Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 2 May 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2008.797
Column: Muse
Of myths and men
Worries about an apocalypse unleashed by particle accelerators are not new, says Philip Ball. They have their source in old myths, which are hard to dispel.
When physicists dismiss as a myth the charge that the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will trigger a process that might destroy the world, they are closer to the truth than they realize.
In common parlance, a myth has come to denote a story that isn’t true, but in fact it is a story that is 'psychologically true'.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Well written article, thank you. However, one important fact was not included. CERN agreed to create a new safety report before the end of 2007 (according to the legal complaint) after it was brought to CERNs attention that the prior safety reports did not contain scientifically valid safety arguments (the cosmic ray arguments) that might indicate a reasonable assurance of safety. This report has not been completed. CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate. However, cosmic rays strike relatively stationary objects n Earth and the results travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, while colliders smash particles head on, may focus all energy to a single point and can be captured by Earths gravity. Einsteins relativity theory predicts that micro black holes will not decay but instead only grow, and Hawking Radiation contradicts relativity, is unproven and is disputed by at least 3 peer reviewed studies that find no basis in science to support it. The LHC Safety Assessment Group has been trying for months to prove safety without success. However science may still be a few years away from being able to provide reasonable assurance of safety or not at least with respect to creation of micro black holes on Earth. Professor Dr. Otto E. Rossler (winner University of Liege Chaos Award and Rene Descartes Award), Dr. Raj Baldev (Director of the Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research) and others are warning of a very real, very possible, very present danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider. Dr. Rossler predicts that a single microblackhole could destroy the planet in as little and 50 months. His calculations have been released for peer review. If this experiment is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider? Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk. (Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%). Previous safety studies ruled out any possibility of creating microblackholes in a collider. But predictions have changed and CERN has estimated the possibility of creating 1 microblackhole per second in the Large Hadron Collider. No peer reviewed safety study has ever been produced that I am aware of that speaks to the safety of creating microblackholes on Earth. If we delay for a safety study, some scientists at CERN may not be the first to discover some new science, and some Nobel prizes may be at stake. But which would more wise, conduct a full and independent adversarial peer reviewed safety study first, or just turn it on now and discover science as quickly as humanly possible? JTankers LHCConcerns.com
"It seems reasonable to insist that, at the very least, such research projects commission their own expert assessment of risks, as is routinely done in some areas of bioscience. The LHC has followed the example of the RHIC in doing just that." I posted on this topic in The Great Beyond blog "Physics conspiracy: LHC could kill us all". After reading Geoff Brumfiel's rather sarcastic posting, I was sufficiently concerned to write to CERN about the concerns specifically mini-black holes, because black holes are predicted by the General Theory of Relativity to accumulate matter, rather than decay as predicted by Hawkins radiation. Here are excerpts of the conversation - Q - Assuming that this unlikely event, (the formation of a micro-black hole), were to occur – in how much time would it decay? A - The result is a lifetime of the order of 10^{-28} seconds. At the speed of light, this means a displacement of about 10^{-17} cm. Q - What would be the Schwarzschild radius of this micro-black hole? A - It(s) radius would be of the order of 10^{–17} cm, like the displacement possible before decaying. Q According to the General Theory Of Relativity, Black holes would accrete matter. Why would this not occur with micro-black holes? A - It would not happen if they decay so fast. There is no time to get close enough to anything. The gravitational field of a BH so small is extremely weak, so it cannot attract matter from far away, it will only accrete matter that were to hit its event horizon... But even if the BH were stable, namely it did not decay in the time indicated above, we have verified that its accretion would not give rise to any macroscopic effect. THIS STUDIES ARE BEING COMPLETED, AND WILL BE DOCUMENTED SOON IN A REPORT. (Emphasis mine) Q. One argument forwarded is that micro-black holes formed by CERN would have low velocities unlike those produced by Cosmic rays and thus could possibly be captured by the Earths gravity to settle at its core and accrete matter and eventually crush the Earth into a black hole. Is this possible? A - If they were created, the probability of having velocities sufficiently small (less than 10 km/sec, the escape velocity from earth) is small, of the order of 10^–6. But since, in case they really exist, there will be millions produced, this means that indeed a few of them would be stopped within earth and start accretion. This however does not mean that they will crush the earth. As I mentioned above this has been studied in great detail. For example, if BHs are formed at the LHC, they would be formed in cosmic rays collisions with the earth's upper atmosphere. BHs are typically created as charged objects, since they are produced by colliding quarks. A charged particle, even though travelling at high velocity like these BHs, slows down in matter very quickly since it interacts electromagnetically. This is physics well known since many decades, and the conclusion is that such BHs would stop inside earth, or the sun, or jupiter, or sirius, etc.etc.etc. Putting altogehter, CRs have repeated the LHC experiments a huge number of times, and if BHs existed, or were dangerous, we would know it by now.
Very Pollyanna, but neglects the facts. 1. The lack [thus far] of any catastrophe at RHIC, or, previously, Bevalac, adds zero evidence to the contention that the LHC will produce no catastrophe, since the potential problems are all related to specific energy levels, and each such collider is far more powerful than the last one. Sooner or later, eventually, it is virtually inevitable that we wil build machines to make Black Holes or Strangelets, or which will destabilize the Quantum Vacuum; if not done by accident, some researchers will go there on purpose, because the knowledge prize in doing so will simply be irresistable. 2. For reasons previously discussed, there can be no reliance on natural Cosmic Ray background behavior as predictive of what will occur inside the LHC or RHIC. If the same conditions of relative impact energy, byproduct vectors, etc. were common in the natural environemnt in the upper atmosphere or Lunar surface as would be generated inside the collider, there would be no justification for building the apparatus. Instead, much less extravagant high-altitude Research Balloons or a Lunar Lander instrument package would easily suffice to provide the same data. The notion that nature provides an 'existence proof' that Bad Things cannot happen in these colliders is trifling, disingenuous and insincere. 3. Other forms of 'technocalypse', such as Grey Goo, (or Strong A.I., for that matter) are not the musings of "commentators", but warnings of the pioneers in nanotechnology and artificial intelligence, themselves. Scientists in the emerging, dynamics fields of Genetics, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, and Nanotechnology seem to be generations more mature and sophisticated in their risk management mentality, policies, protocols, and procedures, than the high energy physics community, despite its much longer history. 4. Perhaps the unqualified legacy of monumental failure and waste exhibited by the high energy and plasma physics community is instructive here. After more than 50 years of building ever larger and more powerful colliders and plasma reactors, at a cost of untold Billions of dollars, NO useful scientific breakthroughs have ever been recorded from either such device, and both a Fundamental Understanding of Matter, and Controlled Fusion Energy remain totally elusive. The abject failure of particle physicists to have achieved their objectives (i.e. discovering the Higgs Boson) with prior collider experiments - although widely predicted to have done so - indicates the low reliability of their certainty in the outcome of these experiments. Consistently wrong, over decades, in their assertions that 'the last big machine' would illuminate the structure of matter - or ignite a controlled breakeven reaction, for that matter - leaves us with no alternative but to conclude that the same physicists may be no more accurate in predicting the behavior of 'the next big machine. The math doesnt fix this, since each such project had 'good math' to contend it would meet its scientific objectives, and yet, repeatedly, failure ensued. The rich, deep, and unbroken record of failure in these "Big Physics" projects is a Red Flag that the warnings from the fringe on potential distasters should be heeded. The physicists who propound the reliability of their assumptions have yet to be proven right once, whereas, the alarmists only need to be right 'once'. The Precautiionary Principle would seem wisely applied in these collider debates.
Posner's suggestion that catastrophic risks, however small, should be reviewed in advance by an independent board is a sound one, but why does he single out just scientific experiments for this treatment? Surely, every human activity that could in any way create a national or global calamity - however improbably - needs to be vetted in advance? No risk is insignificant when dealing with millions of lives. Even now I hesitate to click on submit in case this post should accidentally collide with another of literally earth-shattering import!
This comment has been removed by the moderator