There really is no cause for concern. The safety of LHC has been reviewed by a vast amount of excellent physicists and none have found it to be considered dangerous

I would think that before people began fooling around with such things, they would have the knowledge to know what is/could be dangerous (Simply stating that this day in age, with all the advanced technology that did not exist in the past). UndeadxNurse made a very good point to me in your false vacuum decay thread-about how in the past when people began experimenting with things such as electricity, light bulbs and vehicles, there was a level of uncertainty of these things being possibly 'dangerous' in one way or another.

But either way, for those who have no clue what LHC is and what its purpose is, I think that having its own page is a great idea. Just in case the uncertainty sparks a little bit of fear, people can read, learn about and debunk the information all in the same spot!

I think this one is what got me nervous..especially since I know absolutely nothing about an of it..and why this is even being done.

First off, I apologize that my questions resulted in anxiety for you. That was not my intent, although I can see now that I came off as close to terrified. I can assure you that I have no doubt whatsoever that the LHC is perfectly safe and that such thing as a false vaccum decay is impossible at the energies achieved by LHC. Most likelly it's overall impossible, and it is far from clear that we even live in a false vacuum. It's just a theory, and even theory states that immense energies are required to trigger a hypothetical phase transition.

CR has been observed up to 3 million TeV (I'm not all that sure on the number though) and LHC will only achieve ~2.80TeV in the heavy ion collisions. So, if CR can't trigger a phase transition (which they can't) then neither can the LHC.

There really is no cause for concern. The safety of LHC has been reviewed by a vast amount of excellent physicists and none have found it to be considered dangerous

False vacuum decay
RickardM 11 Aug 2010, 16:40 CDT
I've seen discussions about this here and there and just thought I'd run this by you to see if someone could explain why this is supposed to happen when the LHC start colliding havy ions? Isn't the energy required for something like a vacuum bubble to form waaay beyond what LHC can perform in Pb-Pb collisions?

I tried consulting the trustworthy LSAG-report but vacuum decay/vacuum metastability or whatever you may call it isn't really covered there, at least not as thouroughly as microscopic black holes and strangelets. The only thing they mention is that CR reaches far higher energies and so on, and not a single mathematical evidence that this couldn't possibly happen. It seems strange that this is so poorly covered since this is the worst scenario of them all.

Is it neglected because it is so incredibly unlikelly or because they simply don't know all that much about what could trigger such event?

Would all kinds of vacuum bubbles more or less trigger a phase transition or is there benevolent vacuum bubbles just like there are harmless strangelets and microscopic black holes?

Sorry for going offtopic here, but this stuff really got me anxious again.

I think this one is what got me nervous..especially since I know absolutely nothing about an of it..and why this is even being done.

I'm glad y'all are doing this!! I didn't know anything about LHC..or what it even is/was..until I saw a thread that went into detail. What I read kinda started to have me anxious again, so thanks guys for adding this to the list!!!!

There really is no reason to get anxious over this magnificent piece of machinery. Is there something in particular that has gotten you anxious over this? What did you read?

Is there something more than a summary of the LSAG-report (or rather their conclusions) that should be added to the page?

When you create the page, there is a drop-down to select the initial content. Select the 'default' content instead of 'blank', then paste your text into the space between the [[toc]] tag and the footnote block.

Once you have done this we can start talking under the comments line or 'talk' link for that page, and work out where it needs certain tags.

At the bottom of the editing window, even under the 'comments' page, is a 'wiki text quick reference' link, which will give you 90% of what you need. This section is available when you are editing any page. The page editor is exactly the same as the comment editor.

I know there is data from HiRes that indicates that all CR consists of protons, but if I'm not mistaken those were all lower energy CR (that was meassured, that is) and isn't applicapable to higher energies.

It doesn't matter what is colliding. The important variable is energy density and the energy released between components. An average pitch of a baseball into a catcher's mitt is more energetic than any LHC collision will be. As for the LHC's lead ion, Astrogeek posted elsewhere: "Well, as far as why they use Pb-Pb collisions, a physicist told me that its the only way they could get to those high energies."

There's a rather lengthy discussion about that (among other things) here. As for examples of lead collisions at specific energies, you'll have to ask someone affiliated with CERN. As far as I can tell, the reason this isn't addressed more clearly is because it isn't a big deal (what matters is component energy density), but the doomsayers and pseudoscientists turn it into one.

• Microscopic black holes
• Strangelets
• Magnetic monopoles
• Vacuum bubbles/False vacuum decay

Perhaps with an added focus on the first two, since they are the two with the most connection to reality. The last couple of scenarios doesn't seem all that "important" to focus on since they are easily dismissed thanks to CR constantly dwarfing the energies at LHC.

Talking about CR, if anyone have links to data on both protons and heavy ions in CR I'd be more than happy to add that to the page. As you all know much of the safety around LHC, and the LSAG-report for that matter, is based on the observations of CR achieving far higher energies than LHC ever will. Thus it would be good to be able to show people that CR achieves those energies (at LHC) and higher without causing any kind of problems to our continued existence. I know there is data from HiRes that indicates that all CR consists of protons, but if I'm not mistaken those were all lower energy CR (that was meassured, that is) and isn't applicapable to higher energies.

I have had the good fortune of being able to connect with various scientists and talk to them about 2012. But that isn't the important issue.

What is important here is that I did the research to find the answers. I went to people who knew, who showed me where to find things, what papers were available, etc. My point is that this information is available to anyone, particularly if there is a library or school near by.

For example, on the Nibiru page we show the calculations for Kepler's law, right out of an astronomy textbook.

I have had a lot of help with this site. Several of the people posting in these forums (and hopefully they know who they are) are just as responsible for the content as I am. There are more people offering to write new articles. Just about every page has been vetted for errors more than once. I also have had scientists (like David Morrison, Phil Plait, Johan Normark, Mark Van Stone, Ian O'Neill, John Hoopes, Kristine Larsen, and on and on) recommend the site, give advice to us about the site, participate in the site, etc. So, its not just because Astrogeek says so, which is sort of the point of the whole process.

I find it far more important, and indeed interesting, in summarizing evidence for other people to digest, than I do in actively going out and finding it. To bring together a variety of sources, put them in one place, show how they work together and support each other and, in the case of 2012, how they do not support the claims that are being made.

It's education - as long as teachers are teaching the right thing in the right way, they don't necessarily have to have the PhD's and whatever to go with it.

I see your point though, and I'm reminded of a good ol' Neil deGrasse Tyson quote (I think the video is kicking about on this site too. Edit: Yes, it is, last video on his page, starts about 1:50), essentially saying "If you just listen to me just because I'm a scientist, I have failed you. It's my job to give you the skills to become a scientist yourself."

I think, and hope, that many of us here do that, that we do give that starting point for you to build your own knowledge around, regardless of background.

Well, I'm no scientist either, but I wrote a great deal of this site.

Thats comforting…

Unfortunately, I need a constant reassurance that nothing will happen in 2012 in order to get over it. You seem like a very smart guy Astrogeek, I am putting a lot of trust every day in the things that you write on this website. If you say you aren't a scientist, its going to make some people a little nervous.

Of course no offense to you.

I think it's an excellent idea. Go for it!

Good idea.

Ofcourse, I'm no scientist but I've looked in to all possible doomsday scenarios proposed by the anti-LHC maniacs and thereby have a somewhat good understanding of just how ridiculous they actually are. Perhaps even a short summary of the LSAG-report could be enough?

Please observe that I'm not saying that the current information isn't good enough, because it is. But I know from own experiences that it could be necessary to get the specific fears adressed separately.

Just a thought, but perhaps it is a little offtopic?