Reply #165: You have no reason to ask for one, save to cling to a point long lost.

[Random_Australian]

I'll answer your questions when you answer mine.

Do you rule as impossible the creation of a black hole (not just a mini one) by walking to the shops? Please show your working, including of course the physics we don't know yet. Heh.

What is the probability of that?

You could kill us all.

You're happy for people to play the biggest game of russian roulette in human history? Even if it is just a small chance, it is one people are taking day in, day out. One of these times, it has to happen.

I'm not answering your questions about a "probability calculation" because I have no reason to believe the standards you use lead to realistic interpretations of whether or not something is dangerous. Something that happens all the time is now happening with detectors.

In fact, given the fact that I can apply "real possibilities put forward by the scientific community" to walking to the shops, it seems I could call anything I like dangerous. (eg. a specific measurement of the distribution of the atoms in the earth finds them all in the same spot. Given that the wavefunctions of all the freaking atoms extend to infinity as far as the scientific community is aware, this is actually possible.)

And that is called reasoning - I thought your point was wrong, so I gave an argument as to why it was so. (ie. with those standards you can call anything you like dangerous)

But what did you do when you thought I was wrong? Did you supply reasoning? Let's have a look.

"I'm not answering your questions about going to a walk because they are not relevant or realistic."

Hmmmm. It looks a lot like an assertion with absolutely no support aside from your faith in your reasoning to me, but maybe not. Maybe I missed the "No, these standards accurately show what is and is not dangerous, because it uses the properties x,y,z of the LHC"

"I'm not answering your questions about going to a walk because they are not relevant or realistic."

Still not seeing any reasoning. Perhaps it isn't there.

But wait?

Did you mean

"My questions relate to real possibilities put forward by the Scientific community as regards the LHC."

Well, that is actually a lot like reasoning. The scientific community did put forward possibilities.
Like the possibility that a measurement of the position of the atoms around the world could find them all in the one spot, creating a black hole and killing us all. Whoops! Maybe "possibilities" doesn't equal "danger! Danger Will Robinson!" after all.