To answer your points one by one, the scientists involved are "playing around", the fact that they are doing it to try and gain a better understanding proves that they don't understand fully what they are doing.
Some of that is true, but there's a significant, IMHO, difference between knowing nothing, which would be a foolhardy starting point from which to attempt to create any type of spacetime anomoly, and knowing
something, which is the reality of the situation.
They may have found a few pieces of the jigsaw, but again, nobody knows how many pieces are undiscovered, so I don't understand your point there.
My point is that knowledge is a continuum, with the goal of knowing 'everything' being a laudible and yet attainable one, and that the alternative to knowing everything isn't knowing nothing.
Enough confidence exists in the scientists who have obtained funding for this experiment to make it a feasible proposition with an in significant, IMHO, risk.
A tiny black hole would, if massive enough to stay in existence, inevitably lead to armageddon, simply because there would be nothing that anybody could do about it with our current science, it would then just be a matter of time before it consumed everthing within reach of it's gravitational pull.
This is where your understanding is violently tangential to reality, because you imply that there are two classes of black hole, viz:
1. Those so tiny that they don't stay in existence.
2. Those so massive that they never cease to exist.
This theory of yours doesn't fit with what I've read, so either:
a) You've read different things to me, and my understanding is incorrect;
or
b) You don't really know what you're talking about.
The thing that I keep repeating, that you seem to keep ignoring, is that we're surrounded by temporary black holes of a tiny size and a tiny lifespan. FYI, AFAIK, the energy needed to create even these tiny singularities easily exceeds the energy that the LHC will have at its disposal, ergo any CERN black hole will be hugely less potent than our those in our cosmic environment whose existence we survive with boring regularity.
The big switch on in this case would obviously refer to the start of the experiment in the large hadron collider which you yourself believe will almost certainly create a temporary black hole.
OK, but the use of the word big implies something that doesn't exist, i.e. A Big Switch, probably painted red and conspicuously labeled "Do not operate this unless you really
really REALLY know what you're doing".
Without meaning to be offensive, the idea of such a switch is rather kindergarten in its reasoning. The LHC is an enormous, expensive and commensurately sophisticated piece of equipment. Its operation, and the observation of the results of its operation, are carefully and comprehensively controlled, in fact a rather tedious opposite to the image of Wile E. Coyote in front a big lever with his eyes screwed in up in fearful anticipation that you seem to be imagining.
Again, I am just trying to give the counter arguments. For myself I am happy that governments have spent the money to enable this fantastic research, lets hope it takes the human race further along the road to better understanding of the most fundamental questions of science, life, the universe and everything.
To infinity and beyond.
Well, I think I'm with you there, although it has a somewhat Pixarian literary touch about it.
