Slashdot Mirror
The LHC, Black Holes, and the Law
KentuckyFC writes "Now that the physicists have had their say over the safety of the Large Hadron Collider, a law professor has produced a comprehensive legal study addressing the legal issue that might arise were a court to deal with a request to halt a multi-billion-dollar particle-physics experiment (abstract). The legal issues make for startling reading. The analysis discusses the problem with expert witnesses, which is that any particle physicists would be afraid for their livelihoods and anybody else afraid for their lives. How can such evidence be relied upon? It examines the well established legal argument that death is not a redressable injury under American tort law, which could imply that the value in any cost-benefit analysis of the future of the Earth after it had been destroyed is zero (there would be nobody to compensate). It asks whether state-of-the-art theoretical physics is really able to say that the LHC is safe given that a scientific theory that seems unassailable in one era may seem naive in the next. But most worrying of all, it points out that the safety analyses so far have all been done by CERN itself. The question left open by the author is what verdict a court might reach."
Of course, this is relevant because in the event of an LHC-created black hole destroying the planet, we will of course launch into space a "lifeboat" containing a judge, defense and plaintiff lawyers, Rusty the Bailiff to keep everyone in line, and one token normal person to be the plaintiff. Justice will be served no matter what the damage to the planet is.
We're past that climax... the answer's 42. Google it.
We're neither dead nor alive so long as nobody looks into this issue. :-)
I think CERN would be declared an Terrorist Organization and the scientists individually deemed Enemy Combatants.
So, care to calculate some epicycles for us?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
How eccentric of you.
If we don't agree to the shrinkwrap terms, can we take the LHC back to the point of purchase for a full refund?
As long as Magrathea has a backup I say we go for it.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
I know there's a joke in there somewhere, I just can't quite figure it out.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Whoa there bucko. Sweden is next to France?!
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
Yes but it's important and THAT makes it American! ;-)
Quack, quack.
There's plenty of scientists who can discuss these topics rationally and humbly, they just make for really boring television.
The LHC webcams, on the other hand, make for really panic-inducing television.
I think that "Redundant" mod refers to your use of "cockroaches" and "lawyers" as separate.
...its in the France-Switzerland border...
Whoa there bucko. Sweden is next to France?!
I bet I can guess what country you're from.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Oh, yeah, I know. I've read three books on it now, and the main support seems to be "but the maths work so well!" :)
Then they get to the part about needing a particle accelerator with a diameter that could contain the Oort Cloud just to do basic tests. After that is the chapter on holographic theory, and I realize the theoretical physics world has basically gone completely wrong in the head.
But, hey, the maths work out! All those nasty zeros in infinities go away.
Dear Mr. Layman,
We lawyers often have to quickly develop expertise in this or that technical subject depending on the case, and we have to know the subject matter cold in order to engage in meaningful examination of the witnesses. ("Isn't it true, Mr. Developer, that you typed 'i++' instead of '++i', causing the stack to overflow and necessitating a scram of the atomic pile?") You might remember the episode of "ER" where they had a lawyer who knew his medicine so well that the doctors would let him operate on people.
In the LHC scenario you describe, a successful civil action based on negligence might require service of a summons with near-infinite mass traveling at 0.99C. We're used to this.
but ... but ... but ... the LHC is on the French-Swiss border: that must affect the laws of physics somehow ...
Yes, and Australia is on the other side.
The LHC will destroy the world. Just as it is a well known fact that if we try to build a space elevator, workers will spontaneously begin speaking different languages...
</sarcasm>
1. There exist distinguished but elderly scientists who are strong atheists (that is, believe that God cannot exist).
2. Clarke's First Law.
Ergo, God exists.
Something seems a bit flawed there.
I am officially gone from
Are you trying to say that only one-fourth of Americans are retarded?
There. I fixed it for you.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.