Multiversal Journeys — Misconceptions About the LHC

Part one- well, comparison to cosmic rays was reassuring. I wonder why I haven't heard that said before, seems a simple enough argument. I liked that there was a graph. Switching from commentary to camera to lecture, repeating some of the same information, was a bit annoying, especially as the sound quality is bad for that second half. I would have much preferred if it was done as a whole presentation for the one purpose, with good sound quality.

Part 2- starts with a repeat of the introductory material of part 1. Feels like my time is being wasted especially after the long title sequence, that I have now seen twice. It was good that the Stephen Hawking worry was explained. The Spock parallel universe story was not really dealt with. Part 1 explained that detecting parallel universes wasn't really applicable but that isn't said at the end of part 2 - we are left with a joke about evil Spock's beard, not a conclusion.

Hello Mr Foster,

I have thought a little about these multiverse.I am not against a kind of anti thesis about the principle of uniquenss.The Unique universal sphere and the multispheres.Mr Tegmark can make these multispheres.I am asking me if the geometrical algebras and the convergences can be relevant.In fact we can even make a convergence with these multispheres linked with this uniqueness.We retrun always at this singularity above the walls of our physicality.So the multispheres and the sphere can be correlated and mathematically detailed.This infinite entropy and this gravitation are our other steps.The relevance is about the different physical propoerties of each multisphere ,we can change the poarameters and compare with this rational universe,the universal sphere.The points equilibriums can be found towards the singularity and the singularities.Regards

I am sorry if my critique seemed rather too harsh. I do think that reassuring people's concerns, by providing additional information on which to base their judgement, is an admirable thing to do. 'The press' do seem to like scaremongering. The apparatus is big and 'scary looking' and the unknown can worry people.

The two videos are supposed to be independent of each other. Therefore, both videos need to have introductory segments.

Hi Farzad,

calling the videos part 1 and part 2 does not make them seem like independent videos. I think most people would watch them in the order part 1 followed by part 2, thinking that part 2 would follow on from the content of part 1 rather than repeat it. One naming suggestion; the first might be called 'Cosmic rays and the LHC' and the second 'Stephen Hawking' and the LHC. The title sequence is nice but pretty long given the length of the videos themselves.

Hi Farzad,

Having thought some more about it; Stephen Hawking has applied to trademark his name, so it is probably best not to use it as a title. It might also be ambiguous making potential viewers think Stephen Hawking will appear in that video. So how about "A physicists concerns and the LHC' instead? Or since these are already made and you probably don't want to change them just list them on YouTube and other sites as: Misconceptions about the LHC; Cosmic rays, and Misconceptions about LHC; A physicist's concerns, instead of part 1 and part 2, to make them seem independent as you say they are supposed to be. (ignoring that the title sequence 'says' part 1 and part 2, and the mention of part 1 in part 2.)

I like that on the graph in part 1 the LHC value is clearly marked with LHC in a circle. It does the job well. I have found the same graph (without LHC circle) but yours has no attribution to Simon P. Swordy - University of Chicago unlike this other version.Connecting the LHC to ultra-high energy cosmic rays: from 10 to 100 TeV CMS Ralph Engel Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) I think it is probably a good thing to have it attributed, not just etiquette but adding his independent respectability to the diagram. It would not have hurt to mention where the graph came from and how it has been adapted for this presentation (if it has been).

In part 2 the idea of parallel universes is very briefly mentioned. The idea seems to have come from one of the scientists working on the LHC project. "Mir Faizal, one of the three-strong team of physicists behind the experiment, said: "Just as many parallel sheets of paper, which are two dimensional objects [breadth and length] can exist in a third dimension [height], parallel universes can also exist in higher dimensions."We predict that gravity can leak into extra dimensions, and if it does, then miniature black holes can be produced at the LHC."from www.newshour.com In your video it isn't made clear that he was the source of the information and when rebutting the idea the only argument made is "its not really possible" I feel that having raised the subject a more informative explanation of why not is needed. Answering ... Why did Mir Faizal mention parallel universes and black holes? How should what he said be correctly thought about?

How To Find A Parallel Universe: Cern Boosts Data Intelligence Forbes:May 4 2015 Quote "A paper published in Physics Letters B by scientists at the University of Waterloo in Canada -- Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal, and Mohammed M. Khalil -- proposes a way to prove that tiny black holes connect our universe to other universes. CERN intends to test this hypothesis. The LCH has previously been used to look for tiny black holes, but hasn't yet succeeded. The paper's authors suggested a possible explanation for the absence of black holes at the LHC. They've designed revised LHC experiments they hope will confirm their hypotheses -- in the authors' own words, their paper demonstrates "it is possible for black holes in six (and higher) dimensions to be produced at energy scales that will be accessible in the near future."

Thanks for sharing.It is very interesting and relevant.Education is so important.Sciences are there to help in a pure universal altruist way.The rest seems vain.Best Regards from Belgium