# Mathematical Proof: The LHC Must Stop

Written by Stefan Hansen

Monday, 14 March 2011 20:14

There is plenty of debate back and forth concerning the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, and the possibility that it might create a black hole that will swallow earth - and end humanity. Most of this debate is rather technical, and impossible for laymen to understand. Luckily, I've found a simple mathematical proof rid of technical jargon, with the unquestionable conclusion that CERN's Large Hadron Collider must be stopped.

To understand my proof, it's necessary to understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. So, first textbook definitions of these terms, from the widely used textbook "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen and Kenneth McMahon:

Deduction: "Every deductive argument either does what it claims, or it does not; therefore, every deductive argument is either valid or invalid. If it is valid, it is impossible for its premises to be true without the conclusion also being true."

Induction: "In the realm of induction, as we seek new knowledge of facts about the world, nothing is beyond doubt. We must rely on arguments that support their conclusions only as probable, or probably true."

Further, you should know that empirical science is in the inductive domain. In other words: all scientific claims are - by definition - never true or false, but only more or less likely. And that goes for claims made by CERN, and their critics, as well. So, the idea that a black hole might be created in CERN's Large Hadron Collider cannot be ruled out, even if the probability might be approaching zero. Notice, it can only approach zero, it cannot be zero - in accordance with the definition of induction above.

Let's call the probability of a black hole imploding earth p. Then, in mathematical terms, we now know that:

0 < p < 1

Or, in everyday language, p is somewhere between 0 and 1, but neither 0 nor 1. By the way 1 means 100 %. So far, so good.

Next, we need to quantify the potential loss. This is simple. If earth implodes it will be the end of us. It will be game over. We risk losing everything. In mathematical terms, the loss is infinite, written as ∞. Let's call the potential loss L, and state it mathematically:

L = ∞.

If you are having trouble with the concept of infinity, I can tell you it's the number you get no matter what number you divide by zero. If you try it on your calculator, you'll get an error.

Having defined the probability of the event (p), and the potential loss of the event (L), we can now calculate the risk (R) using the following formula:

R = L × p

Knowing that L is infinite (∞) and p is somewhere between 0 and 1 (0 < p < 1), we can - with mathematical certainty - deduct the following:

R = ∞

In other words the risk (R) of CERN's Large Hadron Collider experiment is infinite - no matter how little the probability (p) of a black hole imploding earth is.

Naturally, that makes the conclusion self-evident: the LHC must be stopped, sooner rather than later. For every second the Large Hadron Collider is turned on, the chance of an end-all black hole is increasing, something we - mathematically - have proven cannot be justified.

I have no more to add.

Written by Stefan Hansen

http://www.hansensmag.net

To understand my proof, it's necessary to understand the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. So, first textbook definitions of these terms, from the widely used textbook "Introduction to Logic" by Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen and Kenneth McMahon:

Deduction: "Every deductive argument either does what it claims, or it does not; therefore, every deductive argument is either valid or invalid. If it is valid, it is impossible for its premises to be true without the conclusion also being true."

Induction: "In the realm of induction, as we seek new knowledge of facts about the world, nothing is beyond doubt. We must rely on arguments that support their conclusions only as probable, or probably true."

Further, you should know that empirical science is in the inductive domain. In other words: all scientific claims are - by definition - never true or false, but only more or less likely. And that goes for claims made by CERN, and their critics, as well. So, the idea that a black hole might be created in CERN's Large Hadron Collider cannot be ruled out, even if the probability might be approaching zero. Notice, it can only approach zero, it cannot be zero - in accordance with the definition of induction above.

Let's call the probability of a black hole imploding earth p. Then, in mathematical terms, we now know that:

0 < p < 1

Or, in everyday language, p is somewhere between 0 and 1, but neither 0 nor 1. By the way 1 means 100 %. So far, so good.

Next, we need to quantify the potential loss. This is simple. If earth implodes it will be the end of us. It will be game over. We risk losing everything. In mathematical terms, the loss is infinite, written as ∞. Let's call the potential loss L, and state it mathematically:

L = ∞.

If you are having trouble with the concept of infinity, I can tell you it's the number you get no matter what number you divide by zero. If you try it on your calculator, you'll get an error.

Having defined the probability of the event (p), and the potential loss of the event (L), we can now calculate the risk (R) using the following formula:

R = L × p

Knowing that L is infinite (∞) and p is somewhere between 0 and 1 (0 < p < 1), we can - with mathematical certainty - deduct the following:

R = ∞

In other words the risk (R) of CERN's Large Hadron Collider experiment is infinite - no matter how little the probability (p) of a black hole imploding earth is.

Naturally, that makes the conclusion self-evident: the LHC must be stopped, sooner rather than later. For every second the Large Hadron Collider is turned on, the chance of an end-all black hole is increasing, something we - mathematically - have proven cannot be justified.

I have no more to add.

Written by Stefan Hansen

http://www.hansensmag.net

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |

### ARTICLE VIEWS: 6996

### MOST RECENT ARTICLES

-The difficulty in people’s work lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ideas. (John Maynard Keynes)
Will we be able to advance in our quest for human rights? Friday, 20 September 2019 |

It is easy, or perhaps tempting, to make a false equivalency between Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Many of their domestic policies are similar, and they both fall on what is considered the Friday, 20 September 2019 |

September 19th 2019
That big mushroom cloud over Washington, DC? Oh, that’s just the Whistleblower scandal. A still unidentified person with close access to the President overheard him Friday, 20 September 2019 |

A warm feeling of hope grips us as young climate activist Greta Thunberg speaks before Congress and the world. Somehow it even reminds me of my ancient desire to get to Woodstock, But another young Friday, 20 September 2019 |

September 20 is celebrated by every Pakistani as the Victory Day, as on this very day; Pakistan won the 1965 war which India imposed on the latter on September 6, 1965.
In 2015, BJP-led government Thursday, 19 September 2019 |

The CompTIA Security+ certification has become a baseline for cybersecurity jobs, and the latest version of the SY0-501 Exam has been updated to reflect the increased specialization of cybersecurity Wednesday, 18 September 2019 |

The CompTIA Security+ certification has become a baseline for cybersecurity jobs, and the latest version of the SY0-501 Exam has been updated to reflect the increased specialization of cybersecurity Wednesday, 18 September 2019 |