Could the Large Hadron Collider Create a Black Hole That Threatens Earth?

[cristo]

Do you really think we are that stupid ?

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/center-of-mass_energy.html

 

[mal4mac]

Why don't you ask him and see if he shares your opinion of his opinion of the LHC.

I don't have an opinion on the LHC, I'm just quoting his opinion from his book.

The article I cited came directly from him. I don't see him mentioning even ONCE any risk associated with the LHC, and as far as I've read from a number of his articles, he has no such issues.

He talks about the machine at CERN rather than the LHC in the book.

And unless he has published clearly how he came up with such odds, there is no way to know how and what kind of assumptions he made to arrive at such numbers. Yet, this is taken as if it is a divine prophecy...

He's fairly clear, quotes Kent's work etc., Unless someone pays me I'm not interested enough to work through the figures. But I'll continue believing Newton's heir until he recants, properly. I'll not lose sleep, either. 1 in 50 million, chance, hey, why not, let's take the risk!

 

[chinatruth]

I'm just writing as I have a query about the LHC. As I have been thinking about this, which is weird for me (I train people in management and customer service etc) no science back ground. I would love to hear your thoughts. So here goes...

If the streams are being smashed into each other could this then create a universe? I ask this as I'm thinking the collisions the cern guys are doing under controlled conditions to look for new particles etc must already happen out there in space or here on earth/both...but are the speeds important ? Do individual natural collisions happen at lower speeds an therefore not set off a "birth"

If the particles (sorry can't remember the name) are not seen on this experiment. Do we need to go bigger/faster? Will it prove/show anything we don't already know or understand. I can't wait to find out what happens! :-) One of my colleagues said to me today what a waste ...just like space it only gave us Teflon. my immediate response was actually Velcro as well. ha haaa I must look up all the medical stuff and other thousands of things that have been of benefit to us!

Look forward to reading your thoughts.

Take care
Graham

just read through this thread and it will really help


my opinion.

The LHC won't creat a new universe. The " Big Bang" is just a metaphor.

Whether we find anything or not, we will still build a larger one---VLHC---very large hadrom collider( but maybe in 50 years)

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't have an opinion on the LHC, I'm just quoting his opinion from his book.

And you think this is accurate despite the rest of his writings that clearly showed that he has no such concerns? How do you choose one over the other, or in this case, the one over the many?

He talks about the machine at CERN rather than the LHC in the book.

What other machine is there at CERN that he would waste his effort on if not the LHC? The long-departed LEP?

He's fairly clear, quotes Kent's work etc., Unless someone pays me I'm not interested enough to work through the figures. But I'll continue believing Newton's heir until he recants, properly. I'll not lose sleep, either. 1 in 50 million, chance, hey, why not, let's take the risk!

No, you'll believe a small portion of what you THINK he is implying, while ignoring not only his clear stand on the LHC, but also other prominent high energy physicists. Even Martin Rees deferred to such people, as well he should.

Zz.

 

[grahamolga]

just read through this thread and it will really help


my opinion.

The LHC won't creat a new universe. The " Big Bang" is just a metaphor.

Whether we find anything or not, we will still build a larger one---VLHC---very large hadrom collider( but maybe in 50 years)

Thanks, reading posts now

just having a chat over a cuppa with a mate, and we are now taking energy sources. Any possiblity? There could be loads coming out of this (I hope) Football is off see it's done somthing already !

 

[peter0302]

Well, the first test happened, and we're all still here! Yay.

Of course it might be quite awhile before the micro-blackhole accumulates enough mass to be noticeable.

 

[humanino]

Well, the first test happened, and we're all still here! Yay.

So not only you were concerned about collisions, but you were concerned with merely circulating a beam !? This is utter non-sense.

 

[peter0302]

Lighten up!

Also I don't believe I ever said I was concerned about collisions or actually thought something bad would happen. I have, rather, merely asked people in the know to explain why no cataclysmic event is possible. Forgive me if I don't accept subjective characterizations like "baloney" and "utter non-sense" as gospel just because they come out of the mouths of PhDs. Instead, I find comments like that, from you and others, rather condescending, as though the rest of us are not capable of understanding therefore we should not even ask the question. And, you all should remember the cataclysmic mistakes science has made in the past, and the countless lives that have been lost due to people's concerns being dismissed as "baloney." You can understand why someone would ask you to back up your words with answers.

Like I said, a little bit of humility is definitely in order for this community, especially when playing god.

 

[jms5631]

Rees's 1 in 50,000,000 number was an upper limit to any supposed probability. He is not saying there is a 1 in 50,000,000 probability of anything going on at the LHC. Rather, if a set of conditions are realized that allow for the production of MBHs, then that number is upper limit of anything happening. Further that number has been misconstrued and misapplied, and wasn't even originally meant for black hole production at the LHC. Rees's recent public statements more clearly articulate his position, and that is of a strong supporter of the LHC. If he honestly believed in a real risk of cataclysmic occurences, does anyone honestly believe he'd give his approval?

 

[malawi_glenn]

Lighten up!

Also I don't believe I ever said I was concerned about collisions or actually thought something bad would happen. I have, ratherly, merely asked people in the know to explain why no cataclysmic event is possible. Forgive me if I don't accept subjective characterizations like "baloney" and "utter non-sense" as gospel just because they come out of the mouths of PhDs. Instead, I find comments like that, from you and others, rather condescending, as though the rest of us are not capable of understanding therefore we should not even ask the question. And, you all should remember the cataclysmic mistakes science has made in the past, and the countless lives that have been lost due to people's concerns being dismissed as "baloney." You can understand why someone would ask you to back up your words with answers.

Like I said, a little bit of humility is definitely in order for this community, especially when playing god.

you are capable to understand, if you are not afraid of cosmic rays, then don't be afraid of LHC.

 

[peter0302]

you are capable to understand, if you are not afraid of cosmic rays, then don't be afraid of LHC.

Well, I do wear an aluminum foil helmet when I go outside...

 

[Orion1]

According to the paper listed in reference 1:

If the fundamental Planck scale is ≈ 1 TeV, LHC,
with the peak luminosity of 30 fb^−1/year will produce
over 10^7 black holes per year.

The Schwarzschild radius R_S of an (4+n)-dimensional black hole is given by:
R_s = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} M_p} \left[ \frac{M_{BH}}{M_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma}{n+2} \left( \frac{n+3}{2} \right) \right) \right] ^{\frac{1}{n+1}}

However, the paper does not specifically define what \Gamma represents, perhaps a qualified professor could answer this question?
[/Color]
Reference:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/0106/0106295v1.pdf"

 

[cristo]

Actually, it's <br /> R_s = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi} M_p} \left[ \frac{M_{BH}}{M_p} \left( \frac{8 \Gamma\left( \frac{n+3}{2} \right)}{n+2} \right) \right] ^{\frac{1}{n+1}}<br />

Where \Gamma\left(\frac{n+3}{2}\right) is the Gamma function (presumably).

 

[hage567]

Well, I do wear an aluminum foil helmet when I go outside...

Phew! You're safe now!

 

[humanino]

I find comments like that, from you and others, rather condescending, as though the rest of us are not capable of understanding therefore we should not even ask the question.

This is your interpretation of what I mean when I say "utter non-sense". I shout "utter nonsense" at myself several times a day. So this is not condescending.

 

[Nick.M]

Hi
the speed of protons are near to the speed of light just at the collision point?

 

[peter0302]

This is your interpretation of what I mean when I say "utter non-sense". I shout "utter nonsense" at myself several times a day. So this is not condescending.

Hah, ok fair enough. But I think you can appreciate my basic point. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I don't think it's ever unfair to question whether we know what we're doing when we start playing with big bangs.

Anyway, I posted a very long report in non-physics forum about why LHC couldn't produce black holes, mainly relying on the argument that the Schwartzchild radius would be smaller than the Planck Length, or, if the radius didn't matter, the fact that Hawking Radiation would deplete the BH before it acquired any mass. So I'm on your side here with LHC. I just like to have all the facts possible.

And, I do fear that one day we'll have the capability to make something destructive. So, today it was 1 in 50,000,000. What if tomorrow it's 1 in 1,000,000? 10 Years from now - 1 in 100,000? How risky is too risky? And who decides? These are not frivolous questions.

 

[malty]

Hah, ok fair enough. But I think you can appreciate my basic point. I'm not trying to be alarmist, but I don't think it's ever unfair to question whether we know what we're doing when we start playing with big bangs.

Anyway, I posted a very long report in non-physics forum about why LHC couldn't produce black holes, mainly relying on the argument that the Schwartzchild radius would be smaller than the Planck Length, or, if the radius didn't matter, the fact that Hawking Radiation would deplete the BH before it acquired any mass. So I'm on your side here with LHC. I just like to have all the facts possible.

And, I do fear that one day we'll have the capability to make something destructive. So, today it was 1 in 50,000,000. What if tomorrow it's 1 in 1,000,000? 10 Years from now - 1 in 100,000? How risky is too risky? And who decides? These are not frivolous questions.

First off I'd like to know what mistakes has science made that caused disasterous consequences? Either way science, unlike history, doesn't repeat itself.

Secondly, if you read through this thread you may have noticed that Zapperd referenced an article by Peskin [http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14] discussing the risk posed by the LHC and future particle colliders it's well worth a read because I think it answers most of your questions.

 

[peter0302]

Yes, I think that article is excellent and I think that is the type of point-by-point analysis that should be employed to determine beyond all doubt that there are no safety concerns.

To answer your first question, I'll give a small list, even though I think my point should be self-evident:
1) Many "scientists" said global warming was baloney. We all now know better.
2) Many "scientists" said nuclear winter was baloney. Carl Sagan managed to convince us otherwise thank heavens.
3) Many "scientists" said it was safe for soldiers to observe above-ground nuclear tests, or to have above-ground tests period.
4) Many "scientists" at drug companies and at the FDA have countless times told us drugs are safe for us to later find out they're not
5) "Scientists" conducted the Tuskegee trials
6) "Scientists" used to believe in bleeding people to keep them alive
7) "Scientists" used to tell us smoking was safe
8) "Scientists" used to tell pregnant women to drink wine

I'm sure I could list dozens more if I had more time.

Before you start accusing me of being anti-science, let me just say that my SOLE point is that just because somebody wears a lab coat and has letters after his name does not make him infallable, and his mistakes can cost lives.

 

[enmerkar]

Why are people afraid of LHC but not cosmic radiation, which hits Earth million of million of times each second with higher energy that will be avaiable at LHC?

People who are afraid of LHC and knows about cosmic radiation are ignorant fools, according to me.

Is there a possibility that your confidence is ill found? Arrogance and Science are a terrible mix. Your response is disturbing. It is the perfect illustration for concern.

Consider:

History has demonstrated time and again that out Scientists never make mistakes.
There are no cases in our past that can be presented that show we misunderstood.
Science has only benefited humanity.
We have thought out all possibilities... Everything will be just fine.
Only fools find fault with Science.
There are no good Ideas presented but those from people with PhD's


We live in a time where our dooms day clock is a few minutes to midnight...
We all wish we could put the "nuclear bomb" genie back in the bottle.
We are argueing over the possible catastrophe of climate change...
We are desparate to reduce pollution into our atmosphere.
We worry about thousands of Chemicals that are giving us Cancers...
We fight lawsuits over once suposed safe chemicals that are now banned
We live among the unfortunate with birth defects caused by chemical poisons.
We contminate our soils with poisons that were suposed to benefit us.

It is truly foolish to not be concerned.

Measure twice cut once.

 

[ZapperZ]

Is there a possibility that your confidence is ill found? Arrogance and Science are a terrible mix. Your response is disturbing. It is the perfect illustration for concern.

Consider:

History has demonstrated time and again that out Scientists never make mistakes.
There are no cases in our past that can be presented that show we misunderstood.
Science has only benefited humanity.
We have thought out all possibilities... Everything will be just fine.
Only fools find fault with Science.
There are no good Ideas presented but those from people with PhD's


We live in a time where our dooms day clock is a few minutes to midnight...
We all wish we could put the "nuclear bomb" genie back in the bottle.
We are argueing over the possible catastrophe of climate change...
We are desparate to reduce pollution into our atmosphere.
We worry about thousands of Chemicals that are giving us Cancers...
We fight lawsuits over once suposed safe chemicals that are now banned
We live among the unfortunate with birth defects caused by chemical poisons.
We contminate our soils with poisons that were suposed to benefit us.

It is truly foolish to not be concerned.

Measure twice cut once.

Yet, by your presence here in the electronic world, you have benefited from these scientists' "arrogance", i.e. the sole pursuit of knowledge.

The FACT that there have been SEVERAL careful studies of the safety issues on the LHC is ample proof that, more than anything else, there have been NO arrogance on any part. If these people are that arrogant, they would simply dismiss such issues as nonsense and simply ignore such thing. Yet, they didn't! Is this the sign of arrogance?

What is arrogance is to impose judgment on a group of people on a subject matter that one only has a superficial knowledge of. It is utterly disrespectful that one can simply accuse these people of being arrogant without understanding even one bit about the issues and the physics that is involved, even when they have done effort after effort to explain why there is nothing to be concerned of. I have no idea how much more they could have done!

If we always have to worry about what would happen, you'll never get any of the electronics and the conveniences that you take for granted today. Don't believe me? Next time you look at the semiconductor in your electronics, ask about the risk on the use of arsenic as a dopant in these material. Or shall I tell you how toxic other materials are that are used in your PC? Did you ask for the safety analysis of the plant that produces these things?

Zz.

 

[OAQfirst]

Hi, everyone! I'm new to this science stuff, but I was wondering, you know, I heard about teh Large Sink Drainer, and I was thinking, is it possible that the swirly mini vortex that we see going down the drain could get bigger and become a tornado and destroy my neighborhood?

-Is this an accurate analogy?

 

[Vanadium 50]

well i have read 2-3 pages but there is a lot to take in at once.
ok can i just ask, seeing as no-one wants to answer my questions.

Are you telling us that your time is too valuable for you to read more than 3 pages of the answer that you have been pointed to, so we should spend much more of our own time retyping it in? Why do you feel your time is worth so much more than ours?

Wouldn't it be easier to read the answer you've been pointed to?

 

[ZapperZ]

-Is this an accurate analogy?

It is bad enough that we have to defend the physics. Now we have to deal with analogies? And people wonder why we ran out of patience that quickly?

Oy vey!

Zz.

 

[OAQfirst]

Eh, sorry. Will never do again.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't take this kind of Islamic science as being serious, and neither does anyone with a serious claim to gatekeeper status in Western science. I'm talking about the kind of science that Martin Rees [President of the RS, Newton's heir, highest post holder in UK science] holds serious.

It's certainly up to you to decide based on your subjective viewpoint as to what possibilities are credible and what possibilities are not. But you then shouldn't pretend this is objective.

I reiterate my previous comment:

Once you've decided that physicists are murderous liars, willing to slaughter everyone on the planet (including their friends and families) in pursuit of a Nobel prize, there's really nothing left to say. Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence for your claim?

On a second point,

Rees and Kent suggest that the LHC poses a risk, you can find full quotes from them in this thread and others. Here's a snippet from Kent:

"... I guess a probability of 1/5000 per year probability of destroying the earth..."

If you say Rees or Kent are not knowoedgeable enough to be taken seriously then I seriously doubt your knowledge!

Again, you're free to declare anyone you disagrees with you ignorant if you like. Let me reiterate the points I made about Kent - others are doing fine with Rees here.

Kent is being more than a little disingenuous here. The 5000 number is actually 10000, it was in an other-than-final version of the paper, and most seriously, it is not what he claims it is. It's an intermediate step, and Busza et al. use this to explain why they prefer to use the astrophysical limits of Dar et al. instead of the astrophysical limits set by the moon surviving five billion years.

 

[student85]

I sincerely think that physicists here should be more welcoming to non-physicists. I think some people here are too cocky and think that non-physicists are inferior. And whenever someone posts something like this, they come up with a "clever" response and they are aaalways right... but come one guys just be a little more kind to the people out there who didn't go through a scientific education like you did, and are simply curious about a field that has nothing to do with theirs. I think you guys should rather be happy that there's people who are interested in your field and find it amusing.

 

[ZapperZ]

I sincerely think that physicists here should be more welcoming to non-physicists. I think some people here are too cocky and think that non-physicists are inferior. And whenever someone posts something like this, they come up with a "clever" response and they are aaalways right... but come one guys just be a little more kind to the people out there who didn't go through a scientific education like you did, and are simply curious about a field that has nothing to do with theirs. I think you guys should rather be happy that there's people who are interested in your field and find it amusing.

There is difference between "curiosity" and "outright accusation". I challenge you to find a post here where someone ASKED something, and that person got smack around for asking. However, what you will also find is that someone ALREADY decided that either physicists are simply dismissing the "concern" of the public, they do not wish to answer such-and-such question, or that physicists are being irresponsible for going ahead with the LHC. Where is the "curiosity" there?

The cockiness here is the delusion that someone who has no clue on the issue can somehow already decide on a conclusion. If we are all cocky, we would not spend ANY effort in trying to explain a large number of issues that had already been tackled on here. You will note that I had tried to not simply explain why it is difficult to try to explain to any level of satisfaction the physics involved, but also pointed out various links that someone who wish to LEARN can read. I do not simply dismiss such concern by simply telling you "because I said so". Now THAT would have been "cocky".

It is insulting to post something like this after ALL the discussion and explanation being given already. Obviously, all that effort that many of us had put in here has been a waste of time.

Zz.

 

[peter0302]

I sincerely think that physicists here should be more welcoming to non-physicists. I think some people here are too cocky and think that non-physicists are inferior. And whenever someone posts something like this, they come up with a "clever" response and they are aaalways right... but come one guys just be a little more kind to the people out there who didn't go through a scientific education like you did, and are simply curious about a field that has nothing to do with theirs. I think you guys should rather be happy that there's people who are interested in your field and find it amusing.

Well, this forum is a very ecclectic mix of people with various levels of training - from the practicing physicists like Zapper to the PhD's to the undergraduate-educated like myself to the completely unitiated.

The overwheming majority of people here welcome questions and comments from all levels, but there are some - too many - in the physics community, and some in thos forum, and you know who you are - who are at the upper level who do not welcome comments or even questions from the lower echelons. And those - and you know who you are - are the arrogant people that we are talking about, and that is the same attitude, I submit, that gave us nuclear war, global warming, and other things that a vocal few initially said would be problems but that the mainstream dismissed.

This is about more than just the LHC. It's about the arrogance of science, and it's a perfectly legitimate topic and should be recognized and confronted head on by ANYONE who purports to be a propenent of science. And anyone who is insulted or offended by being questioned - by anyone from a child to a president - is not a true scientist and insults the real scientists whose pursuit is ALWAYS truth above anything else, including ego.

Genesis says the world was made in seven days. Well physics has given us the means to destroy it in seven minutes if we wanted to. If that doesn't scare and humble everyone on the planet - but MOST OF ALL people who call themselves physicists, then something is seriously wrong.

 

[ZapperZ]

What about the arrogance of someone who seems to think that he/she can already decide on certain issues without knowing not only the subject matter, but all the facts? How come "arrogance" is only a characteristics inflicted on scientists but not on an ignorant public that have no problem in arriving at a faulty decision? What makes them so immune to such behavior?

Zz.