Why the LHC Won't Destroy the World

An anonymous reader writes "Most people are aware of the recent articles contending that the Large Hadron Collider at CERN might destroy the world. While most scientists have no such concerns, a recent preprint released to arxiv systematically dismantles the notion. The gist of the argument is this: Everything that will be created at the LHC is already being created by cosmic rays. If a black hole created by the LHC is interactive enough to destroy the world within the lifetime of the sun, similar black holes are already being created by cosmic rays. Such black holes would be stopped by dense cosmic objects (neutron stars and white dwarfs). A black hole stopped in one of these objects would eventually absorb it. We see sufficiently old neutron stars in the sky, thus any black hole that could be created at the LHC, even if it is stable, would have no effect on the earth on any meaningful timescale."

First

First particle?

Famous "last particle"

"We have an unintended event horizon."

Fools!

Don't they see that there used to be MORE neutron stars?

Re:Fools!

I'd be more worried that the astrophysicists haven't accounted for 96% of the energy and mass of the universe in their current model.
I see billions of golf ball size black holes crossing the galaxy, playing Pac-Man "the milky way edition".

Hang on a minute

Even if they did manage to destroy the world, we'd all die so quickly there wouldn't be time to dish out any blame.

I can imagine the last words in the lab just before we all disappear into a singularity:

"Oops"

Re:Hang on a minute

Or "I'm hungry" or "This coffee is awful".

Re:Hang on a minute

Or 'Hey, watch this'

*cue redneck throwing a firecracker into the path of the particle stream*

Cheers.

Re:Hang on a minute

I can imagine the last words in the lab just before we all disappear into a singularity:

"Oops"

I agree. The world will end not with an alien invasion, not with a famine and not with a multi-national nucler war.

No, the world will end with a scientist uttering "Oh, sweet!"

Re:Hang on a minute

Actually, we'd all die relatively slowly and quickly, depending on if you're looking at people falling in after or before you.

If he's wrong?

While most scientists have no such concerns, a recent preprint released to arxiv systematically dismantles the notion.

A risky claim to make. If he's wrong it will totally ruin his reputation ;-)

Re:If he's wrong?

Well the good thing about the critics of this LHC project, is that we won't be hearing any "I TOLD YOU SO!"

This article doesn't take everything into account

This article doesn't take into account accidental resonance cascades that open up portals to bizarre alien.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou

We will just sent sg1 in to take care of the aliens and then we just blame it on the homer simpson type people working there.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou

Now, now, if you follow standard insertion procedure, everything will be fine. ... Although I will admit that the possibility of a resonance cascade scenario is extremely unlikely.

Re:This article doesn't take everything into accou

Slashdot doesn't need to hear all this, they're highly trained professionals. We've assured the administrator that *nothing will go wrong*.

Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

Wasn't the actual "danger" in question the creation of stable negative strangelets (which would gobble up regular matter through electrostatic attraction, not through gravity like a black hole) ?

But still, if there was such a thing, cosmic rays would have created one "naturally" by now.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

I've seen both 'theories' touted in the press. I don't think that most people realise that the LHC, impressive as it is, is generating particle energies way lower than we observe ocasionally naturally.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

The LHC is "mostly harmless." After all, it's only bashing Large Hadrons together. Now, the Ginormous Hadron Collider (GHC) is another matter all together. It's been giving me the stink-eye for weeks now. I wouldn't turn my back on it for a minute.

Re:Black holes vs. negative strangelets ?

Wasn't the actual "danger" in question the creation of stable negative strangelets (which would gobble up regular matter through electrostatic attraction, not through gravity like a black hole) ?

Yes, but this can be counteracted via the usage of normalets, which are generated by anybody who doesn't read slashdot.

But but but...

"Science is the work of the devil!"

I believe the saying goes, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. "Safe" doesn't sell National Geographic, let alone Wired.

When news makers will understand?

Interestingly Enrico Fermi did use the same argument while setting on the first nuclear reactor during the Manhattan project around 1940 (that some cosmic rays are anyway much more energetic and bombarding the Earth since ages). And later fission and fusion bomb makers did use the same argument while playing with increasingly powerful toys. Ditto particle physicists for each new and more powerful accelerator. Isn't it time that journalists and other dumb news makers understand?

My question

So when does it come online? Just in case something happens, I need the day off to do what I always wanted to do: Spend it with a beautiful woman in bed--who am I kidding? I'm posting on slashdot. I'll be playing GTA IV. :P

Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions

See also the Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions [arxiv.org] which also appeared today, and is a more non-technical summary of the safety review.

Re:Huh?

"In theory", posting to Slashdot is safe.

"In theory" you can't accidentally summon the elder gods by not limiting your .signature to 120 characters.

"In theory" posting more than twice within a ten minute limit won't create an imbalance of left-handed and right-handed electrons within the local ethernet causing anything up to and including total protonic reversal. (I bet you'd be kicking yourself for not buying cables with signal directional markings [slashdot.org] which could have prevented this problem.)

So, yes, "in theory" the world is safe from being destroyed by you. Today.

And "in theory" that makes me feel better.

Re:Huh?

Yes, in theory. Just as the sun will rise tomorrow "in theory." And if I repeatedly shoot someone in the head, they will die, "in theory." And reality exists, "in theory."

Provability only exists in mathematics. For everything else, from decisions about what to buy at the supermarket, to designs of scientific experiments, we humans must use mental models that rely upon fundamental assumptions about how the universe operates (e.g. that past experiences allow us to make meaningful predictions). In other words, every action we take must be informed by some sort of "theory." The question then becomes "how robust is this model/theory?", "how much can I trust the predictions?", "what is the range of the possible outcomes?", "what are the consequences of errors in the assumptions/model/theory?", and so on.

If you have a specific problem with one of the assumptions, logic, modeling, mathematics, data acquisition, or analysis, then point it out in detail. But saying, "that's just a theory" is not useful. Everything we do is based on theories.

After all, the opposite is also a theory: Not turning on the LHC won't cause the destruction of the Earth... in theory.