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."
"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?
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.
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
> 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!
"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.