Large Hadron Collider Sparks 'Doomsday' Lawsuit 731
smooth wombat writes "In what can only be considered a bizarre court case, a former nuclear safety officer and others are suing the U.S. Department of Energy, Fermilab, the National Science Foundation and CERN to stop the use of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) until its safety is reassessed. The plaintiffs cite three possible 'doomsday' scenarios which might occur if the LHC becomes operational: the creation of microscopic black holes which would grow and swallow matter, the creation of strangelets which, if they touch other matter, would convert that matter into strangelets or the creation of magnetic monopoles which could start a chain reaction and convert atoms to other forms of matter. CERN will hold a public open house meeting on April 6 with word having been spread to some researchers to be prepared to answer questions on microscopic black holes and strangelets if asked."
idiots! (Score:5, Informative)
Vade retro, lawyers! (Score:5, Informative)
Last time a bunch of lawyers and politicians tried to legislate the value of pi [wikipedia.org], they got 3.2.
Hasn't all this nonsense been said before? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:1, Informative)
Uh . . . yo. I'm actually pretty well versed in both of those worlds. That's a bad example. There's lots of us. Transistors aren't that complex and if you read the news you can keep up with the details of the newest variations kinda easily. But working in a job that used my EE background would suck compared to actually doing stuff.
The Risk has Already been Assessed (Score:5, Informative)
While this is the first I've heard of lawsuits, the subject of a possible catastrophe due to a new particle accelerator is not a new idea. This has actually been a cycle that's happened a couple of times, IIRC, usually when someone mentions the possibility of black holes (or even AdS-CFT black hole analogues) being created in a new particle accelerator. Scientists have actually thought about this and published a number of papers on the topic. Here are two that came up easily via Google Scholar:
The latter is freely available on the arXiv. From the conclusion:
In short, similar events occur naturally due to highly energetic cosmic rays, so, even if we assume we know almost nothing about the physics of the hypothetical catastrophic event, we can infer from teh fact we're still here that such a catastrophe is very unlikely. Based on this conclusion, and the fairly wide acceptance of that conclusion amongst experts, I think it's safe to say this lawsuit is without merit.
Re:idiots! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot the final season of Lexx (4.x), which made this exact topic the main plot point.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
"""
Walter Wagner graduated UC Berkeley with a Minor in Physics, and a Major in Biology. Later, he discovered a novel particle in a balloon-borne cosmic ray detector, initially identified as a magnetic monopole. Though its identity remains uncertain, it is definitely not within the standard repertoire of known particles. After a three-year break from science to attend law school, Dr. Wagner resumed work in Physics and Biology at the US Veterans Administration Medical Center in San Francisco, working in Nuclear Medicine and Health Physics. He then embarked on teaching Science and Mathematics, from grade school to college. Dr. Wagner developed a botanical garden in Hawaii, and continues involvement with several professional associations, including Health Physics Society and Society of Nuclear Medicine.
"""
So, this is a guy who discovered a magnetic monopole (which would theoretically tear the universe apart, right?) and works at a VA med center? He only has a minor in physics? The "nuclear safety blah blah" in this case means nuclear medicine, as in the guy who makes sure no one mishandles the radioactive dye they use at every hospital in the US.
Some expert.
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:5, Informative)
For instance if a micro black hole was generated in the LHC but didn't evaporate, it would eventually drift into the sidewall of the collision chamber, and whatever matter it 'touched' (atoms pass beyond the event horizon) would not be able to escape and would add to the mass of the black hole. Slowly by slowly it would grow in size. Because matter is never lost out of the black hole, it would eventually accumulate a huge amount of matter. How exactly the scenario would play (in terms of rate of expansion, etc.) would be interesting to calculate (would it sink down into the earth? would it slowly consume the atmosphere?): but I think it would grow exponentially and ultimately consume the entire Earth.
That's assuming that such a small black hole is actually a stable singularity with an event horizon, and that it cannot evaporate or dissipate in any way. Our best understanding of black holes right now indicates that if they form at all in the LHC (which is itself a dubious notion), they will be so small that they will evaporate very quickly due to Hawking radiation.
The doomsayers worry that our theory of Hawking radiation is somehow wrong. But as others have pointed out, high-energy cosmic rays hit the earth all the time, and we haven't been converted into a black hole yet. So it's either very hard to form micro black holes, or they evaporate very quickly.
Also the Physics Suggests These Won't Happen (Score:3, Informative)
The studies I talked about in the parent make almost no assumption about what the catastrophe might be or how it would work. If you want to get into the physics of the specific things people are worried about, then there are even more reasons to think it's not a significant danger. There was a report about the possible disaster scenarios for RHIC [arxiv.org] that should mostly apply to the LHC, and here's a paper discussing the possibilities for the LHC [cdsweb.cern.ch]. Finally, it looks like Wikipedia has a pretty decent discussion [wikipedia.org] with references.
Re:Are they serious? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hawking Radiation (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hold on... (Score:3, Informative)
When they build a particle accelerator out of the asteroid belt, call me and we can panic together
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:2, Informative)
Forever Peace by Haldeman (Score:3, Informative)
I just finished reading Forever Peace by Joe Haldeman, great book, excellent sf. The central plot hinges on a similar idea:
SPOILER AHEAD
There's a giant accelerator being built around Jupiter, that will simulate the first .01 second of the universe... only the central characters figure out that it won't be just a simulation, but a new one, expanding and overwriting this part of this one.
There are end-of-world religious nuts who find that out and strive to make sure it happens. Much mayhem and a touch of soldier cyberpunk. Fun stuff and excellent speculation, especially the other part about what it's liked to be jacked in with other people.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Certainly not, and I addressed that in my comment.
It is certainly worthwhile running the calculations to verify such catastrophic events won't occur. Many physicists have already done this. But a non-expert suing the government without anything even remotely resembling evidence is pretty ridiculous.
It's like some of the first rockets. Some skeptics were worried that a sufficiently-strong rocket combustion could ignite all of earth's atmosphere. Sure that's a worry and it was worth running the calculations by full-time expert chemists and physicists to justify whether such an event could occur.
But any non-expert suing a project to cancel it based only on shaky claims? That's a different story.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
We're doomed already (Score:3, Informative)
Re:ICE-9 anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't just do it 'anyway'. They sat a panel of physicists down and analyzed the situation and determined that it couldn't happen. I've seen a copy of their report floating around on the web, but cannot locate it at the moment.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Fermi Paradox. (Score:2, Informative)