I see, not the administrator, never met the administrator yet you, r[ed]*penner have a surprising access to add to others' posts. I must be deeply naive about the priviledges - direly meagre of course that they clearly are - that moderators have; over there atleast.

Correct?


*I have been worryingly slow - my apologies.

Moderator functions on most forums are limited, usually to the deleting of posts, the moving of threads and of course the occasional edit. Some moderators can be more disciplined and others more lapse. In any case, points about editing on another forum is completely moot when talking about it on a completely different forum.

As for the subject of the thread... I'm still pretty sure that to generate something of a worldly destructive capability would probably require more energy and stability of equipment. In essence the equipment would break before any serious global threat (if there was going to be one of course)

Incidentally during the atomic tests scientists were concerned that the Atmosphere would "Chain react and Catch light". We are still here and have both the benefits and consequences of nuclear fission.

I don't change the contents of threads, if that's what he's complaining about.

The point is, there are no good theoretical motivations for ``disaster scenarios'', as these guys are talking about. The argument here is akin to saying ``You know, I could get hit by a bus if I leave the house today, so I better stay in.'' The people who are worried about the destruction of the universe due to the LHC are not physicists, don't understand fully the process of theoretical physics, and ignore wholly those who do.

I think he's complaining about rough treatment at physicsforums.com, but as neither you or I are the moderator or administrator there, coming here to complain seems pointless.

Mixed in with that are some complaints about physforum.com, but as I have only been moderator since about March, and don't recall taking any action whatsoever with regards to a poster named Eric2, my confidence in my own fair play goes on completely unmolested.

But I do (on physforum, and physforum alone) edit severely claims or specific recommendations of medical treatment where there is no evidence that the poster is a doctor and if they were a doctor they have breached good practice in prescribing treatment of unexamined, anonymous people of the Internet. The delete button was made for such work.

I do delete the most obvious examples of commercial posts.

I do try and stem anti-science denialism and pettifoggery where it could result in real harm (as say with current public policy with issues like the LHC, evolution, AIDS, climate science, Holocaust facts, elementary mathematics, water fluoridation, nature of vaccination, and autism) but ignore it where it is basically impotent (true cause of 9-11, claims of Godhood). Where the posters are honest, I am helpful and informative. Where they are dishonest concern trolls, I make them honest by annotating their various long-debunked claims and rhetorical tricks. Since they were really there as advocates of a particular point of view and not actually "just asking questions," this quite naturally makes them upset.

But of Eric2, I know nothing.

Stryder, BenTheMan
- I was being sarcastic in moderators generally have the access to insert others' posts. After putting through an offence free post, I have had my registration there withdrawn. But I joined this forum to discuss lhc. What purpose is served by putting red text into others' posts there I fail to see. But I will try not to dwell on this further.

rpenner
I was quite aware of how the graphs I mentioned are supposed to support the thermal model. But they still don't specifically add support to the claim that part strange baryons/mesons are less likely with increased energy; from the noncomparable data given there. Even so, neither this nor baryon chemical potential relates to the distillation possibility. Using search, your 100p paper apparently makes no reference to distillation anywhere.

Please explain the notation you use, what is M for example, otherwise I can only make good guesses except for chemical potential is clear.

Let me correct my comment about baryon chemical potential. As I now see it, chemical potential bears on the raw material for possible strangelet production from distillation. It seems, in one significant sense, that lower baryon chemical potential decreases the prospect for strangelet production.

However fig6 of arxiv.org/abs/0811.4077v1 indicates that, for higher collision energy, strange to antistrange particle ratios are higher with greater rapidity. Therefor the relationship is not so clear (see b) below).

Overall though, I'm reaching the view that it's the multiplicity - how much a particular particle is likely to show up (if my understanding is correct) - that relates most directly to strangelet production prospects through distillation.

Overall, looking further at your earlier recommended papers, rpenner, I am actually grateful for what look like useful looking papers to this side of the argument. I am even surprised to discover:

a) From those papers you had already mentioned nobody refers to Rijken et al

b) C Greiner doesn't refer to LHC at all in arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9809268v1.

c) strangelet distillation is still theoretically alive and well

d) predictions of increase for production of strange negative multiple hypernuclei above 190GeV is indicated by fig2 of from arxiv.org/abs/0811.4077v1

e) A new project, FAIR, involves searches for detection of - what I would call strangelets (including negative) - of various sorts. When have the claims for production of the metastable negative strangelets of lifetimes 10^-4 - 10^-5s been demonstrated as unreliable? Such a lifetime appears accepted by Adrian Kent (arXiv:hep-ph/0009130v2) and Wilczek et al (2000) as potentially catastrophic. Infact..
f) This lifetime is reitterated in your recommended 1998 paper arxiv:hep-ph/9809268v1.

So we sit back and find out?

Or we look for strangelets only emerging from cosmic rays where the situation is no more different/potentially hazardous than usual?

I'm minimizing off bars!!