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."
ICE-9 anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat's_Cradle [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-nine [wikipedia.org]
I'm just sayin'
Re:Obligatory (Score:0, Interesting)
10 year old news... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Within 24 hours, the laboratory issued a rebuttal: the risk of such a catastrophe was essentially zero"
Nothing will happen, fears are unfounded (Score:3, Interesting)
Three times now... (Score:2, Interesting)
What is "essentially zero"??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, when I hear such statements, I feel like I'm being told in a condascending way to "don't worry about it, we know what we're doing!" I don't know what "essentially zero" really means... What could happen in that 0.00000000000000000001% of "cases"? I'm guessing these 2 guys do know something of real concern...
simple answer (Score:3, Interesting)
This is old news, came up during the design phase of the LHC. I heard a simple common sense based answer:
If high energy particle accelerators could create particles that could destroy the Earth, then you would see this effect all over the universe. Why, you ask? Because there are natural accelerators everywhere, many of energy much higher than anything we could hope to build on the Earth's surface
implications for SETI (Score:5, Interesting)
Spelling Problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately, court documents have probably not spelled the word properly. You see, for the US Government, "Nukular" is the legal spelling of the word. And the documents will be tossed out.
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:3, Interesting)
The black hole emits Hawking radiation at a rate inversely proportional to its mass. At the same time, it can gain mass as stray particles wander into its event horizon. The rate at which stray particles wander into its event horizon is proportional to the surface area of the event horizon which is proportional to the square of its radius which is proportional to the black hole's mass.
If the rate at which particles wander in is greater than the rate of evaporation, it will grow. As it grows, the rate of evaporation will decrease and the rate at which stray particles wander in will increase, so if it starts growing, it's unlikely to stop growing until it consumes all of the matter available to it.
Keep in mind that a black hole on the atomic scale would evaporate almost instantly and would have an almost non-existant chance of encountering a single stray particle within its lifespan.
here's the thing (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Microscopic black holes require a matter density higher than elementary particles possess. Ergo, once the microscopic black hole tries to swallow an elementary particle, the elementary particle swallows it, making it no longer a black hole, but just part of the particle's matter, with a true radius larger than its schwarzchild radius. Black Hole Down.
2) Strangelets? Don't exist. Don't even have a decent theoretical underpinning. You might as well be worried about the production of caloric or magic.
3) Magnetic monopoles also don't exist. Magnetism is a description of the curvature of electric flux. Imagining a magnetic monopole is like imagining a left with no right, or an up with no down.
And, honestly, these people have no sense of adventure. The universe will end some day. Why be so arrogant as to insist that it be after you die, solo, from something less interesting?
Manhattan Project all over again (Score:2, Interesting)
ID is an ally in this case (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds like the world's largest super collider already observes the creation and evaporation of black holes. the question is will the hadron collider create stable black holes? not likely, they're not dealing with enough mass.
Fermi Paradox. (Score:3, Interesting)
Such a dissaster would go a long way in explaining the Fermi Paradox [wikipedia.org]. We don't run into aliens because they all destroy themselves soon after they form.
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:4, Interesting)
If white dwarfs stars and neutron stars *do* exist, I suppose your argument about "binding energy" (couched in terms of the Pauli exclusion principle) has particular merit. However, it remains to be determined whether gravitational forces can overcome the exclusion "force" beyond the event horizon of a black hole.
Re:Better to err on the side of caution? (Score:3, Interesting)
The bomb will not start a chain reaction in the water, converting it all to gas and letting all the ships on all the oceans drop down to the bottom. It will not blow out the bottom of the sea and let all the water run down the hole. It will not destroy gravity. I am not an atomic playboy!"
http://atomicplayboy.net/colophon/ [atomicplayboy.net] is where I was able to find the quote, btw
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does the US have any jurisdiction over CERN? (Score:5, Interesting)
I was under the impression that whilst the US has helped develop the LHC it doesn't actually own it and as such has no control over deciding whether it's allowed to start and stop. Is there something vital the US still brings to the project that could be used to prevent the project starting should the lawsuit be a success?
I was going to make a comment about how it seems typically American to try and create a lawsuit to shut down something they have no right to try and shutdown (see things like the recent Wikileaks domain fiasco) but in all honesty I'm not sure abuse of the court system is really much less in many European countries now, the only difference being the European countries at least tend to make the sensible judgement on the case even if the case itself is idiotic. With again for example the Wikileaks case the judgement was just simply stupid and the fact the judge had to backtrack so quickly only emphasised the level of idiocy that can occur in some courts. At least cases like this were thrown out in British courts for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7243656.stm [bbc.co.uk]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7292657.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Hopefully (un)common sense will similarly prevail and save the day.
Re:Fermi Paradox. (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not a physicist, but I would hope that physicists would take a good look at the theory and reach consensus that the LHC did not pose such a risk to our existence before trying it out, just as I would hope that people in my own field would be careful before throwing the switch on AI. There are certain things you cannot afford to be wrong about.
Re:Fermi Paradox. (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be willing to bet, too that, when you do stack up all the things that can possibly go wrong, from local nova, to supernova, to large body impacts, to being placed too far, or too close from a star, without enough radioactive elements to keep a planetary core hot, but with not so many as to make it unlivable, and to somehow manage an oxygen carbon chemistry that doesn't just plop into a big carbon dioxide blob and allows for very energetic organic molecules to form and thus life, you just keep stacking up those odds, and suddenly, like factoring a large number, the weight of probabilities goes increasingly against you, no matter how many stars you have to throw at it.
If we are alone in the universe, or even the galaxy, it is kinda cool, because it means that the WHOLE THING IS OURS. While physics rules out a vast interstellar empire, there's nothing that rules out one way trips leapfrogging across the galaxy. In a few million years, we might be able to consume the whole thing.
Re:Fermi Paradox. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fortunately, they'll be vapourised when the Earth collapses. All that mass falling through an infinite gravity well releases a whole lot of potential energy. The flash will far outshine the Sun, at least for a moment...
Re:implications for SETI (Score:3, Interesting)
At the current developments, I'd offer another theory: What if the necessary predecessor to science was religion, and faced with its own extenction, religion had a built-in safety switch that makes it turn fanatical and cause it to destroy its offspring (science)?
Then, the problem wouldn't be life in the universe, there could be plenty of it. But none of it for long above a middle ages technology.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
The blog author attempts to give some credit in the first post (In a vague, not-actually-giving-credit manner), but I'd suggest reading the original.
Re:Fermi Paradox. (Score:2, Interesting)
Aliens Cause Global Warming [crichton-official.com], by Michael Crichton.
My 2 cents (Score:2, Interesting)