Saving the World from science - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#1490947
Link

March 29, 2008
Asking a Judge to Save the World, and Maybe a Whole Lot More
By DENNIS OVERBYE
More fighting in Iraq. Somalia in chaos. People in this country can’t afford their mortgages and in some places now they can’t even afford rice.

None of this nor the rest of the grimness on the front page today will matter a bit, though, if two men pursuing a lawsuit in federal court in Hawaii turn out to be right. They think a giant particle accelerator that will begin smashing protons together outside Geneva this summer might produce a black hole or something else that will spell the end of the Earth — and maybe the universe.

Scientists say that is very unlikely — though they have done some checking just to make sure.

The world’s physicists have spent 14 years and $8 billion building the Large Hadron Collider, in which the colliding protons will recreate energies and conditions last seen a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers will sift the debris from these primordial recreations for clues to the nature of mass and new forces and symmetries of nature.

But Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho contend that scientists at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN, have played down the chances that the collider could produce, among other horrors, a tiny black hole, which, they say, could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.” Their suit also says CERN has failed to provide an environmental impact statement as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Although it sounds bizarre, the case touches on a serious issue that has bothered scholars and scientists in recent years — namely how to estimate the risk of new groundbreaking experiments and who gets to decide whether or not to go ahead.

The lawsuit, filed March 21 in Federal District Court, in Honolulu, seeks a temporary restraining order prohibiting CERN from proceeding with the accelerator until it has produced a safety report and an environmental assessment. It names the federal Department of Energy, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, the National Science Foundation and CERN as defendants.

According to a spokesman for the Justice Department, which is representing the Department of Energy, a scheduling meeting has been set for June 16.

Why should CERN, an organization of European nations based in Switzerland, even show up in a Hawaiian courtroom?

In an interview, Mr. Wagner said, “I don’t know if they’re going to show up.” CERN would have to voluntarily submit to the court’s jurisdiction, he said, adding that he and Mr. Sancho could have sued in France or Switzerland, but to save expenses they had added CERN to the docket here. He claimed that a restraining order on Fermilab and the Energy Department, which helps to supply and maintain the accelerator’s massive superconducting magnets, would shut down the project anyway.

James Gillies, head of communications at CERN, said the laboratory as of yet had no comment on the suit. “It’s hard to see how a district court in Hawaii has jurisdiction over an intergovernmental organization in Europe,” Mr. Gillies said.

“There is nothing new to suggest that the L.H.C. is unsafe,” he said, adding that its safety had been confirmed by two reports, with a third on the way, and would be the subject of a discussion during an open house at the lab on April 6.

“Scientifically, we’re not hiding away,” he said.

But Mr. Wagner is not mollified. “They’ve got a lot of propaganda saying it’s safe,” he said in an interview, “but basically it’s propaganda.”

In an e-mail message, Mr. Wagner called the CERN safety review “fundamentally flawed” and said it had been initiated too late. The review process violates the European Commission’s standards for adhering to the “Precautionary Principle,” he wrote, “and has not been done by ‘arms length’ scientists.”

Physicists in and out of CERN say a variety of studies, including an official CERN report in 2003, have concluded there is no problem. But just to be sure, last year the anonymous Safety Assessment Group was set up to do the review again.

“The possibility that a black hole eats up the Earth is too serious a threat to leave it as a matter of argument among crackpots,” said Michelangelo Mangano, a CERN theorist who said he was part of the group. The others prefer to remain anonymous, Mr. Mangano said, for various reasons. Their report was due in January.

This is not the first time around for Mr. Wagner. He filed similar suits in 1999 and 2000 to prevent the Brookhaven National Laboratory from operating the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. That suit was dismissed in 2001. The collider, which smashes together gold ions in the hopes of creating what is called a “quark-gluon plasma,” has been operating without incident since 2000.

Mr. Wagner, who lives on the Big Island of Hawaii, studied physics and did cosmic ray research at the University of California, Berkeley, and received a doctorate in law from what is now known as the University of Northern California in Sacramento. He subsequently worked as a radiation safety officer for the Veterans Administration.

Mr. Sancho, who describes himself as an author and researcher on time theory, lives in Spain, probably in Barcelona, Mr. Wagner said.

Doomsday fears have a long, if not distinguished, pedigree in the history of physics. At Los Alamos before the first nuclear bomb was tested, Emil Konopinski was given the job of calculating whether or not the explosion would set the atmosphere on fire.

The Large Hadron Collider is designed to fire up protons to energies of seven trillion electron volts before banging them together. Nothing, indeed, will happen in the CERN collider that does not happen 100,000 times a day from cosmic rays in the atmosphere, said Nima Arkani-Hamed, a particle theorist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

What is different, physicists admit, is that the fragments from cosmic rays will go shooting harmlessly through the Earth at nearly the speed of light, but anything created when the beams meet head-on in the collider will be born at rest relative to the laboratory and so will stick around and thus could create havoc.

The new worries are about black holes, which, according to some variants of string theory, could appear at the collider. That possibility, though a long shot, has been widely ballyhooed in many papers and popular articles in the last few years, but would they be dangerous?

According to a paper by the cosmologist Stephen Hawking in 1974, they would rapidly evaporate in a poof of radiation and elementary particles, and thus pose no threat. No one, though, has seen a black hole evaporate.

As a result, Mr. Wagner and Mr. Sancho contend in their complaint, black holes could really be stable, and a micro black hole created by the collider could grow, eventually swallowing the Earth.

But William Unruh, of the University of British Columbia, whose paper exploring the limits of Dr. Hawking’s radiation process was referenced on Mr. Wagner’s Web site, said they had missed his point. “Maybe physics really is so weird as to not have black holes evaporate,” he said. “But it would really, really have to be weird.”

Lisa Randall, a Harvard physicist whose work helped fuel the speculation about black holes at the collider, pointed out in a paper last year that black holes would probably not be produced at the collider after all, although other effects of so-called quantum gravity might appear.

As part of the safety assessment report, Dr. Mangano and Steve Giddings of the University of California, Santa Barbara, have been working intensely for the last few months on a paper exploring all the possibilities of these fearsome black holes. They think there are no problems but are reluctant to talk about their findings until they have been peer reviewed, Dr. Mangano said.

Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”




This is pretty scary. Regardless of how small the risk is, why bother? I mean, really - why? All this stuff about Christians or Muslims or Jews being dogmatic fundamentalists - forget 'em. It's these fucking scientists we should be worrying about!
By Berenger
#1490960
Coming soon to a cinema near you:
Event Horizon 2: Destination Earth


I believe the LHC is God's way of bringing about the apocalypse. He gave us free will and the tools to make it happen, now he won't have to wait much longer.
User avatar
By Andres
#1490967
This is pretty scary.
The scary part is some idiots wasting people's time and money in a court of law in Hawaii.

Regardless of how small the risk is, why bother?
You should never go outside, the risk of you just floating away might be small, but why risk it?

Fuck the ignorant bumpkins.
User avatar
By Nets
#1490971
Andres, if the LHC kills as us all I'm coming after you in hell. :lol:

No but seriously, the LHC is a triumph for humanity. We need more of this, not less.
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#1490979
What if Hawkings is wrong?

He's really smart, but really smart people have been wrong before.
User avatar
By Lightman
#1490985
The chance of a black hole coming into being because of the LHC, and of that blackhole doing any amount of damage, is incredibly, incredibly small. What we could learn from this outweighs the potential risk, which is almost nill, a million times over. Hell, according to the writers of Newscientist, the LHC could allow a future civilization to travel back in time to anytime after the LHC is first used; now wouldn't that be the most amazing thing?

It's worth it. The risk of the destruction of anything at all is small as hell.
By Smith 2.0
#1490996
Am I the only one that thinks recreating the big bang in Switzerland is a bad idea!?

Science is just another altar, it seems. Berenger and Andres, you guys are both singing from the same hymn sheet.

I'm just saying, why is this necessary? What is 'humanity' going to gain from this? If the best answer you've got is 'Yeeeaaaah progress!! Woooo go humanity!!!' (which is all I've heard so far) then I'm sorry, but i'm not convinced. I'm not opposed to science - far from it. If it's possible to talk about it generally, it's been the most useful methodology in the history of man, from discoveries in medicine, technology - amazing. But the whole point of experimenting is to test a theory - i.e. it needs proving. I'm just saying, the stakes are a little higher than usual. So I think maybe we should err on the side of caution. This doesn't mean we can't continue to make gains in other areas of knowledge.
User avatar
By Andres
#1491005
Smith 2.0 wrote:I am the only one that thinks recreating the big bang in Switzerland is a bad idea!?
If we could recreate the big bang, it would be an even better idea, but the LHC is 15 orders of magnitude removed from the Planck scale.

I'm just saying, why is this necessary?
To understand why particles have mass. To look for new physics beyond the standard model.

I'm just saying, the stakes are a little higher than usual.
The stakes are high in that 8 billion dollars have been invested in the program, not because you have superstitious fears.
User avatar
By Harboggles
#1491018
If there was a risk of creating a black hole, they wouldn't conduct the experiment.

What is the source of this article?
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#1491021
Since you're the resident physicist I'll just take it upon myself to bother you more.

Physicists are often surprised by lots of weird shit that has happened that doesn't fit into existing theories, as far as I know. There are also many competing theories at the frontiers of physics that predict diferent things. It's my understanding that experimental "wtf" moments aren't especially uncommon when scientists find out something that doesn't fit into a theory or the results wildly differ from calculations. It's also my understanding that while the physics of microscopic black holes is a basic extension of what we already know about physics, it's never been verified.

Also even if the chance that we are wrong is pretty small, the consequences wouldn't.
User avatar
By Harboggles
#1491026
My apologies, the NY times.

I re-read the article after my skepticism of the source and title was removed.

I think I would rather risk knowing more about the universe than existing and not knowing it. Personal opinion. But regardless, there needs to be more research into this concept.
By Smith 2.0
#1491032
Andres: Why do you think my doubt is superstitious? An apparent minority of qualified physicists have express their concerns. I think that merits attention, given what they're claiming.

Do you follow Darwin's theory of evolution? I do. I infer from that, that since it is not possible to have a 'God's eye view', there is no such thing as an intrinsic purpose.
The pursuit of knowledge therefore cannot be an aim in itself, unless we decide it is, which would make it a matter of evolutionary and historical contingency.

So please, tell me again, without reference to your superstitious, a priori 'truth is good and an end in itself' argument, why?
User avatar
By Andres
#1491033
ThereBeYe wrote:It's also my understanding that while the physics of microscopic black holes is a basic extension of what we already know about physics, it's never been verified.
Then physics would have to be stopped at this energy range. There is no other way of directly exploring these energy ranges except by reaching them. It's also a bit strange to take a fringe theory seriously enough to stop research, while at the same time ignoring a well-grounded theory. Even having these discussion gives more credence to the danger than it deserves.

Smith 2.0 wrote:Why do you think my doubt is superstitious?
Because you don't know the scientific argument to back it up.

An apparent minority of qualified physicists have express their concerns.
And to humour them, studies were made. The conclusion of which was there was nothing to worry about.

So please, tell me again, without reference to your superstitious, a priori 'truth is good and an end in itself' argument, why?
I already told you my reasons for supporting it: Higgs boson and physics beyond the standard model. This is the same kind of reason why almost all high energy physics research is conducted. I do not allude to truth being good, but in this case it is the knowledge gained is the end in itself.
Last edited by Andres on 29 Mar 2008 20:20, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#1491038
It's also a bit strange to take a fringe theory seriously enough to stop research, while at the same time ignoring a well-grounded theory.

I'm a big fan and almost completely sure of AGW theory and the theory of evolution, also, but I wouldn't place a bet that involved all humanity being killed if they turned out to be wrong.
User avatar
By soron
#1491040
Prior to the first test of an atomic bomb in Alamogordo the scientists attached to the project had some concerns that the nuclear fusion might in fact act as a primer to start a global meltdown which would detroy the entire earth. It was decided to go ahead with the tests anyway.
User avatar
By Andres
#1491043
I'm a big fan and almost completely sure of AGW theory and the theory of evolution, also, but I wouldn't place a bet that involved all humanity being killed if they turned out to be wrong.
Give the probability of the latter happening in this case and then I will take this fear seriously.
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#1491045
So, suppose I were to give you this bet:

If we find the Higgs, you get a dollar.
If we don't find the Higgs, you have to kill your friends, family, and fiance.

You would have no problem with this since the latter is just not going to happen, right?
User avatar
By Andres
#1491059
ThereBeYe wrote:You would have no problem with this since the latter is just not going to happen, right?
Oh no, it could very well be that the Higgs is not found, which is why the experiment is so important. That doesn't mean that your bet was not silly or that your knowledge of the issue is not very reduced.

I'll do you one better:
If we find the Higgs, I get a dollar
If we don't perform the experiment, aliens will anal probe you.
User avatar
By ThereBeDragons
#1491064
Maybe that was a bad example. Okay I'll go back to question mode; what would you estimate the chances of finding the Higgs is, and what would you estimate the chances of creating a dangerous black hole are? They both rest on solid physics, right?
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oex20hQeQp4 No, […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhTHsvuKa4s

He's a parasite

Trump Derangement Syndrome lives. :O