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

First

[JustOK]

First particle?

Fools!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't they see that there used to be MORE neutron stars?

If he's wrong?

[Chrisq]

While most scientists have no such concerns, a recent preprint released to arxiv systematically dismantles the notion. A risky claim to make. If he's wrong it will totally ruin his reputation ;-)

Re:If he's wrong?

[heldlik]

Well the good thing about the critics of this LHC project, is that we won't be hearing any "I TOLD YOU SO!"

This article doesn't take everything into account

[verbalcontract]

This article doesn't take into account accidental resonance cascades that open up portals to bizarre alien.

Re:Hang on a minute

[maxume]

Or "I'm hungry" or "This coffee is awful".

Re:Hang on a minute

[oahazmatt]

I can imagine the last words in the lab just before we all disappear into a singularity:

"Oops"

I agree. The world will end not with an alien invasion, not with a famine and not with a multi-national nucler war.

No, the world will end with a scientist uttering "Oh, sweet!"

Famous "last particle"

[eclectro]

"We have an unintended event horizon."

Re:Famous "last particle"

[postbigbang]

Although the parent is rated 'funny' currently, I can only imagine a new, really big lake in Switzerland soon, Lake Hadron.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou

[utnapistim]

Now, now, if you follow standard insertion procedure, everything will be fine. ... Although I will admit that the possibility of a resonance cascade scenario is extremely unlikely.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

[Migraineman]

The LHC is "mostly harmless." After all, it's only bashing Large Hadrons together. Now, the Ginormous Hadron Collider (GHC) is another matter all together. It's been giving me the stink-eye for weeks now. I wouldn't turn my back on it for a minute.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the actual "danger" in question the creation of stable negative strangelets (which would gobble up regular matter through electrostatic attraction, not through gravity like a black hole) ?

Yes, but this can be counteracted via the usage of normalets, which are generated by anybody who doesn't read slashdot.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou

[Chris Mattern]

Slashdot doesn't need to hear all this, they're highly trained professionals. We've assured the administrator that *nothing will go wrong*.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

[Just Some Guy]

Now, the Ginormous Hadron Collider (GHC) is another matter all together.

The Tremendous Hadron Collider is more likely to create a black hole with the munchies.