steven comments on LA-602 vs. RHIC Review - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 19 June 2008 10:00AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (62)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: steven 19 June 2008 02:35:53PM 0 points [-]

Eliezer, the cosmic ray argument *doesn't work* against black holes or strangelets; cosmic ray collision products have a large momentum relative to Earth whereas some of the particle accelerator collision products would end up going slowly enough to cause damage. There are, however, other strong arguments against both the black hole and strangelet scenarios, for which see http://lhc2008.web.cern.ch/LHC2008/documents/LSAG.pdf (note that the author confirms the part about the cosmic ray argument not working). In the black hole case, for there to be a disaster, it would have to be true that 1) LHC unexpectedly creates micro black holes, 2) Hawking radiation unexpectedly doesn't work, 3) it eats the Earth with unexpected speed, 4) especially given that micro black holes don't seem to have eaten neutron stars.

Comment author: Luke_A_Somers 08 June 2012 02:36:25PM 0 points [-]

First, the link is broken.

We don't need to use the Earth for the cosmic ray argument. In fact, it's best if we don't. What should we use? White dwarf and neutron stars. These have a density that makes runaway processes exponentially easier (and I mean that 'exponentially' literally, and it also applies figuratively). They have not collapsed into black holes or strangelet soup either.

Also, we aren't anthropically dependent on them the way we are on Earth itself.

Comment author: steven0461 08 June 2012 06:49:34PM 2 points [-]

The wayback machine still has it. Yes, it talks about white dwarf and neutron stars; that's what "other strong arguments" referred to. There's more discussion in the comments here.