh in on every argument or the opposing side gives up. That being said, there are no victories for the Wagner side, but a couple times where the judge said both sides should follow the court rules. Wagner lost at least 1) the claim that certain European documents and laws governed the behavior of the US 2) the claim that the US law covered US behavior in the funding of LHC 3) the demand for an order preventing the US from paying science teams.
Here is how it is supposed to go:
[Team A makes (written) claims and demands]->[Team B makes reply]->[Team A responds to the reply and argues it should still get its demands]->[Hearing of both sides in court]->[Written order of the court granting or denying demands]
Then either side can appeal on any issue and we try again, potentially repeating until the Supreme Court.
March 21, 2008 Sancho and Wagner advance many arguments and claims. But it is not until April 25, 2008 that Sancho and Wagner bother to tell the US Government that it is being sued. On June 24, 2008, the US Government moves to dismiss the case against the US Government based on things like the law does not say what Wagner says it does, and that the facts are not what Wagner says they are, and that suing the US over monies already spent can have no effect on what happens on the French-Swiss border.
On September 2, 2008 a judge held a hearing and orders both sides to follow the rules of the court better.
Separately, on May 28, 2008 Wagner tries to legally tell CERN that they are being sued in US Court, but chooses to hide this from the court until June 30, 2008 when Wagner produces documentation (including an opinion that the service was not legal) and ask the court for a finding of default against CERN. On September 5, 2008, the US Government argues that a finding of default against CERN would not be proper. On September 9, 2008, the Judge thinks that Wagner has skipped a step and requests that Sancho and Wagner address the Hague convention which governs aspects of international lawsuits.
Wagner requests (and gets) a timeout (continuance) to read up on the subject and move from Hawaii to Utah. This slows down Wagner's pursuit of a default judgement against CERN, which I argue is doomed.
October 14, 2008 -- Hearing on default judgment versus CERN
* Wagner's own process server says that the service was illegal
* The Swiss Embassy says the service was illegal
* The US Government says the service was illegal
* Wagner points out that some form of service was physically accomplished, which was not the point at issue and while he seems to have cut-and-pasted an essay on Rule 4(f) and the Hague Convention he cites no cases giving leave for him to ignore them.
But the court never gets around to addressing the issue since it ruled on the US motion to dismiss first.
The court said as a matter of U.S. law Sancho and Wagner had no right to bring this suit against any party. (The only law that might have applied does not apply when the US Government is not at least a 10% funder of the project.) The Court did not address two other arguments made by the US Government (that the claims of being hurt by the LHC were purely "conjectural [and] hypothetical” dreaming and not “concrete and particularized” and that the US does not control what happens outside of the US with monies long since spent.
So says the US District Court.
So when Wagner (some say Sancho and Wagner) appealed this to the US Circuit Court, they were arguing against this dismissal. The US Government called them on a number of points, including reiterating claims made to but not considered by the District court as additional reasons to uphold the decision to throw out the case. (Sancho and Wagner, not being actual lawyers looked surprised by this tactic, though it seems spelled out plainly in the rules of the court.) So again we had the pattern of:
[I should be allowed to continue my case]->[No you shouldn't, here's why]->[Argh! That's not what I want to hear!]->....
The next steps are a hearing and a court order. But right now no hearing is scheduled. It is the duty of the court clerks (who are expected to also be lawyers, and have authority to rule on some motions) of the appellate court to read the papers, research the case and laws cited, determine how much time is needed for a hearing, and to schedule it. Wagner's filings have been a little weird (at times he marks up the papers of others with a pen that does not photocopy well and files that as an exhibit and he advanced the argument that US Dollars are the only funding source that US law cares about, without citation) and he never asked for an expedited appeal, so we have waited since June 29, 2009 for the court to schedule a hearing in regards to the appeal of throwing out Wagner's case.
If Wagner wins, he gets to go back to the District court (who could throw out the case again on as yet unaddressed grounds). So a "Win" in this appeal case just cancels out a previous "Loss."
I am not a lawyer. (IANAL)
I'm pro-LHC, but not affiliated (even indirectly) with any plaintiff, defendant, affidavit submitter, funding source, press agency, law school, etc, and know of no basis where I might be a potential witness, jurist or added party to the covered case. Nor do I have academic or equivalent credentials which would relate to any facet of this case as a first-rank expert witness. (Some physics and math Ph.D. students think I'm well-versed for a layman, but a layman I am.) Nor am I a member of the Union of Collaborating Founders (UCF), a group which some anti-LHC websites describe as a pro-LHC think tank, a depiction which I feel is unfair.
I've been replying to scare stories about the LHC since about March 29, 2006 and got my interest peaked in legal proceedings by being a regular reader on groklaw.net -- which focused largely on one Unix/Linux vendor's suits against the Linux-using world and eventual Chapter 11 bankruptcy. I think I first became aware of Walter L. Wagner with his posts of September 3, 2007, and attempted to engage him in plain physics discussion. Until 2008 television coverage, I have never seen his face or heard his voice. And if there is any organized opposition to him, I have never met with them either.
Last edited by rpenner; 12-29-09 at 02:55 PM. Reason: Adding in what winning means
12-30-09, 06:01 AM #212
Thanks rpenner, very kind of you.
Still, it's hard to me to understand what is now the request by Wagner, hasn't he had time to review the LSAG report? At least the Scientific Community had. I read the reply to the LSAG by Sancho, but I can't believe they are still working on those points, that's crazy.
01-02-10, 09:43 AM #213
An interesting legal analysis of the case can be found at:
76 Tenn. Law Review 819 (2009)
For those who do not have ready access to a law library, the author (Assistant Professor of Law, University of North Dakota School of Law. B.A.,
University of Texas at Austin, Plan II Honors Program; J.D., Harvard Law School.) also posted it on arXiv at:
01-02-10, 12:38 PM #214
Often repeated in Professor Eric Johnson's analysis is this sentiment that mischaracterizes science.
For every potential expert witness has a personal stake in the matter—whether it is a desire to maintain a viable career in the sciences, or a fear of falling into an astronomical abyss.
As first seen on his website, http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsb...-eating-b.html , which in many ways is a preview of this article, we also see Johnson is hung up on confirmation of scientific theory and not the actual role of experimentation in invalidating them.
The lesson of the SSC was clear. To keep projects safe from cancellation in the future, physicists would have to pull together and work to stay one step ahead of political threats—lest particle physics be plunged into darkness.
No one would have expected what happened next. In a plot twist worthy of The Twilight Zone, a problem arrived straight out of the fifth dimension.
Embarking on that examination, the report conceded that, under the new theory, black holes “will be produced.”
Black holes evaporating? According to the classical account of black holes, evaporation is impossible—a black hole ingests everything and allows nothing out.187
Bearing this in mind, Rössler ran some numbers to calculate how long it would likely take black holes to grow to the point where they would be a threat. According to his calculations, LHC-produced black holes might grow fast enough that the world might end slightly more than five years after the LHC’s first full-energy collisions.228
Nothing like a reviewable basis for calculation was presented, however, so there is nothing to support the claim that "Rössler ran some numbers" through anything like a reasonable physical theory. Indeed, his misunderstandings of even 1916-era black holes are those of a man out of his depth.
In point of fact, no one could look less like a mad scientist hell-bent on building a doomsday machine than Mangano.
According to their analysis, the answer depends on how many hidden dimensions there are in the universe.254
Thus, the old argument—that the Earth is still here despite all the cosmic rays, so we must be safe from the LHC—failed in the view of Giddings and Mangano to provide adequate assurances of safety.
One consideration is whether the expert’s asserted theories are testable, falsifiable, and refutable.468
The theories of Rössler469 and Plaga470 can only be confirmed through the obliteration of the court, the parties, and the planet.
In discussing the indirect evidence relied upon by Carlos Rubbia and CERN physicists in 1981 for claiming discovery of the W and Z bosons, science historians Lloyd Motz and Jefferson Hane Weaver wrote, “One cannot avoid a feeling of uneasiness about this kind of physics, since so much of it is based on the assumed existence of particles that cannot be observed.”477
Given such a state, it is not clear that any particle-physics testimony should be allowed in the courtroom. The singular and perhaps dubious methodological pedigree of the particle-physics discipline might require its exclusion from the courtroom if it were somehow offered as proof of causation in a personal injury case or to identify the assailant in a murder trial.
Daubert instructs that another pertinent, though not dispositive consideration is whether the scientific theory at issue has been subjected to peer review and publication.478
Last edited by rpenner; 01-02-10 at 07:02 PM.
01-02-10, 07:27 PM #215
I personally did feel an uneasy bias in this paper, but curiously, (unless i missed this), did he not note that not one of the 7000 ppl that dont directly work for cern are concerned enough to feel a paper is required?.
I mean didnt the LSAG report regardless of who made it get approved by every scientific council on earth?
Or are those respected institutions omitted for drama's sake?
Not to dis Prof. Johnson but it seems only logical you would include such approvals for the legal council?
note i may have missed it if he did include remarks for this, i just couldnt find them
02-05-10, 01:48 PM #216
No news in US Federal Appellate Court. 08-17389 has no trial before March 15.
In Hawaii State Court, Criminal Case 3PC08-1-000097 continues.
Jan 19 Court starts to consider Wagner's motion to put a leash on some "inflammatory" and/or "misleading" evidence, State asked to delay trial, more time was asked for.
Jan 22 Court considers the two motions. Wagner's motion denied. State's motion granted. Trial moved to Feb 16
Feb 2 Mrs. Wagner's attorney requests a transcript; perhaps an appeal or request for reconsideration is being written.
02-05-10, 02:40 PM #217
The below copied from an email I received:
CERN / LHC recent news: “Science Insider”:February 2, 2010 “Europe’s LHC to Run at Half-Energy, Tightening Race for Higgs The world’s highest energy atom smasher, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), will run at half its maximum energy through 2011 and likely not at all in 2012. Officials at the European particle physics laboratory, CERN, had previously planned to run the gargantuan accelerator at 70% of maximum energy this year. […]” http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencei...an-atomsm.html Short explanation: This means that the new phase of operation planned to start mid February 2010 with energy increase up to 3.5 TeV per beam (resulting in 7 TeV centre of mass energy) - which would 3.5 times exceed the highest energies of other colliders – is planned to be expanded through 2011. The reasons given are technical concerns and problems. Obviously further adjustment and replacement of elements for higher energies are complex and costly. Critics claim that the LHC should not start operating at all before completion of properly constituted neutral and multidisciplinary safety studies including newest theoretical and empirical research. “Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes” in: “Science NOW”, 22 January 2010http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/122/1 ”Does that mean the LHC will make black holes? Not necessarily, Choptuik says. The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum. So the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. Predicted by certain theories, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor.” Thus, the computer simulation gives another evidence that black holes could be produced at the LHC according to widely respected theories. This newest experiment cannot show that black holes produced at the LHC would be harmless or short lived. Prof. Eric E. Johnson’s recent paper is in continuous discussion: “The law and the Large Hadron Collider: who should have jurisdiction?”By Lena | Published: February 4, 2010 “After court cases seeking to halt the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) were thrown out of Swiss and Hawaiian law courts, one US lawyer is arguing that it and other hypothetically destructive experiments should not expect to be beyond the rule of law.In February’s Physics World, journalist Edwin Cartlidge looks at the argument put forward by lawyer Eric E Johnson in the Tennessee Law Review that courts must assert their jurisdiction over these large experiments — or face rendering the rule of law obsolete.[…]”http://iopblog.org/law-large-hadron-...—– “Physics World”IOP - A website from the Institute of Physics “Law and the end of the world”Feb 2, 2010 “Edwin Cartlidge examines the case of a US lawyer who believes that the courts must step in if required to halt experiments like the Large Hadron Collider”http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/41564 Pdf. see attachement.
02-05-10, 03:26 PM #218
Yes, Eric E Johnson has a bee in his bonnet about bugaboos, but his position is contradictory. This he should have realized himself once he started manipulating infinity as if it were a number.
US courts cannot require person X to do task Y -- that is tantamount to slavery or indentured servitude. In the absence of law, you cannot require X to do Y before doing Z when Z is something not even controlled by law. Indeed Congress is ordered by the US Constitution to help do Z. (Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 8)
US civil courts decide on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence and criminal courts decide on the basis of reasonable doubt. These are impossible burdens for someone who doesn't know the state of the frontiers of physics to overcome. Neither Wanger, Sancho, nor Roessler is anywhere near that frontier, and the proof is in the lack of maths. Wagner, in his most visible public calculation misapplied Bayesian statistics and admitted his own personal complete ignorance of if the LHC poses a threat or not. Sancho has never presented a calculation. Roessler makes freshman physics mistakes and doesn't show his work.
There is no such thing as a permanent injunction of lawful activity. You might apply for a temporary injunction on the basis of a balance of harms and the likelihood of winning. And since in the absence of being anywhere near the frontier of physics, all the doom saying in the world is physically equivalent to claiming in court that the LHC will produce miniature pink unicorns which will magically cause loss of life.
While Choptuik and Pretorius don't add much evidence, they just restate long-assumed and argued-for results computed numerically on a machine. They reconfirm with automated arithmetic what had been long the status quo of math-educated intuition. Because they did no further work, their work likewise adds no evidence that black holes, even if they formed, would be dangerous. Notably, they don't discuss any quantum effects, fermions, or even cases with finite net angular momentum and/or charge. http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1780
Last edited by rpenner; 02-05-10 at 03:49 PM.
02-06-10, 02:55 AM #219
You do realise that extra dimensions large enough to enable the LHC to create black holes would have been experimentally accessible for a long time at other colliders don't you?
02-06-10, 09:24 AM #220