First physics from the Large Hadron Collider's CMS detector

Exciting time for particle physics and its standard model.
Can't wait to see more.

yea i`m pretty sure we got to where we are today because, just like in the present, a long time ago curiosity pushed us to go out, explore & try to find out what lies beyond

Please don't explain what CMS stands for. I don't want to know.

a long time ago curiosity pushed us to go out

Curiosity shouldn't be mixed with stupidity. If theories predict formation of stable black holes in LHC, a much more wise decision would be to experiment with colliders in free cosmic space. We have no practical usage of collider experiments during last forty years, so we can wait another twenty years w/out problem, until advance in technology will allow us to arrange experiments in more safe, effective (and cheaper) way.

http://sciencenow...10/122/1

After all, most of scientists know quite well, what they could expect from collider experiments - only laymans and sensationalists could be surprised by it. There are dozens of articles about it at ArXiv.

"Curiosity shouldn't be mixed with stupidity. If theories predict formation of stable black holes in LHC, a much more wise decision would be to experiment with colliders in free cosmic space."

It's not stupidity. It's easy to show statistically that if black holes were stable, Earth and every star in the universe would have been consumed long ago. I do agree with the idea of putting colliders in orbit though, since it would make them much easier to build bigger and bigger.

And you're wrong to say that there are no practical benefits from colliders and other experiments. It's less about the science uncovered, and more about the technology you invent to perform the science in the first place. Many of those technologies end up being used by industry, and eventually enter the market. You just don't recognize them once they do.

My link was NOT about some vague "statistics" of QUITE DIFFERENT physical situation of cosmic rays, where only one particle of cosmic radiation is always involved and resulting momentum of collision products is always nonzero.

http://sciencenow...10/122/1

The above link is about modeling of situation in LHC collider by time dependent differential equations. This is a science supported by real numbers, not blurb about LHC safety. Bellow you can see resulting animation.

http://physics.pr..._phi.mpg

It's less about the science uncovered, and more about the technology..

... and money of various parties involved in it. You should be more specific: which technology of collider research was applied in industry during recent forty years? On the contrary, LHC is locking human capacity, which is urgently needed in industry.

http://www.electr...onomy.ht

Anyway, your stance illustrates attitude of scientists with respect to their own theories supported by formal math.

They're teaching it at schools and using it as a salary machine in hundreds of useless publications - but at the moment, when such math could jeopardize their jobs, they will ignore these theories together with their numeric results like very last crackpot on this forum. Quote from the above article:

"Curiously, though, nobody had ever shown that the prevailing theory of gravity, Einstein's theory of general relativity, actually predicts that a black hole can be made this way. Now a computer model shows conclusively for the first time that a particle collision really can make a (stable) black hole."

Which theories CERN ignorants want to verify at LHC, if they never attempted to estimate expected results? Isn't LHC just a blind waste of public money, after then?

In addition, when CERN scientists are claiming, by their theories LHC is completely safe, whereas the computer models and many peer-reviewed publications predict formation of stable black holes, then such guys are simply openly lying at public for the sake of their jobs, scientific carrier and money in similar way, like Hwang Woo-suk or IPCC alarmists. They want purportedly to test just these theories, which render LHC in most dangerous way.

Now I'm only describing apparent & evident facts, i.e. no hypothesis. We can ignore these facts, but after then our own moral profile is corresponding to the above examples.

People often don't realize, they're support amoral things, until something goes really wrong. For example, unbelievable 92% of Germans voted Hitler in 1937.

To put it short: Your stance is quite valid, but your arguments are shallow, the least.

Or does anyone think that a 2-D computer model can predict anything even remotely as complex as black hole formation or its stability under some given conditions when we can't even effectively simulate a 3-body system yet?

And are you really convinced, that a head-on cosmic ray collision can't occur in free space, given the wast amount of cosmic rays present and the size of the universe?

The "non-zero momentum" argument is also moot I'm affraid. If there was a stable (and dangerous) BH created at those collisions, we would not be here today chatting, as in the last 5 billion years, there surely would be at least one BH, which had only moderate after-collision energy and an after-collision path taking it close enough to some more massive objects gravity well, resulting in the BH getting captured into orbit.

I believe there will be lots of BH's created at the LHC, but hardly "dangerous"..

unbelievable 92% of Germans voted Hitler in 1937.

99.9999% of ALL humans chosen to believe there is some guy sitting on the clouds throwing lightnings at them in 937 BC. :)

Only the resulting energy matters, not the fact that there is only 1 ultra-high energy particle colliding with a lower energy one. And in that regard, we had unimaginably many of many orders of magnitude more energetic collisions happen allready right here on Earth in the past few billion years. Still no stable (and dangerous) BH's around :-O

As I said before - The stance is noble and valid, but still missing some solid arguments to back it up. And no, 2D computer simmulations sadly won't do :)

2-D computer model

It used 4D metric, only results are rendered in 2D..;-) You even didn't bother to read about it, did you?

http://arxiv.org/...80v1.pdf

But my problem is different and it's about fringe methodology of LHC experiments. Why the most crucial result is modeled just two weeks before start of experiments?

head-on cosmic ray collision can't occur in free space

Of course it can, it has just nothing to swallow there.

But this is all just about speculations - whereas my problem is, all these scenarios can be modeled by computers first - but they weren't. It's about silly nonscientific strategy of blind experiments and apparently unsupported claims about their safety.

As Feynman once said: "Shut up and calculate!" This is what scientists are payed for - not for blind speculations. I don't wan't to listen, LHC experiments are safe, if the simulation is demonstrating clearly, they're not. The rest is just a job for lawyers.

@seneca:

I read the article you cited. I found this:

"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."

Ignoring completely the validity of their model, a quintillion is a pretty big number.

Also, please try to avoid using Hitler as an arguement. It doesn't really work to convince anyone.

.The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum..

Yep, this is exactly the point of the article (which you didn't get apparently). A quintillion is safety factor of LHC collisions considered by scientists until now. The computer simulation just demonstrated, the existence of extradimensions could wipe it out completely.

Extradimensions are one of things, which string theorists are expecting to demonstrate by LHC collisions - we can consider model of Randall-Sundrum micro-black holes in this connection.

try to avoid using Hitler as an argument. It doesn't really work

I'm just illustrating relevant historical connections here. People should learn from their history - if they wouldn't, they will exterminate self, because they're becoming more and more powerful gradually. It's as easy, as it is.

About head-on cosmic ray collision in free space:
As I understand it, cosmic rays are thought to originate from supernovae explosions and from normal stars as well as from other sources. By chance, there will be head-on collisions from radiation from two different stars. Such collisions will (presumably) be relatively rare at the outer edge of a galaxy but more frequent at the centre of a galaxy, as some radiation from all stars of the galaxy will eventually arrive there and in greater concentrations. Also, there will presumably be three-way (or more) collisions. The bigger the galaxy, the more radiation there will be at the centre for these collisions.
But I read that there is thought to be a super-massive black hole at the centre of most galaxies: the bigger the galaxy, the more massive the black hole.
Is there a connection there that we should worry about or have I misunderstood something?

^^
The last 4 words of your final sentence sum it up pretty well (even better when you swap the first two of them :)

And cosmic rays are not limited to a galaxy - they come from all directions and are energetic enough to cross distances as large as the whole visible universe without loosing much potential.

And if a rare head-on cosmic ray collision occurs for example in the upper layer of Earths atmosphere, then there surely is "enough to swallow there" for a black hole to grow - IF there would be any stable BH's made by those collisions. And we are STILL here! ;-)

The problem formation of stable black holes is just a miniaturized version of Lawson criterion of nuclear fusion: the fast merging of deuterium nuclei in fuzor doesn't lead into sustainable reaction, but their condensation in palladium lattice can. The faster impact of single particle just makes resulting plasma more hot, i.e. less dense. Therefore the LHC risk isn't connected with high energy, but with matter density of collimated proton jet, which has no direct counterpart in Universe.

In extreme case we could imagine spontaneous formation of strangelets during condensation of cooled neutrons - there is no apparent force, which could repel them mutually, so if we create sufficiently dense stream of neutrons, we could prepare tiny neutron stars instantly even at room temperature.

Therefore the "cosmic ray argument" of LHC safety has nothing to do with LHC collision geometry and it's just manifestation of ignorance of mainstream science.

The only time Hitler ever earned 99% of any vote was when he was elected head of the NSDAP by its members, all 544 of them. In a parliamentary system, citizen vote for parties, not individuals. The parties themselves select their officers. The Nazi party itself never got more than 44% of the vote, which was enough to control the government as there were more than two parties in Germany's parliamentary system then.

Alizee,
following that logic and reasoning, we will have people running around with hand-held black-hole guns within a few hundred or thousand years as advancements in technology would most certainly allow to reach the current LHC maximum energies, even with alot more sensitivity and precission, by devices of portable sizes..

Now if thats not crazy enough ;-D

Wow! Distorted science, conspiracy theories, climate change denial, AND Godwin's Law - all in one post. You, sir, win the tin foil hat!

In addition, when CERN scientists are claiming, by their theories LHC is completely safe, whereas the computer models and many peer-reviewed publications predict formation of stable black holes, then such guys are simply openly lying at public for the sake of their jobs, scientific carrier and money in similar way, like Hwang Woo-suk or IPCC alarmists. They want purportedly to test just these theories, which render LHC in most dangerous way.

Now I'm only describing apparent & evident facts, i.e. no hypothesis. We can ignore these facts, but after then our own moral profile is corresponding to the above examples.

People often don't realize, they're support amoral things, until something goes really wrong. For example, unbelievable 92% of Germans voted Hitler in 1937.

After spending some time considering the cosmic ray argument and the counter-argument that the induced black holes from cosmic rays would have relativistic speeds WRT the Earth, I initially liked the counter-counter-argument that two colliding cosmic rays in the atmosphere could create a slow black hole. I still find the idea compelling, but I've moved beyond that. Assume for the moment that black holes are created AND (despite the fact most physicists would find this laughable) they don't decay. Further let's assume that they can never carry an electrical charge (otherwise they'd easily become slowed by ordinary condensed matter). This implies that space is filled with a black hole fog. The tinfoil hatters would have us believe that not a single one of these countless back holes, while zipping through the earth, has exchanged enough momentum via gravitational interactions with electrons or components of nuclei to slow them down, for 4.55 billion years.

People, who understand physics predicted the possibility of avalanche like conversion of Earth into another strangelets. I didn't invented these theories. After all, searches of strangelets are planned for the LHC ALICE detector.

http://arxiv.org/.../0301003

Strangelets, which are formed from gamma ray collisions with nonzero momentum toward Earth have no time to interact with Earth. But the slower strangelets have! A group of researchers reported the possibility that strangelets may have been responsible for a seismic event recorded on October 22 and November 24 in 1993.

http://www.arxiv..../0205089

A group of researchers reported the possibility that strangelets may have been responsible for a seismic event recorded on October 22 and November 24 in 1993.

http://www.arxiv..../0205089

After opening up the attached link and reading the header, I knew it's the best time to stop.

A "Quark Nugget Passage"? Eh? ;-)

The entertainment value is strong in this one. Most certainly alot stronger than the scientific one..

Serriously, this is getting a bit out of hand now. Enough sci-fi for today!

And I like Arxiv. I really do. But the "freedom of speech" comes for a price.. as we can see. Good thing that it compensates by the benefits it brings to the scientific community.

A group of researchers reported the possibility that strangelets may have been responsible for a seismic event recorded on October 22 and November 24 in 1993.

And a group of prophets reported the possibility that an unknown event might be responsible for an apocalypse on December 21th, 2012.

^^^seneca, I must agree with daywalk3r, that last paper is just unpublished woo. So a "quark nugget" really passed through the Indian Ocean at a speed of 250km/h? And stranger papers have appeared on arXiv.

Erratum: make that 250km/sec! (chord length length: 4203.58km)

.. So a "quark nugget" really passed through the Indian Ocean at a speed of 250km/h? ..

Maybe yes, maybe not - but as you can see, such hypothesis isn't completely outside of realm of contemporary mainstream science. After all, strangelet concept itself is a product of Ed Witten, one of the best theorists today.

The whole purpose of my posts was just to demonstrate, all these seemingly "rock-solid" claims of mainstream physics regarding LHC safety hold watter, as they could be turned upside down just by using of this mainstream physics. Nothing like certainty of LHC safety exists here and the rest is up to you: I'm just mediating informations about dark side of the Force.

The whole purpose of my posts was just to demonstrate, all these seemingly "rock-solid" claims of mainstream physics regarding LHC safety hold watter, as they could be turned upside down just by using of this mainstream physics.

You shouldn't be putting all of current mainstream into one bag and pull conclusions out of it as a whole.. At least 90% of todays mainstream theories will be proven wrong (be it partialy, or even totally) at some point in the future. And even that is a very optimistic figure.

We will never be sure to 100% that we are right - there allways will be a small chance that our understanding is NOT PERFECT.

But covering in fear and hiding in a corner because we are not 100% sure (but only 99,99999%) will most certainly not help us advance and slow science down to snail-crawl speeds.

Curiosity shouldn't be mixed with stupidity. If theories predict formation of stable black holes in LHC, a much more wise decision would be to experiment with colliders in free cosmic space. We have no practical usage of collider experiments during last forty years, so we can wait another twenty years w/out problem, until advance in technology will allow us to arrange experiments in more safe, effective (and cheaper) way.

Hey tough guy, where exactly do you propose we build a "black hole" machine where it wouldn't affect the planet within 20 years time?

Feel free to let me in on all the fabulous new fabrication and transportation technology that you're aware of and the ret of us aren't.

Then recognize that a mosquito flaps it's wings with about 7 TeV and smashing two particles with a combined TeV of about 7 is no more dangerous than licking a 9 volt, something I'm sure you're accustomed to doing.

..at least 90% of todays mainstream theories will be proven wrong..

It's quite entertaining to observe, how proponents of mainstream converging into deniers, whenever the results of their own theories are threatening their jobs and experiments..;-)

Unfortunately for all of us, the formation of stable dense chunks of matter is predicted both by different variants of string theory, both by LQG, both by SUSY extensions of Standard Model in precious accordance... Nearly all physicists today are waiting for strangelets, WIMPs, or microcopic black holes at LHC...

http://arxiv.org/.../0301003
http://arxiv.org/.../0606193
http://cerncourie...rn/34938

While I can understand the stance of physicists, who are risking lives all of us for their success and glory - I don't quite understand the Stockholm syndrome of layman's, who are supporting their experiments openly, although it's evident, they've no idea, what all these experiments are about...

where exactly do you propose we build a "black hole" machine

My stance is completely irrelevant here, because I'm not responsible for these machines in any way - but for example in this article the formation of stable black hole should be observed just during first year of LHC already..

http://www.iop.or...2/12/S52

Concerning the "mosquito weight" (~3 milligrams), it's a mass corresponding only to single proton collision - but LHC jets will contain ~3000 bunches of 10E+11 "mosquitos" each with peak luminosity of 10E+34 "mosquitos"/cm2sec - this in total corresponds the mass of whole train.

Anyway, the total mass of protons is completely irrelevant here, as for stable strangelet formation only few protons may be sufficient. In such a way, LHC will contain number of protons sufficient for formation of whole cluster of strangelets in a single moment. It's estimated, LHC will be able to produce micro black holes at a rate on the order of one per second.

My stance is completely irrelevant here, because I'm not responsible for these machines in any way - but for example in this article the formation of stable black hole should be observed just during first year of LHC already..

Yet it wasn't.

You're here making ridiculous assertions and statements that are entirely inplausable, like building an accelerator in space in 20 years that wouldn't affect the earth.

Your knowledge of this subject is what I would classify as Nova ScienceNow watcher. You know some basics, read some wiki articles, but I'd be willing to wager you have little to no education within the field. This isn't necessarily to your detriment, however, it would behoove you to do some more reading before you go off half cocked about impossible hypotheticals.

..because we are not 100% sure (but only 99,99999%)..

We already observed the formation of tetraquark and pentaquark already at Tevatron and we maybe even observed formation of strangelet via "blessed" dimuon events, which occurred well outside of beam pipe.

http://en.wikiped...traquark
http://www-cdf.fn...i-muons/

So in my opinion we could be rather 99,99999% sure, experiments at LHC will be "successful" regarding to stable micro black holes or strangelet formation - simply because we observed them already, in fact. IMO real safety factor of LHC is close to 50%, rather then 99%. But with respect to number of LHC collisions planned even the 99,99999% safety is far not enough.

..and statements that are entirely inplausable, like building an accelerator in space in 20 years..

Look, mainstream physics is effectivelly fu*ing room superconductivity or cold fusion research for twenty years - and this research is potentially way way more important with respect to undergoing energetic, environmental and geopolitical crisis - then some fu*ing Higgs boson, which no one will miss seriously after few years.

http://www.physor...225.html

So far we have no usage for ANY particle prepared in colliders during last SEVENTY years - so I can say safely, we can wait for space collisions another FIFTY years without absolutely ANY problem.

Instead of this silly blind, redundant and dangerous experiments at LHC we should release all financial and intellectual capacity to cold fusion research - or we nuke ourself mutually because of low oil supplies. It's as simple, as it is.

.it would behoove you to do some more reading before you go off half cocked..

What you can read about high energy physics is just another articles and another less or more direct evidence of danger during LHC collisions. What I'm presenting here is just a tip of iceberg, in fact.

http://lhcdefense.org/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5515
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2948
http://arxiv.org/.../0503178
http://www.risk-e...non6.htm
http://www.lhcfac.../culture

You've proven that you don't understand what we're actually looking for at the LHC. No amount of links to Arxiv papers will explain your hesitation at using the LHC, especially when as you claim "data indicate we've created stable black holes and stragelets at the tevatron" (the two objects you appear to be most afraid of and yoiur entire reason for telling us that the LHC is a bad thing)

Then you tell me that instead of discovering new physics we should spend our time reworking old physics on the hilarity that is Cold Fusion and the very real field of superconductors (even funnier as it was the science involved in the construction of the LHC that led us to this point in superconduction theory).

...you don't understand what we're actually looking for at the LHC...

It's irrelevant, what do you expect from proton beam collisions, if you're forming conditions for creation of new state of matter during this. The fact, someone (like me) understands it or nor is even less relevant in this context - it's just a transparent attempt to change subject of discussion.

LHC is using classical type Ia superconductor for the sake of high current density required - therefore whole thirty years of high-temperature superconductor research and theory development is completely irrelevant with respect to LHC application.

The fact, someone (like me) understands it or nor is even less relevant

Did you just say that you do not need to understand the subject (of protom beam collisions) to conduct any relevant discussion on that very subject? And pull various doomsday conclusions out of it? Serriously..

Pasting truckloads of links to conspiracy sites, pseudo-science articles, postmodern sci-fi and unconfirmed (most likely wrong) hypothesis, which lately pop-up on arXiv like mushrooms after rain, won't make it any better..

And if you believe that 90% of todays mainstream physics won't be proven at least partialy wrong at some time in the future, then you are pretty naive, no offense..

..at least 90% of todays mainstream theories will be proven wrong..

It's quite entertaining to observe, how proponents of mainstream converging into deniers, whenever the results of their own theories are threatening their jobs and experiments..;-)

I'm just a proponent of logic, rational thought and reasoning. Which a part of current mainstream is indeed based on. And sorting science by popularity is really not the right way to determine its relevance.. There is more than just black and white ;-)

It's irrelevant, what do you expect from proton beam collisions, if you're forming conditions for creation of new state of matter during this. The fact, someone (like me) understands it or nor is even less relevant in this context - it's just a transparent attempt to change subject of discussion.

Then how can you comment to the LHC at all if you don't understand how it works, what it's composed of or what the outlined goals and the science beneathe are?

You've proven yourself a simple troll.

.. links to conspiracy sites, pseudo-science articles, postmodern sci-fi and unconfirmed ..hypothesis..

Strangelet theory is a product of Ed Witten, best string theorist, Randall-Sundrum theory is a product of another two top string theorists. The simulation of stable micro-black formation is first of its kind. Another two articles are peer-reviewed, too.

http://en.wikiped...rangelet
http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
http://news.scien...-01.html
http://www.iop.or...2/12/S52
http://arxiv.org/.../0606193

The fact, many other claims of LHC risks originate from unconfirmed sources cannot change the relevancy of these articles and theories. In addition, anomalous formation of dense particle clusters was already observed in Tevatron, together with jet suppression and another indicias of stable state of matter.

http://en.wikiped...traquark

..you don't understand how it works, what it's composed of or what the outlined goals and the science beneathe are...

The design goals of LHC is to prove existence of strangelets and stable black holes.

http://arxiv.org/.../0106295
http://arxiv.org/.../0301003
http://www.iop.or...2/12/S52

Frankly, I don't really understand your problem. Isn't the production of black holes and formation of extradimensions, which should stabilize them one of main design goals at LHC?

http://cerncourie...rn/34938
http://arxiv.org/.../0611224

If yes, then I really needn't to understand anymore about it, to recognize risk of these experiments. I'm not required to become a broody hen to recognize addled egg. But if it makes you more comfortable with it, I can assure you, I can understand background of LHC experiments perfectly...;-)

Strangelet theory is a product of Ed Witten, best string theorist, Randall-Sundrum theory is a product of another two top string theorists.

Which all could fit nicely into the 90% trashbin I mentioned earlier..
Or do you have ANY at least remotely relevant proof of their validity?

I think not..

Frankly, I don't really understand your problem. Isn't the production of black holes and formation of extradimensions, which should stabilize them one of main design goals at LHC?

The design goals of LHC is to prove existence of strangelets and stable black holes.

Are you asking or telling? In any event you're incorrect. The goal of the LHC is to take some particles, input massive amounts of energy, see what comes out and observe.

I can understand background of LHC experiments perfectly...;-)

Not if you think we're attempting to "create" extra dimensions or create stable black holes.

..do you have ANY at least remotely relevant proof of their validity?..

Suppose I do believe in formation of water droplets, but I'm living on the hot Venus planet, so I can never met with water in its fluid state. But during energetic explosions I could observe the temporal formation of water droplets in the form of Wilson cloud. Of course, these droplets are quite tiny and unstable - but wouldn't it be the evidence of my theory of water droplet formation?

http://en.wikiped...on_cloud

Isn't the formation of top-quark pairs, dimuon events at Tevatron or the formation of tetraquark evidence of strange condensation of elementary particles?

..if you think we're attempting to "create" extra dimensions or create stable black holes...

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.4801
http://w3.iihe.ac...lard.pdf
http://cerncourie...rn/34938

Who is "we"? For example every string theorist hopes in detection of extra-dimensions at LHC - this is the main way, how to test string theory, after all.. Wasn't the main purpose of LHC to find "new physics"? Isn't the string theory the most viable way, how to extend Standard Model? And just the string theory predicts both extradimensions, both micro-black hole formation at LHC..

All these models are nearly fifteen years old already - everyone could become familiar with it already.

The stance of CERN physicists and their proponents is similar to play-acting of boy, who was caught with acetone and peroxide in bathroom and now he pretends, he is cleaning mirror with this mixture...;-)

Of course, he claimed all the time, acetone OR peroxide are the best cleaning fluids for all possible purposes, for to get money for his experiments by his gullible mummy. Now she read about peroxyacetone on the web and realized suddenly, what all this stuff was really about.

http://en.wikiped...peroxide

Of course, this stance explains too, why physicists are so impertinent, whenever some "crackpot" explains their formal theories in more transparent way, thus revealing their true motivations. These guys are playing role of shamans of modern era to evade public control.

Suppose I do believe in formation of water droplets,but I'm living on the hot Venus planet, so I can never met with water in its fluid state. But during energetic explosions I could observe the TEMPORAL formation of water droplets in the form of Wilson cloud. Of course,these droplets are quite tiny and UNSTABLE - but wouldn't it be the evidence of my theory of water droplet formation?

I've highlighted the most important words with CAPS. I won't go on and explain it all over again - You can look up my previous posts in another thread, where I explained the idea of equilibrial states and how it relates to stability which is closely bound to specific conditions.

During an energetic explosion you could really observe states of matter, which are not present at ambient conditions. But that is quite obvious as under different conditions the equilibrial states are different aswell, resulting in different alignments.

But those conditions are TEMPORAL as even you yourself admitted..

Isn't the formation of top-quark pairs, dimuon events at Tevatron or the formation of tetraquark evidence of strange condensation of elementary particles?

Again pulling the "strange" word.. You really like it, do you? ^^

A) It was never measured directly nor is even remotely understood or confirmed yet. It is only a mere hypothesis at the moment..

B) Well, you even tend to call condensation of water droplets "strange" or compare it with micro-BH's .. I'm asking myself, why should I even bother replying?

The analogy might be "ok", but it fails to account for differences in conditions related to difference in scales. For example the strength ratios between fundamental forces at the scales in question.

As I mentioned before, you can't just assume a linear scale-down and pull analogies.. It is not as simple and would only work in strictly scale-invariant cases.

But those conditions are TEMPORAL as even you yourself admitted.

Under common circumstances large droplets (black holes) are stable. Situation with LHC collisions corresponds the situation after stratosferic plane, after which trails are formed. Due the oversaturation no water droplets are formed in high altitude, but when formation of these droplets is initiated, then the condensation occurs.

..Again pulling the "strange" word...

Strange matter is terminus technicus, it denotes phase of matter, composed of strange quarks. From this denomination the term "strangelet" is derived, too.

http://en.wikiped...e_matter

Strange matter is believed to be stable only at the extremely high pressure inside of neutron stars, but by Aether theory the extreme curvature of small dense clusters of particles enables the formation of strange matter even without gravitational field. On similar idea the concept of micro-black holes and strangelets is based.

..It was never measured directly nor is even remotely understood or confirmed yet. It is only a mere hypothesis at the moment....

The existence of strange matter was confirmed by observation of so called quark stars, i.e. the stars, which are too dense for to be considered as a classical neutron stars. The tendency of matter into strangelet formation was confirmed by tetraquark and pentaquark observations. The dimuon events observed at Tevatron seems to support this theory too, as Standard model doesn't know about mechanism, which would explain formation of heavy muons well outside of collider pipe. And formation of strangelets is supported both by string theory, both by computer simulation above linked. In fact it's quite robust theory with compare to Higgs boson theory, for example.

.the analogy might be "ok", but it fails to account for differences in conditions related to difference in scales...

With respect to black hole all observed matter is metastable, because it will be ALWAYS swallowed under release of giant amount of energy. Therefore every formation of more dense state of matter introduces the risk of gravitational collapse and this effect is scale invariant, as general relativity doesn't propose any mechanism, in which gravitational collapse should be avoided in less or more distant perspective. From this perspective, even the strangelet formation is just an intermediate step of gravitational collapse.

It was never measured directly nor is even remotely understood or confirmed yet. It is only a mere hypothesis at the moment..

The existence of strange matter was confirmed by observation of.. bla blah..

I was referring to the "tetraquark and pentaquark observations" and the "dimuon out-of-pipe" events at Tevatron..

Under COMMON circumstances large droplets (black holes) are stable.

Exchange that "common" with "certain" or "specific". And comparing water droplets with BH's needs no comments..

Strange matter is believed to be stable only at the extremely high pressure inside of neutron stars, but by Aether theory..

Apart from that "believe" does not belong into science, you are counter-arguing with a "believe" article aswell.. AWT.

And I really give up..
It is pointless to try and explain something when the other side most evidently either does not understand or simply is not able to sufficiently relate the contents of discussion. Seems like running in circles.

Therefore every formation of more dense state of matter introduces the risk of gravitational collapse and this effect is scale invariant, as general relativity doesn't propose any mechanism, in which gravitational collapse should be avoided in less or more distant perspective.

It is not about "avoiding", but about other forces becoming more significant (in relation) at certain distances.

And anything that is related to more than only 1 of the fundamental forces can simply NOT be considered scale-invariant, as those very forces are NOT scale-invariant in relation between themselves.

String theory is far deeper and more robust regardless of it's completeness. You're arguing from the standpoint of a creationist against evolution.

Interestingly, when I link computer simulation involving extradimensions of string theory, or model of strangelet or micro-black holes formation at LHC developed by string theorists, you're calling it a void speculations. Who is arguing from the standpoint of creationists against evolution, after then?

..And comparing water droplets with BH's needs no comments....

Why not? You should enjoy articles like this one, after then...

http://www.physor...530.html

The belief has robust place in Popper's methodology in science, in which no theory should be considered correct, only less or more confirmed. Therefore every extrapolation made by such theory should be considered as a subject of belief, too. This is particularly valid regarding every claim of LHC safety or risk. We simply cannot know, what this thing should do.

In order to assert AWT based physics to the equation you must first produce a predicative mathematical proof for AWT

This is completely irrelevant objection, because proponents of LHC are ignoring calculations and robust computer simulations as well. They're not opened both to arguments of robust math models provided by string theory, bot to robust logic and analogies provided by Aether theory, because what they really afraid of is the lost of their jobs, scientific carrier and social prestige. For such people no argument will be good enough.

After all, 60 percent of American doesn't believe in evolution and these people have nothing to lose by admitting it with compare to CERN physicists. Why I should believe, CERN physicists will be opened to some discussion, after then? Such people could be stopped only with using of legal or military force, sorry.

Interestingly, when I link computer simulation involving extradimensions of string theory, or model of strangelet or micro-black holes formation at LHC developed by string theorists, you're calling it a void speculations. Who is arguing from the standpoint of creationists against evolution, after then?

Not all "string theorists" are string theorists.

Why not, but Edward Witten, Lisa Randall and/or Raman Sundrum are just string theorists par excellence - and very respected ones, in addition... Witten has the highest Hirsh index (110) of any living physicist, Lisa 32 (higher then Feynman, BTW)...

http://www.mazali...-h-index

Anyway, the conceptual problem in LHC is, it tends to validate various theories just by experiments, which would lead to disaster scenarios by these theories. If nothing happens with LHC, scientists will just build larger collider, and whole situation will just repeat at another level. The only protection of human civilization is not to sponsor such projects, or to increase their space-time scope, i.e. to build them in free cosmic space at safe distance from Earth.

Witten has the highest Hirsh index (110) of any living physicist, Lisa 32 (higher then Feynman, BTW)...

So you think that the potential of every scientist is proportional to his publication cadency and the amount of "sheeps" following him? Because that is basicaly what the H-Index is about.. Wasn't it you who pulled that Hitler argument earlier in this thread? o_O

i.e. to build them in free cosmic space at safe distance from Earth.

And what's a safe distance for a potentially accretional black hole?

Basically you're saying, never, ever build one.

..publication cadency and the amount of "sheeps" following him..

Surprisingly, these "sheeps" are following him just because he enabled them to find something new at LHC. Both Randall, both Witten are strong proponents of LHC experiments, althought from their theories just most catastrophic scenario of LHC follows.

http://arxiv.org/.../0301003

For example Lisa Randall is visiting Cern in the hope, LHC will confirm her hypothesis of stable micro-black holes - on the other hand she is claiming, LHC will not produce these holes. What we should think about it?

http://cerncourie...rn/34938

Well, such seemingly inconsistent, self-contradicting thinking is quite common for people, who are living in mental black hole, because the spreading of energy in it would behave in the same way (compare the Kaluza-Klein solution of de Sitter spacetime). Of course people, who are thinking in mental singularites will never reflect logical arguments from outside.

Basically you're saying, never, ever build one

Yep, at certain level of human race evolution our survival would depend only on our ability to avoid our own self-destruction. The question is, why we should produce some black holes, if everything what we could reliably check about it would be, if it doesn't destroy us?

Compare the well known Eden story about eating fruits of knowledge prohibited. There can be a deeper symbolism in this story: we cannot create black hole larger then some critical limit, or whole our observable Universe would be swallowed in it. Note that critical black hole singularity would be just of the size of our own Universe at the Big Bang time, i.e. the size of apple. Why? Because just the lifespan of black hole of such diameter would correspond the age of observable Universe, if it would evaporate by Hawking mechanism.

You have a horrible scientific argument if you're reaching to a biblical fable for inspiration.

Secondly you could not swallow the entire Universe in a black hole.

But the warning against being curious too much is quite apparent moral of this "fable". From some reason it demonstrates significance of the respect to natural limits of our inquisitiveness. Why do you think we have proverb: "He who asks too much will learn too much"?