Large Hadron Collider Concerns

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by __your_Zahir_, Aug 10, 2008.

  1. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    I do not normally post responses to libelous ad hominem attacks, but make an exception here. I would like to remind the audience that "Prometheus" is a novice at Sciforums, having joined less than two months ago, and has clearly not read my posts going back several years. My work in physics goes back to the early 1970s, including federal employment in nuclear physics for many years. While some people may not like those facts, facts they are.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Lamont Cranston Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    Well I happen to know that Walter is an extremely fine botanist (as a simple google search will prove), though his minor may be in physics. I therefore credit him with the intelligence to be able to make sensible and informed comments in this field.

    And he has published in physics journals, but not very recently.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. orcot Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,488
    ... What would happen if you actually put a pigeon in it?
     
  8. Lamont Cranston Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    It would be vaporised instantly
     
  9. Trixter Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    I've got four words for you all that explain why you don't have to listen to Walter Wagner on issues related to particle colliders:

    Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider

    He raised all these concerns trying to stop full energy collisions at the RHIC. He even filed lawsuits trying to stop that collider. The result? After being bounced out of both courts the RHIC went online and provided experimental data for scientists without ending life as we know it. Walter went back to his botanical Hawaii lair to plot his next scheme to thwart those pesky kids and their particle accelerators. At some point you have to stop and consider the source, and our source for the gloom and doom predictions over the LHC is the same guy making the same gloom and doom predictions he made about the RHIC (which has been operational for 8 years).

    The real danger of the LHC? That those darned Euros shoot ahead of us in the race for discovery.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
    The very fact that black hole similarity has been suggested (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm) and additional security reviews are taking place says, asking for safety analysis is not the province of crackpots. In fact, asking to forego safety is the province of idiots. And the world is full of them!
     
  11. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Excellent point. The real risk is the one that we don't see coming.
     
  12. kmguru Staff Member

    Messages:
    11,757
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Prometheus has been around on PhysOrg for quite a while. Besides, if you're a physicist with plenty of credentials, it shouldn't be too hard to find them. Yet they do seem to be thin on the ground. The only biography of your work I can find is here :

    "Walter Wagner graduated UC Berkeley with a Minor in Physics, and a Major in Biology. Later, he discovered a novel particle in a balloon-borne cosmic ray detector, initially identified as a magnetic monopole. Though its identity remains uncertain, it is definitely not within the standard repertoire of known particles. After a three-year break from science to attend law school, Dr. Wagner resumed work in Physics and Biology at the US Veterans Administration Medical Center in San Francisco, working in Nuclear Medicine and Health Physics. He then embarked on teaching Science and Mathematics, from grade school to college. Dr. Wagner developed a botanical garden in Hawaii, and continues involvement with several professional associations, including Health Physics Society and Society of Nuclear Medicine."

    So what Prometheus has said is correct and what you're saying is blurring over the details. You didn't do a degree majoring in physics and since there's no mention of a PhD, it would seem you don't have one. Your bio there lies about you discovering a monopole, noone thinks you did and the Wikipedia page which was edited by someone to say you did has long since had that claim removed. Your comment ' including federal employment in nuclear physics for many years' is technically true but nothing to do with this area of physics, it was much more inline with your knowledge of biology. Working in the area of radiation based therapies is technically working in nuclear physics and I'm sure the government signed your payslip but would I take the views of someone running an MRI machine over an actual physicist? Nope.

    So while you haven't lied, you haven't been particularly forthcoming with the details of the truth, knowing full well that if you were completely candid with your job history you'd not be seen as "A nuclear physicist who discovered a new particle and worked for the government", which is what you want to be seen as in such discussions as this. Instead you'd be seen as someone who doesn't work in this area, never has, doesn't have any achievements in this area and yet thinks a lot of his ability and understanding of this area.
    Which ones? I've tried searching online but all I can find are affidavits Walter has signed.

    Walter, would you care to provide a full CV, so we can see you aren't brushing over the details you don't want people to know, so we can see all your contributions to the area of actual nuclear physics, not just running an XRay machine as your biography could be interpreted by someone particularly cynical and untrusting. After all, if we hadn't seen your formidable, beyond graduate level, command of differential geometry and quantum field theory in backing up your claim that in a space-time with non-zero \(T_{ab}\) surrounding a black hole Hawking radiation will tunnel material into the black hole, then some of us might be tempted to be just that cynical. Hang on.... we didn't see any such demonstration of your understanding. Well, if we hadn't seen you show you have working understanding of degree level material in relativity and quantum mechanics, we might be justified in being that cynical. Oh, we haven't seen anything like that either.

    So, you seem to be misrepresenting yourself by not actually lying but not being too forthcoming about your credentials and we haven't seen you do a single bit of work which shows you can even put pen to paper and compute these things quantitatively, be we a young whipper snapper like Prometheus or someone whose been badgering you for possibly as long as 2 years now to put your physics where your mouth is, like me.

    While some people may not like those facts, facts they are.
     
  14. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Thank you Doctor. A little humor at moments like this is just what the doctor ordered.
     
  15. Trixter Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    Allow me to assuage your fears about black hole similarity at RHIC. I google mapped Upton, New York. It's still there.
     
  16. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    Alphanumeric has answered this very well. I would only add that being a regular on a forum is not indicative of how qualified you are at physics (as you are proving). The fact is that I have more than one formal award in theoretical physics and you apparently have none. I'm really interested to see your publication record in nuclear physics.
     
  17. prometheus viva voce! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,045
    That BBC article is referring to something called the AdS/CFT correspondence which is a mathematical device for calculating answers about a quantum field theory using a string theory or vice versa. It does not say that the quark gluon plasma observed at RHIC contains a black hole, simply that a mathematical calculation about a black hole can provide insight into the QGP system.

    AdS/CFT is what I do for a living, so you're more than welcome to ask questions about it, and I'll do my best to answer them.
     
  18. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    As a person who claims to have an award in theoretical physics, one would expect you to know better that to go around making accusations that someone is lying, without any evidence. Perhaps that award has gone to your head. One can easily be a nuclear physicist without a single publication, though possibly not to your mind's way of thinking. Suffice it to say that I suspect that neither you nor AN have a clue as to what knowledge of nuclear physics one would have to obtain in order to properly understand and operate, for example, a PET/CT scanner. Certainly having knowledge in many areas of theoretical physics would leave that person woefully inadequate in knowledge of a PET/CT operation, though I suspect, for example, that AN could fairly quickly learn if he were to apply his 'theoretical' knowledge to an area of applied nuclear physics.

    More importantly, ad hominem attacks miss the point.

    The issue was raised that the old cosmic-ray argument used to justify the LHC safety was falacious. That criticism was recognized by CERN as being correct, and another such safety review was commissioned. That new 'neutron star' argument has now also come under severe criticism. It is not for everyone else to prove that the LHC is dangerous. It is for CERN to prove it is not. That is the purpose of safety studies which seek input from a wide variety of persons, and not just a select few.

    Thus far, the RHIC data is only suggestive that the LHC won't create strangelets [as they now argue]; though I'm sure that some will say that it provides theoretical proof. Of course, we have a history of theoreticians 'proving' things, only to find their proofs incorrect. So how can anyone actually decide if such proof is valid with a poor track record of 'proofs'.
     
  19. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Some very high quality images here. Some of you may have already seen them, but some maybe haven't.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    It's very easy to see that you aren't someone who pays a great deal of attention to details - something that would be VERY important for an individual who claims to have the qualifications you say you have.

    Why did I say that? Because he CLEARLY did NOT call you a liar!! And he also gave you the golden opportunity to show exactly WHAT your expertise consists of and to present your credentials.

    And since you chose NOT to do so, we can only conclude that you are not what you claim to be. An experienced botanist, perhaps, but certainly in no way qualified to address the issues you seem so concerned about.

    Therefore, sir, you leave absolutely no alternative for us other than clearly labeling you as an outright FRAUD in every meaning of the word!!!

    I have no objection whatsoever to someone who deals with flora and fauna. And I therefore respectfully suggest you return to that work and allow the people who ARE qualified in particle physics to get on with theirs without any additional nonsensical interruptions from you.
     
  21. Walter L. Wagner Cosmic Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,559
    For anyone who actually wants to believe the above fraud, here's the exact quote from "Prometheus" in his Post #56 to which I had referred:

    "The claim by Wagner that he is a nuclear physicist is a lie and he if lies about something like that, how can we trust anything he says ..."

    The above quote very definitely is calling myself a liar; a concept that is apparently something those two are quite familiar with.

    And thus we see the truth behind the supporters of the LHC.
     
  22. Trixter Registered Member

    Messages:
    9
    You spin a science debate like a partisan spins a political debate.

    The fact is the overwhelming scientific consensus and the historical track record indicates that particle colliders simply don't pose the risk that you have been claiming they do for about a decade now. How do you rationalize raising the same objections about the LHC that so clearly didn't pan out when you raised them about the RHIC?
     
  23. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I do stand corrected on that point and apologise.

    HOWEVER, you have still made NO attempt whatsoever to show that you are even remotely qualified to challemge the people who work in particle physics.

    We have NOTHING but your word alone that you are qualified. Present EVIDENCE of your credentials - where you studied, what you studied and what degrees you received. I will accept nothing less!

    Do that or simply run away and hide.
     

Share This Page