Thread: May 2008 (LHC) Particle Accelerator - Miracle or Catastrophe?

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

modern day computers do not involve Quantum Mechanics.

If you look at computer chip design, and really get into the details of the processes involved, if it wasn't for an understanding of Quantum Mechanics in relation to the effects of electrons (such 'tunnelling', an effect described by Quantum Mechanics), things such as transistors would have never been possible. Things like MRI scans and lasers also operate within scales where Quantum Mechanical effects are significant.

Please, do some research before nay-saying. If you really want to show I'm incorrect, I would appreciate a more considerable post than just "modern day computers do not involve Quantum Mechanics".

I wasn't talking about you O, but the dood does make a point...

"These are scientists who are dabbling with something that has the potential to destroy our whole world. Who gave them the moral authority to put that before 7 billion lives? It's nice that they don't believe anything bad will happen but what good will a sorry or "oops" do when we've all been crushed to death under an unimaginable amount of force?"

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I wasn't talking about you O...

I know. I was just saying.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

If you look at computer chip design, and really get into the details of the processes involved, if it wasn't for an understanding of Quantum Mechanics in relation to the effects of electrons (such 'tunnelling', an effect described by Quantum Mechanics), things such as transistors would have never been possible. Things like MRI scans and lasers also operate within scales where Quantum Mechanical effects are significant.

Good point.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I wasn't talking about you O, but the dood does make a point...

These are scientists who are dabbling with something that has the potential to destroy our whole world. Who gave them the moral authority to put that before 7 billion lives? It's nice that they don't believe anything bad will happen but what good will a sorry or "oops" do when we've all been crushed to death under an unimaginable amount of force?

How will a particle accelerator destroy the world? They may be accelerating a small stream of protons at high energies in order to collide, but the mass and density of particles are small enough in order to for it to create the necessary collisions for enough data to be collected, and not cause runaway explosions or whatever. If something went wrong, the beams would most likely simply burst out of the containment ring and burn through several metres of iron and concrete before the system is quickly shutdown (an incident once occurred in the FermiLabs exactly like this... a beam managed to break out and it burnt through 1 and a half metre of reinforced concrete in a matter of nanoseconds). Scientists do build in safety measures into these particle accelerators, and I just can't see how an explosion or 'catastrophe' can result from something like a particle accelerator.

The letter below was written by none other than Dr. Walter Wagner. In it, you will see a broader view of where he's coming from. I must admit...this guy does have a bit of knowledge concerning the LHC and the mechanics/laws involved to make anyone's knees knock with uneasiness.

The Large Hadron Collider [LHC] at CERN might create numerous different particles that heretofore have only been theorized. Numerous peer-reviewed science articles have been published on each of these, and if you google on the term "LHC" and then the particular particle, you will find hundreds of such articles, including:

1) Higgs boson

2) Magnetic Monopole

3) Strangelet

4) Miniature Black Hole [aka nano black hole]

In 1987 I first theorized that colliders might create miniature black holes, and expressed those concerns to a few individuals. However, Hawking's formula showed that such a miniature black hole, with a mass of under 10,000,000 a.m.u., would "evaporate" in about 1 E-23 seconds, and thus would not move from its point of creation to the walls of the vacuum chamber [taking about 1 E-11 seconds travelling at 0.9999c] in time to cannibalize matter and grow larger.

In 1999, I was uncertain whether Hawking radiation would work as he proposed. If not, and if a mini black hole were created, it could potentially be disastrous. I wrote a Letter to the Editor to Scientific American [July, 1999] about that issue, and they had Frank Wilczek, who later received a Nobel Prize for his work on quarks, write a response. In the response, Frank wrote that it was not a credible scenario to believe that minature black holes could be created.

Well, since then, numerous theorists have asserted to the contrary. Google on "LHC Black Hole" for a plethora of articles on how the LHC might create miniature black holes, which those theorists believe will be harmless because of their faith in Hawking's theory of evaporation via quantum tunneling.

The idea that rare ultra-high-energy cosmic rays striking the moon [or other astronomical body] create natural miniature black holes -- and therefore it is safe to do so in the laboratory -- ignores one very fundamental difference.

In nature, if they are created, they are travelling at about 0.9999c relative to the planet that was struck, and would for example zip through the moon in about 0.1 seconds, very neutrino-like because of their ultra-tiny Schwartzschild radius, and high speed. They would likely not interact at all, or if they did, glom on to perhaps a quark or two, barely decreasing their transit momentum.

At the LHC, however, any such novel particle created would be relatively 'at rest', and be captured by Earth's gravitational field, and would repeatedly orbit through Earth, if stable and not prone to decay. If such miniature black holes don't rapidly evaporate and are produced in copious abundance [1/second by some theories], there is a much greater probability that they will interact and grow larger, compared to what occurs in nature.

There are a host of other problems with the "cosmic ray argument" posited by those who believe it is safe to create miniature black holes. This continuous oversight of obvious flaws in reasoning certaily should give one pause to consider what other oversights might be present in the theories they seek to test.

I am not without some experience in science.

In 1975 I discovered the tracks of a novel particle on a balloon-borne cosmic ray detector. "Evidence for Detection of a Moving Magnetic Monopole", Price et al., Physical Review Letters, August 25, 1975, Volume 35, Number 8. A magnetic monopole was first theorized in 1931 by Paul A.M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society (London), Series A 133, 60 (1931), and again in Physics Review 74, 817 (1948). While some pundits claimed that the tracks represented a doubly-fragmenting normal nucleus, the data was so far removed from that possibility that it would have been only a one-in-one-billion chance, compared to a novel particle of unknown type. The data fit perfectly with a Dirac monopole.

While I would very much love to see whether we can create a magnetic monopole in a collider, ethically I cannot currently support such because of the risks involved.

For more information, go to: www.LHCdefense.org

Regards,

Walter L. Wagner (Dr.)

Originally Posted by bluefinger

How will a particle accelerator destroy the world? They may be accelerating a small stream of protons at high energies in order to collide, but the mass and density of particles are small enough in order to for it to create the necessary collisions for enough data to be collected, and not cause runaway explosions or whatever. If something went wrong, the beams would most likely simply burst out of the containment ring and burn through several metres of iron and concrete before the system is quickly shutdown (an incident once occurred in the FermiLabs exactly like this... a beam managed to break out and it burnt through 1 and a half metre of reinforced concrete in a matter of nanoseconds). Scientists do build in safety measures into these particle accelerators, and I just can't see how an explosion or 'catastrophe' can result from something like a particle accelerator.

I believe the danger doesnt come from any "beam" of energy as such.... but in the production of certain phenomenon from the collision of the particals. These includes, as the post above mine states, Micro Black holes, and "Stranglets"

There is a possibility that the MBH's will not degrade, and live long enough to start consuming matter, and become self sustaining.

There is also the possibility of the stranglet being produced. This is a particle which converts other particles into stranglets also. So a self catabolising reaction, which exponentially grows in size, consuming all it is in contact with. This would of course, render the world inhabitable

Those are just two theories however, I dont pretend to understand the physics behind all this.

Originally Posted by PeteB

I believe the danger doesnt come from any "beam" of energy as such.... but in the production of certain phenomenon from the collision of the particals. These includes, as the post above mine states, Micro Black holes, and "Stranglets"

There is a possibility that the MBH's will not degrade, and live long enough to start consuming matter, and become self sustaining.

There is also the possibility of the stranglet being produced. This is a particle which converts other particles into stranglets also. So a self catabolising reaction, which exponentially grows in size, consuming all it is in contact with. This would of course, render the world inhabitable

Those are just two theories however, I dont pretend to understand the physics behind all this.

Well then, it is simply a statistical probability on what theory is correct. First of all, how stable are strangelets? Secondly, are they stable enough to cause a exponential cascade? And thirdly, can they be created at all? However, strangelets were proposed as a hypothesis, and have yet to be observed at all.

And mini-black holes, again, does the extent of the Hawking Radiation cause the black hole to either evaporate before it can be detected, or would it not be enough or non-existant in order to deplete the mini-black hole before it can accumulate to dangerous levels.

Those two problems all work on the assumption of the worst case scenario. To be honest, it would constitute a very, very small percentage, but if this percentage is significant enough, then yeah, there are ethical problems. But then again, when they tested the first nuke, there were concerns the energy of the explosion would ignite the atmosphere, but that never happened.

Originally Posted by bluefinger

Well then, it is simply a statistical probability on what theory is correct. First of all, how stable are strangelets? Secondly, are they stable enough to cause a exponential cascade? And thirdly, can they be created at all? However, strangelets were proposed as a hypothesis, and have yet to be observed at all.

And mini-black holes, again, does the extent of the Hawking Radiation cause the black hole to either evaporate before it can be detected, or would it not be enough or non-existant in order to deplete the mini-black hole before it can accumulate to dangerous levels.

Those two problems all work on the assumption of the worst case scenario. To be honest, it would constitute a very, very small percentage, but if this percentage is significant enough, then yeah, there are ethical problems. But then again, when they tested the first nuke, there were concerns the energy of the explosion would ignite the atmosphere, but that never happened.

Exactly

Most likley, they will produce a number of very small things, at a huge cost with not much actual benefit to the world.

But then, if you've ever read discworld "Million to one chances happen nine times out of ten" so, we'll see what happens come May!

Originally Posted by PeteB

Exactly

Most likley, they will produce a number of very small things, at a huge cost with not much actual benefit to the world.

But then, if you've ever read discworld "Million to one chances happen nine times out of ten" so, we'll see what happens come May!

Discworld books are a riot, but as for what happens to LHC, I'll simply watch to see what happens.

The letter below was written by none other than Dr. Walter Wagner.

Wow! Really? The Doctor Wagner!?!

I don't think anybody on the planet had any idea that a Walter Wagner existed to be honest, with the possible exception of the people reading this thread; but it's a funny name.

Pointless Post Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by Xei

Wow! Really? The Doctor Wagner!?!

I don't think anybody on the planet had any idea that a Walter Wagner existed to be honest, with the possible exception of the people reading this thread; but it's a funny name.

Originally Posted by Xei

Wow! Really? The Doctor Wagner!?!

I don't think anybody on the planet had any idea that a Walter Wagner existed to be honest, with the possible exception of the people reading this thread; but it's a funny name.

Is it really worth making a post showing you being that cynically proud for nothing? It doesn't help people's outlook of you...

C'mon now, just leggo that ego...



I think the point Jeff was illustrating is there is debate amongst fairly knowledgeable people in the field to cause a reasonable enough question regarding the machine's activation.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I think the point Jeff was illustrating is there is debate amongst fairly knowledgeable people in the field to cause a reasonable enough question regarding the machine's activation.

Thank you SolSkye, and you're right...that's exactly what I was doing. Just trying to keep both sides weighed evenly by providing more information. Personally speaking, I would love for them to throw the switch, just to see what will happen.

"What does this button do?"

The point is that if you say that something is written by 'none other than X' then you are giving the impression that X is especially authoritative.

Obviously.

Giving false impressions - which was what that was - is not fair. Who is Doctor Wanger..? Does he study physics?

And why is there a walking waffle?

Originally Posted by Xei

The point is that if you say that something is written by 'none other than X' then you are giving the impression that X is especially authoritative.

Obviously.

Giving false impressions - which was what that was - is not fair. Who is Doctor Wanger..? Does he study physics?

And why is there a walking waffle?

In July, 1999 Scientific American published two highly-edited letters written by physicists Walter L. Wagner and Franck Wilczek in the Letters to the Editors section pertaining to theoretical particles that might be created by colliders. At that time, the LHC was still on the drawing board, and the RHIC [Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider], some 30-fold lower in energy than the LHC, was nearing completion....

Don't question the walking waffle.

Okay, so he's one of the tens of thousands of people with a degree in physics... hardly a superstar?

He didn't turn up on Google, anyway.

Originally Posted by Xei

He didn't turn up on Google, anyway.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,840 for "walter wagner" physicist. (0.23 seconds)

I think Xei was saying that it was strange that you used "none other than Dr. Walter Wagner" in your opening, seeing as he's not exactly a who's who of well-known scientists, and I kind of agree.

However it's nothing for either of you derail the thread about. So let's keep this train a-movin.

Hm, looks like the guy got only a minor in physics and then transferred to botany. Hardly an authority on the issue.

The authorities I've heard talk about this issue seem to think there's no issue... and nobody here can do the physics. Not much we can really say about the dangers; looks as if there aren't any.

If you won't be moved though, congrats, perhaps you are right. Enjoy that feeling for the last three months of your life.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hm, looks like the guy got only a minor in physics and then transferred to botany. Hardly an authority on the issue.

The authorities I've heard talk about this issue seem to think there's no issue... and nobody here can do the physics. Not much we can really say about the dangers; looks as if there aren't any.

If you won't be moved though, congrats, perhaps you are right. Enjoy that feeling for the last three months of your life.

I think you should re-read Oneironaut's post directly above yours. Some people. And as I said before numbnuts, I DO want them to throw the switch.

I wasn't talking to you?

I was just making a general statement; we don't understand the physics but those who do reckon it's completely safe, so there's little point discussing it unless somebody hears about an expert with doubts.

The problem with all of the doomsday prophecies surrounding the LHC is that they are all the same ones that were brought out every other time a particle accelerator was about to be completed. Theoretically, it is possible that we destroy the universe with the LHC but a possibility is far from a high probability. Personally, I have been waiting on the edge of my seat for this since the first time I heard about its construction 7 or so years ago.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The problem with all of the doomsday prophecies surrounding the LHC is that they are all the same ones that were brought out every other time a particle accelerator was about to be completed. Theoretically, it is possible that we destroy the universe with the LHC but a possibility is far from a high probability. Personally, I have been waiting on the edge of my seat for this since the first time I heard about its construction 7 or so years ago.

Well, the events that happen in a particle excellerator occur periodically in the rest of the universe right? Like when galaxyies collied and what not.

So if it happens naturally out there and the universe is still here dont ya think the reactions of those ppl is abit over the top?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The problem with all of the doomsday prophecies surrounding the LHC is that they are all the same ones that were brought out every other time a particle accelerator was about to be completed. Theoretically, it is possible that we destroy the universe with the LHC but a possibility is far from a high probability. Personally, I have been waiting on the edge of my seat for this since the first time I heard about its construction 7 or so years ago.

I wait in eager anticipation as well, I wonder what this "God particle" (Higgs Boson) is supposedly about anyway.