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."
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Are they serious? They make it sound like a Pandora's Box that could destroy the whole planet, or solar system.
The rest of it just sounds so bizarre it's unreal. The fact that it is people on the inside saying it is somewhat concerning. I don't even know what to think, but those "headlines" are truly spectacular.
Not this again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hawking Radiation (Score:5, Insightful)
Particles get accelerated in solar wind of Sun (Score:3, Insightful)
I havent seen any massive blackholes emerge and gobble up the sun or solar system. How the hell would the puny LHC be able to do it?
The jerks suing are just trying to make a name for themselves.
Hold on... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are they serious? (Score:5, Insightful)
The magnetic monopole creation is almost surely complete bunk, as (so far as I know) no one has ever detected signs of such a thing (nor is anyone certain that such a beast can exist). On the other hand, Dirac showed that the existence of even a single magnetic monopole, somewhere in the universe might explain charge quantization. The converse, however, may not hold.
Re:Not this again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any scientists who say that they know one way or another what will happen are not scientists at all.
Scientific experiments that aren't surrounded by uncertainty and doubt are not much use in removing uncertainty, are they?
doomsday machine could be a feature not a bug (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:doomsday machine could be a feature not a bug (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article didn't go into the scientific backgrounds of the guys involved, but the job requirements of being a nuclear safety officer is hardly any prerequisite to being able to in any way accurately understanding the quantum chromodynamics, or even quantized general relativity (which nobody can do yet), etc involved in the LHC.
This would be like an airport luggage screener making claims about the aerodynamical stability of a fighter aircraft, or an electrician who can wire up a new 110 AC outlet in your house making claims about transistor-level details of the latest Intel CPU.
While it's possible they might be experts in highly technical fields hugely beyond their job descriptions, it's fairly unlikely.
This doesn't mean that their concerns are necessarily invalid, but they shouldn't be given any more credibility than other non-members of the LHC team.
Their Own Damn Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
As you sow so shall you reap.
After reading the tenth or twentieth scientific article that interviewed people working on the LHC, that includes some wild speculation about remote possibilities that might come to pass when it comes online... this surprises me not at all. I understand being a bit sensationalist to make a more entertaining article. I understand hyping the potential a bit to help keep that government funding coming in. Still, black holes, strangelets, cascading subatomic events, time travelers finding the earliest point to return to... it was a bit much. Maybe you get promoted in experimental physics by making waves and smoking pot with the boss. The you want your name in a magazine so you spin some half-assed idea as though it was a real possibility. The only problem is, some people listened and are now worried.
This is why the Manhattan project was top-secret: two out of six physicists think it might destroy the planet... okay those are good odds, let's try it.
Re:Phew, I was worried for a minute but, hey---- (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:idiots! (Score:5, Insightful)
How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly, they have mistaken the catchy name for the definition.
Re:Not this again... (Score:4, Insightful)
While the whole point of any experiment is to generally know the unknown, to clarify the doubt, there are still expected ranges of outcomes. For example, while you might not know what will happen if you feed your adult dog Puppy Chow, you can be fairly confident it's not going to turn him into a cat.
Likewise, while the people at CERN may not know if they'll get mini black holes, they can be fairly sure the sorts of dangers they pose, which are "none".
My understanding of the LHC is that it doesn't do anything that doesn't already happen on Earth already. The main difference is that instead of the mini black holes being created by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere where we can't study them, they are happening right inside of a controlled scientific device, which is the ideal place to study them.
Am I to believe that the energies and particles involved are beyond what happens on/in the sun, or when the Earth is bombarded by radiation from space, or inside of an H-bomb explosion? If so, that's quite amazing.
Re:Not this again... (Score:1, Insightful)
Okay, so far so good, but what would happen if they didn't evaporate? Well, the black holes would still be moving at 99.9% of C, so would have no chance to lodge inside the earth..
LHC, on the other hand, uses two particle streams colliding head on. Any resulting black holes should be standing nearly still in comparison - most likely more than one in a million will in fact be moving less than escape velocity. Of course, that does probably give us time to notice that they're not evaporating before one stays; unfortunately, some of the ones that escape will end up inside the *sun* instead.
Now, as to reactions happening inside the sun.. you may have a point there. I don't know; if you do, I'd like a reference.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps it is that lack of understanding that is the cause for concern. I understand that the point of LHC is to increase that understanding, but much of human knowledge is gained by making mistakes, then figuring out where we were wrong. When it comes to making a blackhole, the repercussions of a mistake could conceivably be the end of our entire solar system. I don't think it's wrong for there to be a public inquiry about the safety measures in place if something unplanned happens. What would they do if the LHC did make a blackhole that started growing? It is not wrong to stop and ask these questions when the cost of failure is potentially a global concern.
Re:John Titor (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:5, Insightful)
To argue your main point, though, I think that is one of the reasons (in addition to the Hawking radiation argument) that those microgram 'holes aren't dangerous: to feed in enough mass to make the thing grow would take an incredible density of mass very close to the b'hole's location, and you can't get much of that density on Earth anyway. (Here I'm talking about a sort of "macroscopic" density, not that of nearly-pointlike particles like electrons or neutrons.)
Remember, too, that *energy* has mass -- massive objects have tremendous amounts of energy in the gravitational fields surrounding them, and these fields contribute mass to the "whole hole". It can be shown that when an object reaches such a state that the field energy starts to attract itself more rapidly than it's radiated, _that's_ when an event horizon will form. This can happen at any size. Just because the black hole can't sustain its own growth due to environmental constraints doesn't mean it's not a black hole.
On strangelets (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they should be given more credibility (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, this nuclear safety officer should get more credibility than others outside the LHC team. Here's why: random Joe Schmoe from Vermont or some random state has no experience, no education in this area etc. His credibility is neutral, as would be that of any member of the general public. The nuclear safety officer may not have any more educational experience than Joe Schmoe, but he works on the LHC, and is therefore in a position to hear things that some random member of the public may not be exposed to. Therefore, we have to give him somewhat higher credibility, and at least listen to his concerns and ask where he got them from. Could be he overheard the head scientist talking about it, or saw a report on the subject. He has access to much more information than a random individual (especially since scientists are in the business of being open and often don't secure their research as heavilly as, say, the military might)
Re:Hawking Radiation (Score:1, Insightful)
Hawking Radiation has never been observed, it is unproven nobody can tell you for certain it actually exists.
By turning on this machine scientists are 'hoping' they will observe hawking radiation amongst a whole lot of other things.
I am kind of annoyed about this LHC because the CERN website tries to tell the public that we are all safe from MBHs because of hawking radiation, but this is clearly a lie when hawking radiation only exists in theory, I do not appreciate being lied to particularly when it comes to science experiments.
See: Safety at the LHC [web.cern.ch]Re:WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is such a cutting-edge field that it is easy for otherwise intelligent people to reach incorrect conclusions. Still, we really don't know with 100% certainty just how everything will work with this aspect of physics. If we did, we wouldn't need to build these ultra-expensive colliders to do testing.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Far higher-energy interaction happen every day as high-energy cosmic rays hit the atmosphere. If these things could happen, they would have already happened and destroyed the Earth long ago.
No one really knows what's going to happen (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How could a tiny black hole ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not On My Planet, Please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not On My Planet, Please! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cosmic Rays (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Phew, I was worried for a minute but, hey---- (Score:3, Insightful)
Is Hawking Radiation anything beyond a neat mathematical conjecture based on a demonstrably flawed theory of quantum mechanics? [wikipedia.org] Not like Hawking hasn't admitted to being wrong before, you know...
argumentum ad verecundiam (Score:2, Insightful)
"""
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:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Well, if Lester Bangs gets involved, perhaps Mr. Bruce should be afraid. You know how these things end: birthday party, cheesecake, jelly bean, BOOM!
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn it, at first I was going to say "ah ha", since I just got my PhD (I defended less than two weeks ago) in Experimental Physics (condensed matter). But then I saw that you qualified it with theoretical physics, and alas, I cannot say "ah ha" anymore
But yet your sarcasm proves my point exactly!
Having a PhD in condensed matter experimental physics, in no way whatsoever am I qualified to qualify the creation of 'strangelets' or microscopic black holes. I've taken my share of grad classes, such as graduate-level quantum mechanics (Sakurai) and E&M (Jackson) with other high-energy theorists, and I've even done a small bit of relativistic quantum field theory (Peskin/Schroeder).
Given all this, I barely even know enough of quantum electrodynamics, much less QCD or anything well beyond that, to make valid judgements of the effects of LHC. But I'm supposed to take the word of a guy on these same topics with far less physics experience than me?
Re:Not On My Planet, Please! (Score:1, Insightful)
Prometheus: Playing with sticks from Gods. Learning how to make fire.
Cassander: Might set whole world ablaze.
Oppenheimer: Squish fissiles together. Make big fire.
Cassander: Chain reaction might set the atmosphere on fire.
Oppenheimer and Teller: No, the equations say it won't.
Cassander: Not understand equations. Don't care what you say. Gonna yell loud.
CERN: Squish hadrons together. Make Higgs boson.
Cassander: Not know what Higgs boson is. Type in all caps!
Cassander: (exhales for the fifteenth time this friggin' minute! and he does it 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week!)
Anonymous Coward: I'm not opposed to your breathing on the grounds that you may or may not PERSONALLY have the right to your own life. I am opposed to the SOCIETAL risk of EVERYONE dying on the grounds YOUR NEXT BREATH MIGHT BE THE ONE THAT PRODUCES THE FINAL MOLECULE OF CARBON DIOXIDE THAT PUSHES GLOBAL WARMING PAST THE TIPPING POINT AND TURNS EARTH INTO VENUS, KILLING ALL SEVEN BILLION OF US. You wanna breathe, do it in a controlled fashion. You know, like in a location that, if your next breath does produce that fatal molecule of CO2, the destruction will be localized to whatever orbital colony we sent you to, rather than our entire civilization.
No jurisdiction (Score:1, Insightful)
Worst case they can tell the US that they can't participate - Whooo!!!! - most of the US's contribution will have been spent already and there'll be all this spare time now for the rest of the world
I fail to see how CERN cares
Re:What is "essentially zero"??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that's essentially what you're doing.
Re:idiots! (Score:1, Insightful)
If you hit the earth with a ultra high energy particle (e.g. cosmic ray), the particle GRADUALLY loses energy due to the process which has been well described by Bethe-Bloch.
If you now do a CENTER OF MASS COLLISION of two particles in the LHC, all the energy will be available for high energy processes in an instant. I consider this a different scenario. Maybe there are real-world cases where these things happen and show that we're safe (you'll probably need to start to list things like black-hole jets, GRBs etc. - which is kind of ironic...) but the 'cosmic rays hit the earth'-argument just ain't worth anything in this discussion.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:ID is an ally in this case (Score:3, Insightful)
After a few billion years, you'd find that life as we know it had failed to exist on the planets that were not compatible with carbon-based life. The planets that were conducive to life, such as Earth, would be teaming with it. Some life might point to their very existence as proof of an intelligent design, but the more intellectually advanced members of the species might realize that the situation could be no different. A non-existent or dead observer cannot observe that "Hey, life really sucks here next to this quasar, why the hell would an intelligent designer put us here?"
The fact that we are here, and alive, tells us NOTHING about an intelligent designer. The fact that we are conveniently located has nothing to do with design- it has everything to do with necessary conditions for life (as we know it). If conditions were different, we wouldn't be here to comment on how crappy the conditions were.
This argument reminds me of an old Chick Tract that stated that since bananas were so delicious and convenient to eat, that it proved the existence of a kind and benevolent god. I noted with some interest that the Tract ignored things like walnuts, lactose intolerance, rhubarb leaves, salmonella, poi, and various other poisonous or troublesome foods. Fun.
This idea is know as the anthropic principle. It makes for interesting reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic [wikipedia.org]
-b