Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
Eric2
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:29 am

Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by Eric2 » Wed Nov 03, 2010 2:27 am

Much reliance is granted by CERN to the LSAG safety review of 2008. One might expect that this review would involve arguments that wouldn't contradict the theories or LHC research projects of CERN's own physicists. But it has recently been established that in seven different ways, the assertions relied on for claiming safety are contradicted by other CERN physicists in various theoretical papers or CERN documents.

These are atleast seven LSAG Report arguments for safety from a strangelet catastrophe:

1. likelihood of strangelet production at lhc is negligible
2. likelihood of strangelet production is lower at lhc compared with previous colliders or accelerators
3. mechanism of strangelet distillation couldn't apply at lhc
4. negatively charged strangelets are particularly unlikely
5. stable or metastable small (A<10) strangelets couldn't exist
6. existing observational data provides no indications for strangelets
7. comparability of lhc with cosmic ray collisions is necessarily reliable.

However:

claims 1. - 5. are contradicted by theories in numerous cern documents and physics papers associated with the CASTOR detector at CMS (or previously) and by statements within the ALICE Technical Proposal - or by several ALICE collaboration theorist physics papers. Infact there are specific plans for the detection of negative, neutral or positive and unstable, metastable or stable strangelets at both ALICE and CASTOR.

Claims 6. -7. are contradicted by papers by the CASTOR team. This included ackowledgement of the possibility that cosmic rays at comparable energies to LHC's may not be made of heavy ion nulcei at all.

As shown in section 1 of the report given at the link below, both M. Mangano and LSAG chair J. Ellis would have been familiar with these projects by virture of their involvements with the LHCC(ommittee). As reported by NewYorker magazine in 2007, Jos Engelen expounded a zero risk policy for statements by CERN officials from 2007 - some months before CERN'S internally undertaken lsag report. He also, is also shown to have been involved at relevant meetings before 2007 where familiarity with these projects would be clear.

Due to the ongoing and urgent need to make this information as widely available as possible to press, politicians and physicists, I doubt that I will be able to deal with questions at least until after the um, deadline, of November 11, when heavy ion collisions begin (I understand recently that a strangelet catastrophe would be much slower than if one occurred at a star, so, if worse comes to worse, that should leave some days atleast for a chat before hand).

Further detail however is available at http://www.heavyionalert.org, where the report providing relevant evidence, and the implications for the reliablity of the CERN's risk assessment is outlined. Summary evidence is given at the site.

The report includes outlines of the available critiques of the remaining safety assurances, such as that of theoretical physicist Adrian Kent in particular. See notes in report (p.16-17) for my discussion of differing views from other physicists in relation to the particular justification arguments of the LSAG report (such as relating to RHIC data interpretation).

Eric

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by CharmQuark » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:08 am

so we are going to die?

well that sucks
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by Stephen » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:45 am

The probabilities given by CASTOR for the creation of strangelets, do not contradict LSAG, because they operate under the assumption abnormal events in cosmic rays are strangelets. Meaning they're saying that if strangelets are indeed the cause for the abnormal events, they have a 1 in 1000 chance of producing them throughout the entire heavy ion run. These events by definition can not cause any harm, since they have been taking place for the past 5,000,000,000 years on the surface of the moon, and no dangerous strangelets were created there.

I emailed Professor Kent and he simply directed me to his paper and said it should speak for itself. His paper was written in 2000, before the RHIC experiments took place. For that reason, his paper cannot be used as a proof for your claims. In the 2008 LSAG report they say their assumptions were proven true by RHIC, which is absolutely true. The velocities distribution of any particle, even hypothetical ones, can be calculated precisely from Einstein's special relativity principle.

In addition, CASTOR does not claim strangelets to be negatively charged. I found the following paper quite enlightening. Pages 6 - 8 claim the exact opposite of you're saying. Credit goes to rpenner.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ex/pdf/0209/0209008v2.pdf

But even negatively charged stable strangelets would not be a problem. The particles could not grow and stay negative, which is the condition for the runaway reaction. They would have to decay to their ground state, which, as CASTOR points out, is positively charged and thus harmless. Another article which I found enlightening, is the following blog post. Credit goes to Shadowdraxx. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... ut_tha.php

Besides, recent observation have proved the exact opposite of what you're saying, in case you haven't noticed. Many missions to the moon have took place, and no evidence whatsoever for strangelets was found. In addition, a recent discovery of a massive neutron star, suggests that neutron stars are probably made of ordinary matter, rather than strange or other exotic matter. Credit goes to CharmQuark. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/ ... tron-star/

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by CharmQuark » Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:47 am

Stephen :D :Heart:

I am so proud of you :thumbup:

very nice reply ;)
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by DCWhitworth » Wed Nov 03, 2010 10:22 pm

CharmQuark wrote:Stephen :D :Heart:

I am so proud of you :thumbup:

very nice reply ;)
Indeed - Stephen 1 - Scaremongers 0

Well played old chap !
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

Eric2
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by Eric2 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:41 pm

Stephen
So I have some time after all (though I'm getting a headache):

Para 1
False, as shown by evidence given at http://www.heavyionalert.org site near end. CASTOR theory is for 1/1000 of collisions not for whole run of heavy ion collisions. Even if it were this would be very much above the LSAG estimates for CASTOR theories' suggested range of LHC strangelet masses.

Para 2
The data about relevant RHIC rapidity distribution are not given in LSAG report (there is no reference for the claim). For good reason, there apparently are none (note ix of report from site gives detail). You assume there is only one working model as to how to apply Einstein's special relativity to calculate rapidiity distribution for any particle. Given that fig.9, p.13 http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0301003v1 gives different possibilities for ranges for LHC strangelet rapidity, it seems your argument is doubtful (not only unreferenced.)

Paras 3-4
That is a CASTOR paper in a minority of one and is not as up to date as the CASTOR website http://cmsdoc.cern.ch/cms/castor/html/ (follow tabs: Motivation>phenomenological model>Predictions of the Model), where only negative or neutral strangelets are given as possible (as with other CASTOR papers). Papers more recent than Madsen's from 2006/7 by Peng et al. ( eg http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0612253v1) -and which dispute Madsen''s results, while relying on colour flavour locking, give a valley of stability for negative strangelets and allow fully stable negative strangelets. You will have to explain then, how it is that a stable negative strangelet could decay into a positive one. To me this is looking nonsensical.

Para 5
You assume that such strangelets emerging near the moon's surface wouldn't have been already destroyed by subsequent collision with nuclei. If you were to look at fig.9, p.13 of http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0301003v1 for the LHC case - CASTOR's own paper - where are you to find such reassurance? I would hope also that the CASTOR theorists of the paper you gave, also look at the implications of it themselves. I find the ranges of rapidity for negligible strangelet occurence from the graph there, the opposite of a theoretical indication of safety reassurance for this argument (given the significant rapidity gap between maximum rapidity for any emitted particle and maximum rapidity for strangelets - considering the negative of these values - then applying for moon frame of reference where max negative -> 0).
- -
So strangelets from LHC would always be too fast to survive collision with nuclei also?
Unless some CASTOR theorists are wrong about the possibliity that comparable energy cosmic rays may not be made up of heavy ion nuclei after all (sect IV of report point 7.) - so that they don't actually produce strangelets whilst LHC ones still can - then this seems indicated.

However, the ALICE strangelet detection theory would imply both very fast moving cosmic ray induced strangelets and for LHC - very slow strangelets could apply (and relevantly for this scenario, the strangely neglected case of neutral A=6 (meta?)stable strangelets, if not also for neutral dibaryon A=2, seem credible even to R. Jaffe himself).

Eric
Last edited by Eric2 on Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.

rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by rasalhauge » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:46 pm

Eric2 wrote:s
Haha, Mr. Pennrose... How's your "research" comming along? Here to save us from the evil masterminds at CERN?

On a more serious note; try getting some of your work published, or at the very least, stay within your area of expertise (if you have one)...

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by Stephen » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:58 am

Eric, you haven't managed to disprove the astrophysical argument of the moon's existence. Because of that, the rest of your claims are pointless.

Here's a recent review of our knowledge concerning cosmic rays
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 0725v1.pdf

As you can see, we have direct measurements of heavy ion cosmic rays well beyond the LHC's energies. As for the rest of your claims regarding the moon, I would simply point out the following thread for you.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=28551

Regarding this research -
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0612253v1

Please notice that this paper was quoted and addressed in the 2008 safety report. Besides, the authors of the paper conclude in a previous paper that strangelets created by the LHC could not be dangerous, and would have to decay into their ground state, which is positive.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0512112

It's funny how you choose to ignore CASTOR's research when it's convenient for you. I can just as easily claim that the 2008 safety report is more updated than the 2006 - 2007 presentations you insist on mentioning.

But since you chose to ignore some of my points, such as the recently discovered neutron star, I see no reason to continue debating you.

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by DCWhitworth » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:40 pm

Two - Nil !

:dance:
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by CharmQuark » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:52 pm

DCWhitworth wrote:Two - Nil !

:dance:
nice work Stephen :thumbup:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

foofighter
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:02 pm

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by foofighter » Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:25 pm

!!!MISSING!!!
Police have said for the general public to be on the look out for dangerous strangelets.
Up till now according to "expert" "Eric" there are at least 225 (and a fifth) created and are on the loose. Anyone who sees them should contact there local station.

Police are said to be on the case but not having much luck finding them.

Police have also warned the general public not to try and apprehend these particles, "do not approach them as they are known to be dangerous and will 'convert' you to one of them".

Police will be using AST's (A Strangelet Trap) to catch said nasty particles.
After catching them they will be delivered to CERN where the only way for them to destroy the particles before they wreak havoc on the planet is to make a 'black hole' for them to be sucked into.
I asked one CERN scientist "What would happen to the 'black hole' after they were sucked in, what affect on the planet would this have?", his reply, a shrug of the shoulders.

BE SAFE!!!!
STAY AWAY FROM STRANGELETS!!!!!

Only a fool ignores this rule

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by DCWhitworth » Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:08 pm

When I was a kid I was told to always avoid strangelets. At least I think that's what they said, I never really paid attention. :P
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by CharmQuark » Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:11 pm

Can't let my nephew out now :scared-eek: thanks for this really important information :crazy:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by Stephen » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:00 pm

Eric seems to have disappeared ever since the heavy ion experiment started with no catastrophic results.

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Evidence that LSAG withheld revelant CERN information

Post by Allan » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:05 pm

I wonder if he took the long walk off of the short pier?

Allan

Post Reply