|
| ▲ | mr_mitm 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| You are in no position to throw accusations considering the amount of misinformation you are spreading. You could have spent two minutes to find out the actual arguments from scientists regarding the safety of the LHC, but chose not to. Here it is: https://home.cern/science/accelerators/large-hadron-collider... > Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays. Note that the article cites critics as well as technical refutations. Your claim that critics were dismissed is baseless. I believe a healthy dose of humility would be in order. |
| |
| ▲ | rvba 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | If you actually would read the discourse more than a google search it was that: Cosmic ray black holes are likely to have a momentum and would probably fly out to outer space. While LHC micro black holes would stay on Earth and the potential LHC black hole could eat it. (Assuming Hawking radiation does not exist) The crits were dismissed because LHC is working. | | |
| ▲ | mr_mitm 3 days ago | parent [-] | | They're addressing that: > Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes. |
| |
| ▲ | catigula 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So it's safe because of a strawman you set up and knocked down without experimental data? | | |
| ▲ | mr_mitm 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Ironic. No, the claim was that critics were painted as "anti science" and that Hawking radiation was taken as granted. The link I shared shows that critics were taken seriously and confronted with formal arguments, including the scenario in which black holes are stable. I made no statements about the safety of the LHC itself. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | ants_everywhere 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > You cannot point out logical flaws anymore. What logical flaws have you found in the math of the big bang or white holes? |
| |
| ▲ | rvba 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The article has no math. In my opinion this makes the level of discourse low. The other commenter wrote that I dont know the math and that "math can be learned from books". For me quality of comments is even lower than the quality of the article... Have a nice day | | |
| ▲ | ants_everywhere 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Well certainly the quality of your comments is very low. You're just repeating low-effort anti-science rhetoric. You're implying that people can't handle your brilliant understanding of logical flaws, but you've given no evidence that you even understand the basics. Since you're writing low quality conspiratorial comments, people are assuming you're just as uninformed as your comments imply. You keep trying to imply that you know more than everybody else and are just unwilling to show it. So if you have something to say to add to the conversation then now would be the time to do so. Otherwise we'll go on assuming you are just confused. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | adgjlsfhk1 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| the math is written out all the time, pick up decent grad level GR and QM textbooks and the tensor equations will be right there for you. the fact you don't understand the math isn't the fault of the evil physicists |
| |
| ▲ | rvba 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Ah right personal attacks because I wrote that the quality of those articles is low.
Apparently I dont understand the math... Where is the math in the article? Barely anything. Do you even have a Putnam? | | |
| ▲ | andrewflnr 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The math relevant to OP is accessible via the second link in the text: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2508.21748 I guess you might have to follow some citations too. But we were on a tangent about white holes, which would be unreasonable to expect in the article. I and the other reply have already told you where to find that math. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | noduerme 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I definitely feel like the timeline we're in has gotten worse and worse since the LHC fired up. Pretty soon all the ones that aren't apocalyptic are gonna be eaten up by black holes. |
| |
| ▲ | catigula 2 days ago | parent [-] | | "Science-loving" people would be furious at this comment even though it's clearly just speculative and humorous. |
|
|
| ▲ | andrewflnr 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The hell are you even talking about? You won't get a rebuttal because you haven't even said anything to rebut. If you want to see the actual math, go read textbooks on general relativity and cosmology. |
|
| ▲ | catigula 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >On a side note Lard Hadron Collider is safe from micro black holes due to Hawking radiation It's something that isn't well studied, hasn't been observed extensively and potentially destructive. People always hand-wave destructive potential from their doomsday devices. They made the nuclear bomb FFS. |
