How's that again?
I'm a wee bit confused here. How does Mr. Keane propose to collect on his wager if he should win?
Bet 382
Duration 10 years (02008-02018)
Predictor
Joe Keane
Challenger
Nick Damiano
Stakes $1,000
will go to National Rifle Association if Keane wins,
or Save the Children if Damiano wins.
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Theoretical physics is incomplete regarding what processes can occur at such high energies. No one knows what is going to happen.
Cosmic rays throughout the universe produce similar collisions of higher energy than will be possible with the LHC on a regular basis.
Even if a micro black hole is created AND it does not instantly evaporate AND it becomes trapped by the earth's gravity, it is likely that it will aggregate mass so slowly that something else out there will destroy the earth before the black hole is able to do so.
A strangelet disaster is similarly unlikely. The mere fact that Earth (in addition to countless other stars and planets) has not yet been converted to strange matter is a testament in itself to the rarity of such an event in the universe.
As for a vacuum metastability event, well, we probably would have been killed by such an event resulting from either natural sources or an extraterrestrial civilization's particle collider long ago if it were that easy to initiate.
However, in the unlikely event that:
a) The LHC does in fact destroy the earth,
b) Humanity somehow survives this event and relocates to somewhere else in the universe,
c) I am still alive,
d) Your beneficiary still exists, and
e) Money as we know it still has value,
then I will gladly pay up.
I would be interested to know which of the scenarios I have mentioned(or have not mentioned) Mr. Keane thinks is likely to destroy the planet.
Prediction is correct if Earth is, as a result of operation of the collider, annihilated, reduced to much smaller volume than previously, vaporized, broken into large pieces, converted into photons, neutrinos, or other radiation, converted into exotic matter, or just unable to support life. For the purpose of the bet, Earth should be considered "destroyed" if, at the end of the term of this bet in 2018, zero human beings reside on the surface of the planet. Damage caused by attack of hostile beings is included if it is a causal result of operation of the collider. Teleporting Earth to another location or alternate universe where it is still able to support life is specifically excluded. Bet is won if whatever scientific community remains at this time, whether human, machine, or extraterrestrial, acknowledges that the "destruction" of Earth most likely resulted from the Large Hadron Collider or a product thereof (e.g. strangelet, micro black hole, etc).
I'm a wee bit confused here. How does Mr. Keane propose to collect on his wager if he should win?
The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has been running since the late 90s, and hasn't yet destroyed the planet, though there was some concern about the possibility of grave consequences, and a paper was published covering several scenarios (http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf).
Granted, LHC is higher energy than RHIC, though one scenario, the accretion of ordinary matter by stable strangelet-based matter, has a higher probability at lower energies.
The probability of the strangelet disaster scenario is given in the above mentioned paper as 10^(-19). So a question: If you could build something that had a 10^(-19) probability of destroying the planet, would you go ahead and build it?
The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) has been running since the late 90s, and hasn't yet destroyed the planet, though there was some concern about the possibility of grave consequences, and a paper was published covering several scenarios (http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf).
Granted, LHC is higher energy than RHIC, though one scenario, the accretion of ordinary matter by stable strangelet-based matter, has a higher probability at lower energies.
The probability of the strangelet disaster scenario is given in the above mentioned paper as 10^(-19). So a question: If you could build something that had a 10^(-19) probability of destroying the planet, would you go ahead and build it?
Just wondering:
10^(-19) is not a probability, it's a number. What exactly is the probability figure for that scenario? 1 in 10^19 cases the earth will be destroyed? Or the chance of the earth being destroyed over the lifetime of the collider is 1:10^19? And if it's per incident: how many of those do you have per experiment etc. etc.
One might argue that, if LHC doesn't destroy the Earth, the trend toward larger particle accelerators will increase the probability of creating significant quantities of antimatter, which will lead to the creation of an antimatter weapon that will lead to global war.
Either way, however, the fact is that this is highly unlikely within ten years.
Reading this bet's terms has me ROTFLOL! To think some people thought my first prediction here was a bit outre! "Damage caused by attack of hostile beings" indeed! God bless the bet participants both! Incidentally, I side with the challenger.
>10^(-19) is not a probability, it's a number.
>What exactly is the probability figure for that
>scenario? 1 in 10^19 cases the earth will be
>destroyed? Or the chance of the earth being
>destroyed over the lifetime of the collider
>is 1:10^19? And if it's per incident: how many
>of those do you have per experiment etc. etc.
10^(-19) is the scientist way of saying "We don't really know but we are damn sure it is not going to happen. Now leave us alone... let us play with our toys... bother someone else... Look: FUDGE! yummie. I like fudge."
Behold the beauty of a number!
>10^(-19) is not a probability, it's a number.
>What exactly is the probability figure for that
>scenario? 1 in 10^19 cases the earth will be
>destroyed? Or the chance of the earth being
>destroyed over the lifetime of the collider
>is 1:10^19? And if it's per incident: how many
>of those do you have per experiment etc. etc.
10^(-19) is the scientist way of saying "We don't really know but we are damn sure it is not going to happen. Now leave us alone... let us play with our toys... bother someone else... Look: FUDGE! yummie. I like fudge."
Behold the beauty of a number!
> If you could build something that had a 10^(-19) probability of destroying the planet, would you go ahead and build it?
My vegetable garden likely poses a similar threat to society. My personal use of fossil fuels is almost certainly more dangerous to the world than the LHC.
Simply put, on my list of things to be concerned about, the LHC is somewhere below lint.
>10^(-19) is not a probability, it's a number.
The probability of an event is a unitless real number in [0, 1].
"10^(-19) is not a probability, it's a number."
Probability can be expressed as a fraction (3 / 10, meaning 3 out of 10 times this will be true), or a decimal number ( 3/10 = 0.3 ). 10^(-19) is a really small number and a very small probability.
>The probability of an event is a unitless real number in [0, 1].
probability is not unitless. The unit is the "odd", ala, what are the odds. It is measuring something, no different than the mass of an object, which also has units. That kilogram weight has it's "odds". The chance of it existing even, as a 1.0 odds.
>probability is not unitless. The unit is the "odd", ala, what are the >odds. It is measuring something, no different than the mass of an >object, which also has units. That kilogram weight has it's "odds". The >chance of it existing even, as a 1.0 odds.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa
The above posters are right.
Firstly, probability is no more a number than a square is a rhombus.
Secondly, the concept of "unitlessness" was invented (AFAIK) by some academic to scare students a long time ago and is not taken seriously by modern scientists. I first heard of it in an early lecture in my college physics class and decided to drop it (the lecturer's accent was also really bad). Even more strange, I logged onto OpenCourseWare and Walter Lewin talked about it as well! I had heard that MIT was a good school, but I am now teaching myself physics from better books such as the Emperor's New Mind.
One example often given is angle, but clearly angles can have units of radians or degrees (among others).
Also, A Nom claims that probabilities have to be either 0 or 1. I hope anyone reading this can reflect for a moment on why this can't be true. (Hint: there would only be two probabilities!) So I don't see why anyone would take him seriously, as he is undoubtedly a troll.
As one of the parties betting here, I'd like to bring up a relevant point: subjective vs. objective probability. Objective probability is the true odds something will happen: P(fair die lands on 5) = 1/6. Subjective probability is an estimate of the objective probability, but probably does not accurately represent the true odds: P(Red Sox win tomorrow) = 0.6.
In the case of the LHC, as my opponent Mr. Keane stated, "Theoretical physics is incomplete [...] No one knows what is going to happen." The figure of 10^(-19) is a highly subjective probability and is likely off by several orders of magnitude. 10^(-19) could mean (a) that we completely understand the physical phenomena at play, and 1 in 10^(-19) times a disaster scenario will occur and destroy Earth, or (b) that we don't understand everything and we think there is a 10^(-18) chance a disaster scenario is possible, and if it is possible, it will destroy Earth 1/10 times. Note that in the latter case, observing 100 successful runs should put our minds at ease much more than it should in the former.
If after a few runs of this machine, we observe a "near miss," such as a black hole that does not evaporate sufficiently quickly or a strangelet chain reaction that stops short of destroying the earth, that should indicate to us that the objective probability of the LHC destroying the earth is larger than we originally thought - and we should probably stop running the thing. Likewise, if we make discoveries that suggest Hawking radiation is not as effective as we thought or that strangelet conversion is possible, that should also increase our estimate of the objective probability hat the LHC can destroy the earth.
While I doubt the LHC will destroy us, the fact is that all it would take is one of many universal constants having an unfortunate value. Hopefully technology allows us to conduct the next step in particle collisions somewhere far, far away, like Pluto (where we wouldn't even have to supercool).
I side with the better, but the time frame is dubious. Professor rossler calculates 50 months to 50 years for a micro black hole to devour Earth.
Professor Rossler details Seven Reasons for concern if micro black holes are created. (http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf and references)
Highlights:
1) Black holes cannot evaporate... [theories by Rossler, Helfer, Belinski, etc. support this]
3) Miniblack holes grow exponentially ... [Dr. Rossler calculates 50 months to 50 years].
4) ... man-made [micro black holes] ... alone are slow enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec) can take residence � in contrast to the almost-luminal speeds of their natural cousins.
5) CERN‘s counterargument... white dwarfs ... natural miniblack hole... can pass through
7) neutron stars ... are protected by quantum coherence effects of the superfluidity type: so miniblack holes can pass without friction.
even though the duration needs to be an order of magnitude longer for him to have a fair shot at "winning" this bet. I think the immediate catastrophic predictions are not going to happen, but if the black holes don't evaporate, we won't know until after the challeger has been paid.
Spend it while can!
even though the duration needs to be an order of magnitude longer for him to have a fair shot at "winning" this bet. I think the immediate catastrophic predictions are not going to happen, but if the black holes don't evaporate, we won't know until after the challeger has been paid.
Spend it while can!
> Also, A Nom claims that probabilities have to be either 0 or 1. I
> hope anyone reading this can reflect for a moment on why this can't
> be true. (Hint: there would only be two probabilities!) So I don't
> see why anyone would take him seriously, as he is undoubtedly a
> troll.
You haven't had math in a while, have you? [0,1] is shorthand for the set of real numbers between 0 and 1, inclusive on both ends.
>the trend toward larger particle accelerators will increase the
>probability of creating significant quantities of antimatter, which
>will lead to the creation of an antimatter weapon that will lead to
>global war.
As the research of fission weapons, then fusion weapons, eventually led to global war?
The idea that better technology will eventually lead to misuse of that technology is a terrible fallacy - mostly because it hinders the development of said technology. As long as we remain in a Nash Equilibrium as a result of Mutually Assured Destruction policies, the development of improved thermal superweapons is a moot point, since the use of one antimatter bomb would promptly invite response in the form of a few thousand traditional nuclear warheads.
Now, delivery systems and missile defense, THOSE we have to worry about.
Scientists have measured that some cosmic ray particles have energies of a few joules per particle. (Oh-My-God particle)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray
A particle with an energy of 10^20eV struck earth. The Large Hadron Collider on the other hand can reach upto 14Tev which is 10 million times less than the energy of the Cosmic Ray particle.
Needless to say, nothing catastrophic is expected to occur.
Wasn't gravity the reason for the LHC and the hunt for the graviton or higgs boson?
Gravity pulls, dimension rules; no such thing as a dimension particle, no such thing as a gravity particle
Reminds me to much of jonah and the whale, I go for the predictor.
Odds is a different than probability. The odds in favor of an event would be the p/(1 - p) where p is the probability of the event. Therefore, if the probability of an event is 1/5, then the odds in favor of it would be (1/5)/(4/5) = 1/4, or "four to one," meaning 4 chances to succeed and 1 chance to fail.
For the record, a probability of 10^-19 means 1/(10^19), or 1 in 10^19, but a unit is unnecessary. I cannot comment on the validity of that value as the probability being measured here, which could be untrue.
Plus, [0, 1] is not the set of 0 and 1, it is the interval from 0 to 1 (including both 0 and 1), or {x | 0 <= x <= 1}. If it was the set containing only 0 and 1, one would say {0, 1}
Man's technology has exceeded his grasp. - 'The World is not Enough'
(Breaking News: September 11, 2008 - 'Peter Higgs launches attack against Nobel rival Stephen Hawking' - The Times: "Professor Peter Higgs, the scientist who gave his name to the Higgs boson, the particle at the centre of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment, launched a withering attack on Professor Stephen Hawking, saying his work was "not good enough"." "Both men are contenders for the Nobel prize � depending on the outcome of the experiment � and their spat is likely to send shockwaves through the scientific Establishment." "Since he retired nearly 20 years ago, Professor Higgs, 79, has gradually detached himself from his academic world, preferring to read novels and play with his two grandchildren. He has, however, stayed in touch closely enough to pour scorn on the views of Professor Hawking and on scientists who predicted that the LHC might bring the end of the world.")
Zealous, jealous, Nobel Prize hungry Physicists are racing each other and stopping at nothing to try to find the supposed 'Higgs Boson'(aka God) Particle, among others, and are risking nothing less than the annihilation of the Earth and all Life in endless experiments hoping to prove a theory when urgent tangible problems face the planet. The European Organization for Nuclear Research(CERN) new Large Hadron Collider(LHC) is the world's most powerful atom smasher that will soon be firing groups of subatomic particles at each other at nearly the speed of light to create Miniature Big Bangs producing Micro Black Holes, Strangelets, AntiMatter and other potentially cataclysmic phenomena as described below.(Risk Evaluations HERE.)
Particle physicists have run out of ideas and are at a dead end forcing them to take reckless chances with more and more powerful and costly machines to create new and never-seen-before, unstable and unknown matter while Astrophysicists, on the other hand, are advancing science and knowledge on a da
There wouldn't even be a nation anymore for the National Rifle Association to belong to. Therefore, who would the challenger really be paying up to?
I think the challenger was right to take this bet, as it will be an easy donation to a worthy charity.
I can't agree with the argument that: extraterrestrial civilisations must already have conducted the experiment; the universe still exists; therefore the experiment is safe. (1) Clearly, one civilisation has to be the first to conduct the experiment and, so far, there is no proof that any extraterrestrial civilisations exist. (2) Even if extraterrestrial civilisations exist and have the capability of conducting the experiment, they may have decided that taking a subjectively estimated risk of 10^(-19)is unfair to other inhabitants of the universe. (3) Or, they may have acquired greater understanding of particle physics prior to conducting the experiment and determined that the risk is likely to be considerably higher than 10^(-19) - therefore, they're wisely holding off. (4) Finally, a civilisation just beyond the limits of the visible universe may already have pushed the button, catastrophe ensued, and a wave of nothingness is currently rushing towards us at the speed of light.
I side with the predictor, and hope that the aliens will disable the LHC before the experiment goes any further.
I have a feeling tht before that happens presidentobama is going to be assasinated around 2009 or 2010and his aint a joke
heads of cern negotiate everything with the argument, that we would be still thinking earth is flat by not doing similar ( lol ) experiments.
Why even bother checking the probability? If the earth get's destroyed, you won't care about the 1000 bucks. If the earth doesn't get destroyed, you've won money. Easy bet. And i can say for sure the earth is not going to be destroyed, as nobody cán prove me wrong. Oh and by the way, i'd love the LHC to destroy Earth, I just can't imagine myself a more painless way to die. Just half a second the experience that your feet already entered the black hole, and then immediate death. Looks better than dying of cancer to me.
I support the destruction of earth. And the fact that it could create a black hole would be sooooo cool.
Due to SPAM problems we have disabled commenting on Long Bets until we can institute automated filtering. Sorry for the inconvenience.
