Why the LHC Won't Destroy the World

An anonymous reader writes "Most people are aware of the recent articles contending that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN might destroy the world. While most scientists have no such concerns, a recent preprint released to arxiv systematically dismantles the notion. The gist of the argument is this: Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays. If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays. Such black holes would be stopped by dense cosmic objects (neutron stars and white dwarfs). A black hole stopped in one of these objects would eventually absorb it. We see sufficiently old neutron stars in the sky, thus any black hole that could be created at the LHC, even if it is stable, would have no effect on the earth on any meaningful timescale."

Comments

Huh?

[kalirion]

Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays.

In theory.

If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays.

In theory.

Such black holes would be stopped by dense cosmic objects (neutron stars and white dwarfs). A black hole stopped in one of these objects would eventually absorb it. We see sufficiently old neutron stars in the sky, thus any black hole that could be created at the LHC, even if it is stable, would have no effect on the earth on any meaningful timescale.

See above two "in theories".

Cost vs Benefit?

[BobMcD]

Could someone more knowledgeable than me do a cost-benefit on this one?

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider) says this will cost 'between US$5 and US$10 billion', plus we have the potential (even if ridiculously remote) to really mess up the planet.

The gains, again same source are:

Physicists hope to use the collider to test various grand unified theories and enhance their ability to answer the following questions:

        * Is the popular Higgs mechanism for generating elementary particle masses in the Standard Model realised in nature? If so, how many Higgs bosons are there, and what are their masses?[11]
        * Will the more precise measurements of the masses of the quarks continue to be mutually consistent within the Standard Model?
        * Do particles have supersymmetric ("SUSY") partners?[2]
        * Why are there apparent violations of the symmetry between matter and antimatter?[2] See also CP-violation.
        * Are there extra dimensions indicated by theoretical gravitons, as predicted by various models inspired by string theory, and can we "see" them?
        * What is the nature of dark matter and dark energy?[2]
        * Why is gravity so many orders of magnitude weaker than the other three fundamental forces?

I have some (fairly redundant) questions myself:

A) What is the net-gain, other than knowledge? For example, what are the foreseeable practical applications?

A1) Are any of these potential gains greater than the risk of losing the Earth itself?

A2) Are any of the competing methods of gaining this knowledge comparable? (Assuming any exist...)

B) Why not do these experiments in space? Since we're already on a framework measured in billions of dollars, wouldn't an additional 10% overhead be enough to conduct this somewhere we could merely avoid if things went 'wonky' on us?

I obviously have no stake in this one way or the other, but to date no one has attempted to put this in these terms.

Note to certain ass-hatted, overzealous moderators: This is likely to get hammered here via replies alone. No need to add insult to injury. I really, genuinely am wanting to hear what people think on this topic - AND I feel it contributes to the overall discussion to go over it.