Exploring the Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

[jms5631]

. But I cannot abide anyone dismissing the fears of the general public who cannot be expected to know any better, especially given the damage to the planet and to human health that has been done in the name of science and progress.

First of all, you are correct, even though the risk is unspeakably minute, and not taken seriously by anyone almost anyone in the scientific community, the onus is on the scientists to take appropriate measures to convince the public of their safety. CERN has done an exceptionally comprehensive and commendable job in this regard. Relative to other colliders that have been started, the amount of research into safety has been astounding, and addressed throughly. There is a limit to what they can do however. They can not erase the irrational fears held by some of the uneducated public over operative words and automatic associations that illicit nefarious images of cataclysmic destruction such as black holes. In dealing with fundamental physics, the general public has an absolute right to demand safety and security, but must ultimately defer to the experts(who want to live no less then the general public) whose knowledge far surpasses their own. Most people don't understand Heisenberg, or Hawking Radiation, or the significance of cosmic ray collisions. Most don't even understand relativity. The point being, of course, not to highlight their ignorance but to point out their need to defer to some of the most intelligent people in the world on the subject. They have every right to demand their safety, but after every measure within reason has been taken to allay their fears and demonstrate the certitutde of the scientific safety claims, enough needs to be declared enough. Every single potential scanerio I've seen, that is halfway rational of course, has been thoroughly refuted on both theoretical and observational grounds, and this machine has been shown to be safe.

Also, I'm sure you will agree that the benefits that scientific progress have brought to civilizations, which are too plentiful to enumerate here, far outweigh any negatives.

 

[humanino]

The public just go about living their lives remembering how many times they've been screwed over by everyone from doctors

Yes, this is happening. I mean, the public forget or never hears about thousands of lives saved by doctors everyday, but they will sue the doctor when it happens once a year and talk about it for years. It's the same thing happening here : a distorted perception of reality.

 

[native365]

In a dimensional universe, what dimension would the universe we live in exist? In pragmatic spirit, the hypothetical particle exist in every dimension, even in hidden dimensions of space-time.

 

[enmerkar]

Yet, by your presence here in the electronic world, you have benefited from these scientists' "arrogance", i.e. the sole pursuit of knowledge.

The FACT that there have been SEVERAL careful studies of the safety issues on the LHC is ample proof that, more than anything else, there have been NO arrogance on any part. If these people are that arrogant, they would simply dismiss such issues as nonsense and simply ignore such thing. Yet, they didn't! Is this the sign of arrogance?

What is arrogance is to impose judgment on a group of people on a subject matter that one only has a superficial knowledge of. It is utterly disrespectful that one can simply accuse these people of being arrogant without understanding even one bit about the issues and the physics that is involved, even when they have done effort after effort to explain why there is nothing to be concerned of. I have no idea how much more they could have done!

If we always have to worry about what would happen, you'll never get any of the electronics and the conveniences that you take for granted today. Don't believe me? Next time you look at the semiconductor in your electronics, ask about the risk on the use of arsenic as a dopant in these material. Or shall I tell you how toxic other materials are that are used in your PC? Did you ask for the safety analysis of the plant that produces these things?

Zz.

You are trying to make an argument for the Experiments by compairing my simple PC to the Highly complex LHC...??

"Zz", Your over use of assumptions do not present your case well and are exactly why as scientists we should be concerned.

Your apparent vast knowledge of particle physics gives you confidence or should I say the arrogance to say that you are absolutely certain that all has been considered?

Does your equally vast knowledge of the nature of the universe tell you that we know enough to take that step. My knowledge of the Universe has infact brought me to the opposite conclusion, that there is still much to be learned. I was once very confident in all that science can answer, but, over the decades I have become very concerned with the volatile mix of human arrogance, and Scientific achievement.

Science Never Makes Mistakes...Ever?

As a Scientist myself I would never assume that Science is infallible. I am aware of the very real and on going concerns of many of my associates as well as the concerns of all those only hearing the headlines who don't know the terminology or the physics involved but who present valid well spoken arguments. Their reasoned thinking gives me hope... Some are very eloquent!

Today we are safe, the LHC is a stonker and it may turn out to be harmless...You don't get owt for nowt, but you may find trouble. Like many of my friends and fellows
I am conflicted by my child-like excitement over the new discoveries awaiting and the real concerns of danger.

It is as though we are adolescents with an emptied can of petrol bringing a lighter to the can because we know that it is empty. We see no liquid how can it be dangerous? Every child peering in agrees it is harmless insisting that there is nothing to worry about...

This is certain.. our Haughty arrogance will inevitably lead us to disaster. I haven't much time left here but our children do,.. I hope.

 

[Hurkyl]

the real concerns of danger.

The concern may be real -- but that doesn't make it justified.


(A previous revision of this post used the phrase "that it wasn't worth entertaining")

 

[enmerkar]

Of course it is worth entertaining...

 

[malawi_glenn]

enmerkar: The thing is that LHC is not more dangeorus than the tevatron, nuclear power plants or atomic bombs, LHC it in fact not danger at all. LHC is not even complex, it is just a very powerful proton accelerator.

Zz's point that there exists answers, written in elegant reports, but if "we" refer to the reports, we are arrogant.

There are better things to be afraid of then a small proton accelerator.

 

[Hurkyl]

Of course it is worth entertaining...

Why do you think that?

 

[enmerkar]

It's not the machinery I am "affraid" of. In weeks the proton accelerator will be impacting protons with incredible momentum. I see the disingenuous compairisons to high energy gama ray interactions at our upper atmosphere. Please compair apples to apples not apples to acorns. when up to par the LHC will be colliding protons in opposite directions to reveal in theory quark-quark interactions. to make an analogy we have to have honest compairisons with confident susceptibility. should MBH be produced don't just speak of one as though it has no possible interaction with the many other MBH that may be produced simultaneously. there may be correlations that quantum mechanics has not uncovered yet. I am certain that there will be correlations existent with multiple singularities in the these Fields. There are of course other concerns all of which give concern.

 

[enmerkar]

Quantum correlations between multiple singularities originating from a single event (collision) must be considered. There is currently no way of knowing how correlated MBH will behave not to mention "Strangelets" or Strange matter. matter composed of numbers of up, down, or strange quarks and quantum mechanics... there are no texts illuminating our way. this is all cross your fingers and hope we're OK.

 

[malawi_glenn]

It's not the machinery I am "affraid" of. In weeks the proton accelerator will be impacting protons with incredible momentum. I see the disingenuous compairisons to high energy gama ray interactions at our upper atmosphere. Please compair apples to apples not apples to acorns. when up to par the LHC will be colliding protons in opposite directions to reveal in theory quark-quark interactions. to make an analogy we have to have honest compairisons with confident susceptibility. should MBH be produced don't just speak of one as though it has no possible interaction with the many other MBH that may be produced simultaneously. there may be correlations that quantum mechanics has not uncovered yet. I am certain that there will be correlations existent with multiple singularities in the these Fields. There are of course other concerns all of which give concern.

You must be the biggest goof I've ever encountered that think that cosmic rays are high energy gamma rays.. cosmic rays consists of protons, electrons and ions which interact with nuclei in atmosopheric atoms at HIGHER CM-energy than LHC. It doesn't matter who and where you collide partiles, what matters is CM-energy. It doesent matter if you have two collding beams or a fixed target experimet such as the Earth beeing hit by protons acclerated from an AGN or SN. Also, what is moving and standing still are relative concepts, you can always find a frame where the Earth and the cosmic ray protons are hitting each other with equal velocity, momenta etc. I thought you was a scientist? well, you are not a physicsist for sure.

And how many times must we explain this? This is 3rd or 2nd time I have to tell someone in this tread how transformations work..

 

[SorinK]

Hi.
"Any microscopic black holes produced at the LHC are expected to decay by
Hawking radiation before they reach the detector walls."
Expected does not mean WILL decay.
What if does not decay?!

 

[gendou2]

Motion to lock or move this thread. There's no convincing people who aren't open to listening. This debate is polarized such that neither group cares to listen. There is no scientific reason for the LHC supporters to acknowledge the critics irrational viewpoint. Similarly, there is no logical argument that the LHC supporters can present to satisfy the critics. Te arguing is pointless.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Motion to lock or move this thread. There's no convincing people who aren't open to listening.

Can you adress those people?

 

[gendou2]

Hi.
"Any microscopic black holes produced at the LHC are expected to decay by
Hawking radiation before they reach the detector walls."
Expected does not mean WILL decay.
What if does not decay?!

What if gravity turns off an we all fly into space? It could happen. After all, gravity is just a theory. I find both about equally likely.

 

[humanino]

Expected does not mean WILL decay.

The Sun is expected to rise tomorrow morning. Nothing is certain in this world (c.f. Einstein quotation on being certain of the infinitude of the Universe).

 

[vanesch]

Yes, I think that article is excellent and I think that is the type of point-by-point analysis that should be employed to determine beyond all doubt that there are no safety concerns.

To answer your first question, I'll give a small list, even though I think my point should be self-evident:
1) Many "scientists" said global warming was baloney. We all now know better.

do we ? I'd say the jury is still out for that one for at least 50 years. How can you "know better" otherwise ?

2) Many "scientists" said nuclear winter was baloney. Carl Sagan managed to convince us otherwise thank heavens.

Have we observed a nuclear winter ? So how do you know ?

3) Many "scientists" said it was safe for soldiers to observe above-ground nuclear tests, or to have above-ground tests period.

Did MOST of them die ?

4) Many "scientists" at drug companies and at the FDA have countless times told us drugs are safe for us to later find out they're not

Did MOST people who took them, die ?

6) "Scientists" used to believe in bleeding people to keep them alive

Did they ? Or did they just call themselves "barbers" ?

7) "Scientists" used to tell us smoking was safe

Any published papers about that ?

8) "Scientists" used to tell pregnant women to drink wine

Any published papers about that ?

 

[gendou2]

Can you adress those people?

I certainly prefer not to name names.
The lion's share of the debate is about the trustworthiness of scientists as a group.
This is a silly thing to argue about.
Black holes are interesting, to me.
Radically skeptical arguments are not.

 

[malawi_glenn]

What if gravity turns off an we all fly into space? It could happen. After all, gravity is just a theory. I find both about equally likely.

That was the lamest answer I've ever seen.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/core8.htm

So it will acquire mass by eating on the detector, getting longer and longer lifetime and then eventually eat the Earth :-)

But maybe an expert on black holes should answer, I have only done introductory courses on general relativity.

 

[gendou2]

That was the lamest answer I've ever seen.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C007571/english/advance/core8.htm

So it will acquire mass by eating on the detector, getting longer and longer lifetime and then eventually eat the Earth :-)

But maybe an expert on black holes should answer, I have only done introductory courses on general relativity.

I was being ironic. Didn't you notice?
My intention is to expose how silly the radical skepticism is.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I certainly prefer not to name names.
The lion's share of the debate is about the trustworthiness of scientists as a group.
This is a silly thing to argue about.
Black holes are interesting, to me.
Radically skeptical arguments are not.

So what is a radicall skeptical argument?

 

[gendou2]

So what is a radicall skeptical argument?

When someone obsesses over "what if" scenarios, they are being radically skeptical of the safety we all take for granted, for example.

 

[malawi_glenn]

I was being ironic. Didn't you notice?
My intention is to expose how silly the radical skeptics are.

It is your own behaviour that makes this thread flip out. You are self contributing to the nonsense beeing posted here. So if you know a lot of black holes, write about it, if not, be quite.

 

[malawi_glenn]

When someone obsesses over "what if" scenarios, they are being radically skeptical of the safety we all take for granted, for example.

He was not obsessed, he simply asked what will happen if a MBH reaches the detector, I tried to answer hom from my small knowledge about BH lifetimes. Also since we have not observe BH-hawking radiation yet, it is a well founded question.

My ultimate answer would anyway be that it can't do no harm since if they are created in very high energy collisions, such as at the LHC or in the atmosphere beeing hit by cosmic ray protons and ions, they have not killed the Earth during the millions of years the "Large Cosmic ray collider" have been under operation.

 

[gendou2]

It is your own behaviour that makes this thread flip out. You are self contributing to the nonsense beeing posted here. So if you know a lot of black holes, write about it, if not, be quite.

What the hell, man?
I apologize if my point was not made clearly, and if my point was not helpful.
The nonsense bothers me, too.
I understand if you're frustrated, too.
Give me a break, though. Seriously.

 

[gendou2]

He was not obsessed, he simply asked what will happen if a MBH reaches the detector, I tried to answer hom from my small knowledge about BH lifetimes.

"He" who? I wasn't naming names. Read my posts before accusing me, next time, please.

 

[malawi_glenn]

What the hell, man?
I apologize if my point was not made clearly, and if my point was not helpful.
The nonsense bothers me, too.
I understand if you're frustrated, too.
Give me a break, though. Seriously.

I'm just telling you that irony and sarcasm is hard to differ on forums, exspecially when smileys are not beeing used. This thread is already very tense and loaded, if one tries to answer the questions without beeing ironic or sarcastic, things will work better.

I am not telling that Iam a good example on this, you assume that people are reading the thread which they are posting in so you don't have to post things 2,3,4 times! Like that enmerkar-guy, who is a "scientist" and uses physics language and thinks he know something.. THAT is very anoying.

 

[malawi_glenn]

"He" who? I wasn't naming names. Read my posts before accusing me, next time, please.

The guy "SorinK" (post #265) which you answered 5minutes ago, he was adressing a "what if question". It is quite reasonable that you was partly referring to this post.

 

[gendou2]

I'm just telling you that irony and sarcasm is hard to differ on forums, exspecially when smileys are not beeing used.

Got it. It would have been more helpful for me to mention that micro black holes evaporate quickly. So quickly, in fact, that their lifetime is well shorter than the time it takes to move an angstrom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

h = 6.62e-34
c = 3e8
G = 6.67e-11
M = 2 * 2.176e-8
t = (5120 * pi * G^2 * M^3) / (h * c^4)
t:1.1e-39

1*10^-39 seconds is far less time than it takes light to travel one angstrom.
I feel safe in saying that the a micro black hole of 2 Planck masses would evaporate before it could gobble any nearby atoms.

 

[humanino]

I don't need those ugly formulas to think.

Mechanical intuition does a very poor job at the quantum level. How do you define temperature for a single particle ? Only energy matters here.

 

[cristo]

Let's all please try and remember that PF has rules, which must be adhered to at all times, even in threads such as this one. Furthermore, if anyone sees a questionable post, please us the "report" button to bring it to the moderators' attention.

 

[tiny-tim]

danger of white holes

Why is everyone keeping so quiet about the danger of creating white holes?

I read somewhere that when protons and anti-protons collide, there is a theoretical possibility of creating floppions, which will decay to produce a white hole that is effectively a portal from another universe.

Far from sucking the Earth in, a white hole would drain matter from an already existing universe and pour it onto the earth.

Even if we escaped the 50% danger of this being anti-matter, thus turning central Europe white-hot, the huge added mass would considerably lengthen the day, and disturb the present earth-moon equilibrium, perhaps with the obvious catastrophic result.

Even if a benign, neutral, wormhole were established, we would still be open to invasion by unfamiliar life-forms, which depending on the maximum size of the wormhole capable of being created by the LHC could be anything in size from viruses to white rabbits.

Such species would multiply exponentially, and destroy life as we know it … and please don't tell me that couldn't happen!

And does the official "safety" report deal with these dangers?

I don't think so!​

 

[gendou2]

I read somewhere that when protons and anti-protons collide, there is a theoretical possibility of creating floppions, which will decay to produce a white hole that is effectively a portal from another universe.

Where did you read this? Please cite your source. I tried looking for myself but google was no help.

As far as the white hole is concerned, I can recommend some reading:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=108

 

[SorinK]

@tiny-tim they want only formulas.
They have the impression that all that is calculated is good, and if even they don't know what will happen, they know that is not dangerous because was made at a smaller scale.
If you think that a white hole will be formed you need to give them some formulas because they don't like theories with no formulas.
I was warned because I had a theory with no formulas and wrote it here.

 

[malawi_glenn]

@tiny-tim they want only formulas.
They have the impression that all that is calculated is good, and if even they don't know what will happen, they know that is not dangerous because was made at a smaller scale.
If you think that a white hole will be formed you need to give them some formulas because they don't like theories with no formulas.
I was warned because I had a theory with no formulas and wrote it here.

If you don't have a rigour theory that can back up your statements about physical things, then I can as well say "a pink hole will eat my grandma next week". If you want to make physical statements, then you must play the game physicsists play, and that is by doing the hard math, which is the language of physics.