I don’t follow your logic that an indiviual getting out of bed poses the same risks as what they are doing? I mean, do you make microscopic black holes when you get up in the morning?

I’m simply saying that they have a comparably astronomically small probability that they’re both virtually impossible. Given the extraordinarily larger number of times that much higher energy cosmic rays have collided into things, with energies the LHC can’t even dream of, compared to how many times people have gotten out of bed, it should have done something by now if there were any danger at all.

I’m also ridiculing the notion of trying to stop things based on “might be”s that have been thoroughly ruled out. What’s going to stop a chain of events when you get out of bed, where you drive a car, crash it into a car, killing the only scientist who could have figured out quickly enough a way to stop a spontaneous “true” vacuum that arises tomorrow from swallowing our universe? (Or some other unlikely chain of events.)

And why we don’t take advantage of cosmic rays? We do! They just don’t happen where we want them to happen often enough, namely detectors like ATLAS, so we can’t get enough reliable data with just cosmic rays.

Their standard line seems to be that cosmic ray particles with higher energy strike the Earth’s atmosphere all the time.

Which if true, makes me wonder why they need the LHC at all – if nature is providing these colliding particles why not just observe them as they happen?

Of course if its false, then they haven’t got that excuse and if nature doesn’t smash “god particles” to pieces then why do we think its such a great idea?

The other thing is that the particles hitting our atmosphere come, I understand from super-energetic and rare events millions of lightyears away – Gamma Ray Bursters and supernova and Active Galactic Nuclei like blazars and quasars.

Now these are all fascinating and amazing places – when studied from a very, very long distance away – but you wouldn’t want to be standing next to any of them – or even within a few light-years of any of them.

Hmmm … Almost had a swear word in there entirely by accident!
But then it didn’t post so trying again & hoping it works this time & doesn’t come through twice. If so, my apologies.

Their standard line seems to be that cosmic ray particles with higher energy strike the Earth’s atmosphere all the time.

Which if true, makes me wonder why they need the LHC at all – if nature is providing these colliding particles why not just observe them as they happen?

Of course if its false, then they haven’t got that excuse and if nature doesn’t smash “god particles” to pieces then why do we think its such a great idea?

The other thing is that the partciles hitting our atmosphere come, I understand from super-energetic and rare events millions of lightyears away – Gamma Ray Bursters and supernova and Active Galactic Nuclei like blazars and quasars.

Now these are all fascinating and amazing places – when studied from a very, very long distance away – but you wouldn’t want to be standing next to any of them – or even within a few light-years of any of them.

Hmmm …

****
StevoR said on Aug. 15th @ 11.37 am – comment 86.

Spaceman Spiff said on August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am :

“Read Steven Soter’s paper, which appeared in the Astronomical Journal: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608359. See especially Figures 1 and 2 and the discussions thereof. In particular the “mu” parameter, which compares a planet’s mass to that of all objects within its dynamical zone does not have the problem of “location”.”

SCR (me) : Umm . Can we get a translation to plain English please?

SS (Spaceman Spiff – & should be quotes in italics too):

“And the fact that comets and asteroids cross “planetary” orbits is a red-herring argument.

What!! The criteria is supposed to be “orbital clearing” & yet somehow you’re saying it doesn’t matter that orbits aren’t clear? That comets, asteroids even potentially other stars and planets can come past and make an orbit NOT clear? That orbits didn’t use to be clear in the past and might NOT be again at some stage in future history.

In fact our solar system will encounter a star called Gliese 710 sometime in the distant future which may affect planetary orbits as will the death of the Sun as a red giant when it loses mass. Suppose in the latter case Jupiter’s orbit suddenly crosses Saturn’s – does that stop either of them being planets? According to the IAU baloney criteria it would – & how silly is that!

No the fact that orbits are crossed – by anything other than radiation and solar wind means that they’re NOT clear to anyone speaking the language of reasonable.

Otherwise then what exactly is meant by “clear” and for how far around the orbit it needs to be ‘cleared’ needs to be well ..cleared up! Which it really just can’t be. Its a fatal flaw in a stupid and unnecessary third criterion. This “orbital clearance” nonsense just doesn’t make sense. Period.

SS : “Those who drafted the language were aware of both Soter’s work and of a paper Alan Stern wrote with Harold Levison in 2002 in advising NASA on how to define “planets” in which was said: “we define an überplanet as a planetary body in orbit around a star that is dynamically important enough to have cleared its neighbouring planetesimals …And we define an unterplanet as one that has not been able to do so,…”

and a little further :

“our Solar System clearly contains 8 überplanets and a far larger number of unterplanets, the
largest of which are Pluto and Ceres.”

SR : Uberplanets and unterplanets?

Mein Gott! Vot ist happenink here are ve liffink in Germany!?

What’s this Soter dude saying here – that Pluto is some kind of gipsy sub-planet & Neptune is from the superior planetary master race or some such tripe?! Come on! This seems to be just a pluto-haters rant, nothing much else is clear about Soter -whoever he is. Give me Alan Stern’s words instead anyday!

SS : “Soter’s arguments don’t solve all problems. But in my opinion, something physically profound separates the inner 8 larger bodies from those in the asteroid belt or Kuiper belt. In particular, Figure 2 shows clear separation between the “isolation zone” of fully accreted “planets” and the “swarm zones” of the other condensed objects.
(Emphasis added.)

SR : Well in my opinion, your opinion is wrong. In my opinion a planet is a planet regardless of whether it skims the surface of a star like a HotJupiter or orbits in the far reaches of the solar system where there’s a lot more room for other objects like Pluto does. I see NO reason why you can’t have planets inside asteroid belts or cometary “swarms” or whatever if they fit the other criteria – roundness, non-nuclear fusing for energy, etc ..

If you imagine otherwise then I reckon your imagination is lacking. (& Einstein no less rated imagination over a lot else! )

I think the problem arose because orbital dynamicists had a problem with a planet – Pluto – that they disliked because it seemed a misfit. Ironically once they’ve found a few bodies that are similar (& lets remember only 1, Eris, is larger & it is only barely so.) and Pluto is no longer a misfit by the leading member of its planetary sub-class now they want to scrap it! Huh? Well there’s no good reason that reasonable folk (incl. many in the general public) can see. Sorry but if that reflects badly on orbital dynamicists then the fault lies with them and the only way for them to correct it & regain our respect is for them to come to their senses and accept that : Yes Pluto really is a planet.

To paraphrase Dr Seus : A planets a planet no matter where it is & no matter how small!

Incidentally, its not just Pluto, I’d be happy to term Eris, Ceres, Sedna & others planets as well. I see no reason why we should limit the number of planets just so there are less names to remember. I mean for pity’s sake! If there are twenty or even a hundred planets in our solar system then so be it – that’s how many there are. And Pluto is one of them.

Finally, for What Its Worth, my suggested definition for planet would be (& not just mine either as its my suggestion compiled and considered from many other people’s thoughts and contributions) :

“A planet is a natural, gravitationally-forced spheroidal, non-fusing object (ie. not just round by happenstance & allowing for rotational oblateness) directly orbiting a star or fusing object.”

Simple. Effective. Clear. Isn’t it? Then we can usefully break planets down into further categories of :

1) Gas Giants (Jupiter & Saturn)
2) Ice Giants (Neptune & Ouranos)
3) Terrestrial or Rocky dwarf planets (Earth, Venus, Mars, Mercury)
4) Ice dwarf planets (Pluto, Eris nee ‘Xena’ /UB313, Sedna, Ceres*, Quaoar, Varuna etc .. )
& maybe also
5) Rock dwarf or asteroidal planets (Pallas & Vesta)

We can then say our solar system consists of 20 odd planets – 4 gas & ice giants, 4 rocky or terrestrial planets and 10-15 or so ice dwarfs the largest and most remarkable being Pluto, Eris, Ceres etc … (Hence we can discuss only those most remarkable cases in school classrooms if the ‘kids can’t memorise more than 9 names’ argument is really so incredibly salient a point. But, frankly, that’s a pretty dumb.)

* BTW. In case people are wondering; Ceres is also apparently composed mostly of ice thus qualifying as an ice dwarf, unsure of the composition of Pallas but Vesta is rocky so not all asteroidal ‘minor planets’ would fit in the rock dwarf category but then most are too small to be counted planet anyway falling off on the ’roundness’ criterion.

Where would your argument be against this sort of idea Chris A and other Pluto-haters? Isn’t the sort of classification scheme I’ve described above much betetr than the current IAU-diocy?

Putting spaces in links doesn’t work then. But my name should be connected to that thread.

Or, if that fails cut & paste – & remove the gaps :

http: // blogs.discovermagazine.com / badastronomy / 2008 / 08 / 13 / planet-pr0n /

(hope this works … @!#!@!%$#@ anti-links filter here.

I don’t follow your logic that an indiviual getting out of bed poses the same risks as what they are doing? I mean, do you make microscopic black holes when you get up in the morning? Do you have a stash of strange subatomic materials hidden somewhere that we all don’t know about? If you believe that those kind of chain of event scenarios are possible, then you are choosing to put your faith in them right and not because you have evidence or logical reason to belive this,…. perhaps similarly to scientists putting a certain amount of faith into there calculations and experimental design?

& Addition too …
_______________________

It (the LHC experiment) reminds me of the Alamogoro (spelling?) “Trinity” (?) A-bomb tests where they detonate the first ever Atomic bomb without knowing that it wouldn’t create a bigger atmospheric chain-reaction that could spread and destroy the world.

It didn’t then, it probably won’t now – but if they keep on doing this stuff with that gung-ho attitude and taking these sort of chances well one day they might displace the wrong decimal place or whatever and .. KKkaBooooom!

Humanity goes extinct. Our planet gets destroyed. We all die.

Perhaps we should therefore be a just a wee-bit more a careful. If something is called a “God particle”; well to me that suggests it just
mi-iight be a wise idea to leave it the hell alone and not tamper with it!

Apparently one scientist (the one in charge I think – was quoted on ‘Sarah Connor Chronicles’ TV-SF) at the first A-bomb test watched the A-bomb balst and boast onanistically : “We have become Shiva – Destroyer of Worlds!”

To which another scientist standing nearby replied : “No, we have become sons of b-tches*!..”

Science is a double-edged sword. It can be used to create terrible atrocities and catastrophes as well as all the good stuff Phil Plait is always – rightly – pointing out. We should respect science & enjoy it & fund it – but we should also take care and apply ethics to it as well.

——————
* Can I say or rather quote that here? If I can’t then moderators can you just take out the one rude-ish word & leave the rest of my post? Afraid I’m never sure just how prissy and childish a level Phil’s silly and rather pointless (I mean c’mon we all know the words anyway!) – anti-swearing policy is set at.

I agree with you.

They seem, from my Point Of View, have different theories on things they *think* might be found or generated like mini-black holes and “God Particle” Higgs Bosons but they don’t really know what’ll happen.

It reminds me of the Alamogoro (Trinity?) A-bomb tests where they detonatee thefirstever Atomic bomb without knowing that itwouldn’t create abiggeratmospheric chain-reaction thatcould spreadand destroy theworld.

This sort of attitude does strike me as reckless and verging on the irresponsible – I’ve nothing against observing the universe but sometimes this sort of experimenting on its most fundamental levels when we really don’t know what we’re doing .. (Coz if we did we wouldn’t need to experiment) .. Well makes me feel quite uneasy.

I grew up under the constant threat of the Cold War Nuclear Holocaust – the shadow of the A-bomb and H-Bomb. That we humans survived is only due to the good judgement of JFK and his Soviet counterpart during the Cuban missile crisis.

I think this has coloured my view of nuclear and sub-atomic particle physcists considerably. I’ll never forget that they thought up & built these weapons of mass destruction and I don’t think people or areas of science capable of doing this – of wiping out all of us – should be fully trusted and given free unchecked reign ever again.

Now this may be unfair but its how I feel.

I don’t think Brian Cox and the LHC people are like Dr Strangelove (Hey did the BA review that movie? ) exactly .. but they don’t seem all that terribly far removed either .. & Dr Strangelove was based on a real scientist Dr Edwin (I think?) Teller who wanted to use A-bombs for all sorts of crazy things like digging canals and harbours and .. well all sorts.

NO way! Not in my backyard! :-0

Eris can have it instead!

Sheesh Bad Astronomer, I Love, love, LOVE love your blog but yegods there are some things here that could be improved about it too – editing & link-posting & getting the Discover people to lift their game & not have everything squashed left and generally bleck~ish would be great!

A-ny-w-a-y back on topic : In essence, I’m saying the LHC mob were right (so far) but could have been a lot nicer in their approach – more reassuring, more sympathetic and cautious and less rude and dismissive.

Their scientific skills are awesome. Their people skills could usesome work! But well done & good luck to them anyway.

Although I still reckon it’d be far cooler if they built the LHC on Pluto!

Well actually I don’t .. but it is when it usually isn’t.

Hence I suspect this #@#!@@# autofilter is spitting the dummy over the hyperlink (is that what’ch’ya callit?) in the post so I’ve got it on click my name to go to thread link mode.

Anyway my post also reads (again in case it doesn’t survive – apologies if this is tooo painful for y’all. )

****
@ Chris A :
BTW. Forgot to add there on Soter’s paper – you do realise that using that is committing the logical fallacy of argument by authority don’t you?

Now back to the topic .. Hmm we are still here!

Then again they haven’t collided beams yet!

Do I think that’ll end the world? No.

Do I wish they’d be a bit more careful, ethicial and a bit less dismissive of critics and concerned or even scared folks anyway? Yes.

Is this matter really as one-sided as the BA makes things sound here? Well I’m not that sure… Perhaps a bit better communication and more sympathetic engagement by the LHC mob and bit less calling of people ‘twats’ for worrying about what they don’t understand would help? Maybe?

A lot of people understand science from science fiction where things often do go wrong … Not saying that’s a good thing just the reality – and while the LHC team may be right I suspect they’ve also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by their attitude and approach. I have, as stated before, mixed feelings over all this.

PS. Is it good manners / recommended practice or custom to put peoples’ names in bold when responding to them? I thought it was but now I’m not so sure…?

I’ve posted my response on :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/09/07/todays-xkcd/#comment-117809

BTW. Forgot to add there on Soter’s paper – you do realise that using that is committing the logical fallacy of argument by authority don’t you?

Now back to the topic .. Hmm we are still here!

Then again they haven’t collided beams yet!

Do I think that’ll end the world? No.

Do I wish they’d be a bit more careful, ethicial and a bit less dismissive of critics and concerned or even scared folks anyway? Yes.

Is this matter really as one-sided as the BA makes things sound here? Well I’m not that sure… Perhaps a bit better communication and more sympathetic engagement by the LHC mob and bit less calling of people ‘twats’ for worrying about what they don’t understand would help? Maybe?

A lot of people understand science from science fiction where things often do go wrong … Not saying that’s a good thing just the reality – and while the LHC team may be right I suspect they’ve also rubbed a lot of people the wrong way by their attitude and approach. I have, as stated before, mixed feelings over all this.

PS. Is it good manners / recommended practice or custom to put peoples’ names in bold when responding to them? I thought it was but now I’m not so sure…?

Well, with your sisters cat, and this cat, I think there’s trouble-a-brewin’:

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-smiley-faced-belly-cat.jpg

1. The big bang theory was proposed by a physicist who was a Catholic priest.
2. The Catholic Church opposes biblical fundamentalism and teaches that the bible is not a science textbook. “Do science in labs, do religion in church.” Therefore they are in league with the devil.
3. Scientists expect the LHC to provide evidence for the papist big bang theory.
4. LHC was funded by the EU. Rome is in Europe.
4. Therefore….

As well as big thanks to the team who made the LHC, how about a big thank you to the taxpayers of the European Union. Yay for the folks who paid for this!

i knew they were smaller than a nucleus, but my quick calculation shows they are mucho smaller. makes me wonder if i biffed it somewhere and just don’t see it. i might need a more powerful envelope.

but hey, what’s a factor of 10 amongst friends?

http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=140327173

Irresposible reportage and silly speculation kills. It’s not funny!