Slashdot Mirror
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."
I wouldn't worry really. If it does destroy the world (which this is saying it won't, because if it could, it would have already happened naturally), then too bad. There isn't anything we can do, and such is life. C'est la vie.
Oh yeah, and I really have been there, there was an open day a couple of months back, the thing is less then about 15 cm in most places (then you have the various vacuum thingys, etc.). Which is rather big, actually, considering the size of the particles...
I wank in the shower.
"Science is the work of the devil!"
I believe the saying goes, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. "Safe" doesn't sell National Geographic, let alone Wired.
Interestingly Enrico Fermi did use the same argument while setting on the first nuclear reactor during the Manhattan project around 1940 (that some cosmic rays are anyway much more energetic and bombarding the Earth since ages). And later fission and fusion bomb makers did use the same argument while playing with increasingly powerful toys. Ditto particle physicists for each new and more powerful accelerator. Isn't it time that journalists and other dumb news makers understand?
I've seen both 'theories' touted in the press. I don't think that most people realise that the LHC, impressive as it is, is generating particle energies way lower than we observe ocasionally naturally.
"Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
Yes, in theory. Just as the sun will rise tomorrow "in theory." And if I repeatedly shoot someone in the head, they will die, "in theory." And reality exists, "in theory."
Provability only exists in mathematics. For everything else, from decisions about what to buy at the supermarket, to designs of scientific experiments, we humans must use mental models that rely upon fundamental assumptions about how the universe operates (e.g. that past experiences allow us to make meaningful predictions). In other words, every action we take must be informed by some sort of "theory." The question then becomes "how robust is this model/theory?", "how much can I trust the predictions?", "what is the range of the possible outcomes?", "what are the consequences of errors in the assumptions/model/theory?", and so on.
If you have a specific problem with one of the assumptions, logic, modeling, mathematics, data acquisition, or analysis, then point it out in detail. But saying, "that's just a theory" is not useful. Everything we do is based on theories.
After all, the opposite is also a theory: Not turning on the LHC won't cause the destruction of the Earth... in theory.
What about a neutron star with a black hole INSIDE IT! hah! I got you now!
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Logic can never be better than the assumptions it works with. Garbage in => garbage out.
Logic is a way of saying that anything which didn't happen yesterday won't happen tomorrow No, logic nothing to say about that - it only concerns the way in which we manipulate logical statements. What you are talking about is empiricism - the idea that because something has always happened before, it will happen again next time; this is a useful notion in many sciences, but there is no logical reason why it should be valid.Actually, we'd all die relatively slowly and quickly, depending on if you're looking at people falling in after or before you.
I'd be more worried that the astrophysicists haven't accounted for 96% of the energy and mass of the universe in their current model.
I see billions of golf ball size black holes crossing the galaxy, playing Pac-Man "the milky way edition".
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
There are two opposing viewpoints on the matter.
On the one hand, we have particle physicists whose "theories" on the interaction of subatomic-scale matter is drawn from decades of research and experimentation.
On the other hand, we have people who know essentially no physics and seemingly assume that the people building the LHC must be as lost when it comes to science as they. They make the argument, "Well, we don't *really* know what's going to happen."
It's amazing that the latter are able to function, as crippled as they should be of the fear of uncertainty.
Or in even simpler terms: "We're doing this experiment because we want to find out what happens. We don't really know what will happen, but we assure you it will be perfectly safe."
I wouldn't think it would have too great an impact on tides and climates and such. Its gravity would only be as great as that of the sum of the mass it had absorbed, which by definition can't be more than the planet has now, so if it just sat there in the middle of the planet, it wouldn't change the gravity of the earth.
It's kind of like "Holy crap if the Sun collapsed into a black hole all the planets would be sucked in". If the Sun spontaneously collapsed and was a black hole, which theoretically can't happen because it doesn't have enough mass, the planets would orbit the black hole normally, just as they do the Sun now. The black hole would have the same mass as the sun, just be a lot smaller. We'd all die of course from things like "no heat", but the Earth would happily orbit its much smaller star.
Right? I'm not a physicist.
I like music
Exactly, and as minor black holes are used to anchor the Intergalactic superhighways road system in place, I suspect that Arthur Dent is at this moment contemplating the life of a fly somewhere in Kent.
Are there any marine biologists among us? Have the fish been acting funny lately?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
All things told, I'd rather die by act of science than by act of war.
More Twoson than Cupertino
> Even if a black hole like particle was briefly formed and then hit by another particle
> or two or twenty, then what?
Then you would have a slightly larger nano-blackhole. It would still have such a tiny collision cross-section that it could orbit inside the Earth for a billion years without growing to perceptible size.
But the event you postulate is extremely improbable in any case because of that tiny collision cross-section.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Let's put it this way:
We KNOW enough about the math, even with all the estimations and incomplete theories, to be able to say that, on the extreme outside chance the LHC does make a mini black hole, the mini black hole will evaporate/destroy itself in a time frame measured in tiny fractions of a second. It cannot destroy the Earth, let alone the solar system or the galaxy.
On the other hand, know nothing of the possibilities of interdimensional travel. Therefore, we are safer considering, and maybe preparing for, the possibility of Hellboy landing in the lab. And he ain't such a bad guy, really.
I hope this comment is well received... I could have moderated instead!
Persecutors will be violated!
Based on airplane cockpit recorders (the black boxes) the most likely last word will be "SHIT!".
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a "woo-hoo."
Fear keeps us alive. But it can also keep us from really living.
Ultimately, we need to understand how the universe works. The long-term survival of our species requires it. Gaining knowledge may be dangerous and may cost lives. Failing to gain knowledge, however, is guaranteed to spell the end of our species.
Yeah, it's so deep it goes all the way to China.
"we don't really know what will happen. Period."
Bull. We don't know exactly what will happen, but that's not the same as having no idea at all. We know very well that certain things will not happen; like destroying the earth. The experiment to be performed is performed regularly by random cosmic rays in the atmosphere. We don't know what will happen in terms of the data collected by the sophisticated instruments in place at the LHC, because these instruments are not in place for those naturally occurring experiments. But for those naturally occurring experiments, certain very crude instruments are in place. Including a crude, but actually perfect detector for earth-destroying effects, which we call the earth. It's still here.
Only rednecks do stupid things, of course. Everyone knows this ;)
Since the hole would be created from Earth's mass on Earth, the difference would not be insignificant but exactly zero.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
We know very well that certain things will not happen; like destroying the earth. The experiment to be performed is performed regularly by random cosmic rays in the atmosphere.
Not quite. From what I've read, the LHC would create more-or-less stationary black holes, which if they don't evaporate, would bounce back and forth through the earth, eventually settling in the core. The cosmic ray collisions would create micro black holes traveling at high velocities, which would could go straight through the earth and out the other side, without being much affected by the planet's gravitational pull and not getting the chance to do any real damage. The article states that if this happened, then surely there'd be no old neutron stars in the universe (since, unlike the Earth, a neutron star would have enough mass to capture a high-velocity micro black hole.) I don't find that reasoning too comfortable.