Should we be messing with stuff that could destroy the world (Large Hadron Collider)?

Great Debates
1

Related to this thread which I started some months ago and resurrected after coming across some more debate on the subject.

That thread was discussing the technical aspects of the risks involved in a particle accelerator which could supposedly create a black hole and destroy our planet. This thread is intended to discuss or debate the ethical and moral considerations of taking such a risk.

It would appear from what has been said in the other thread that the risk of a black hole being created is negligible. Yet even then, I personally would still be afraid of such an experiment. As I said, science gave us the atomic bomb (and also nuclear energy, and other positive developments.) But at least nuclear power and weaponry poses only a limited risk to the world - at least a nuclear bomb is only (and I use “only” relatively speaking) able to destroy a city. And the benefit from nuclear research is far more tangible - an efficient source of power.

Whereas when you weigh the risks and benefits of the Large Hadron Collider - the instant and unstoppable destruction of the entire planet, versus…what? What benefit could possibly be worth that risk?

This site - a possibly alarmist critique of the so-called “Doomsday Machine” - nevertheless brings up some things that I think are worth considering. Maybe someone here with a better understanding of particle physics and Hawking’s theories than I have (which is no understanding at all) can comment on them?

On that site, which is definitely worth reading, there is a point made by one of the posters:

Some Historical Context on Hawking’s Theories:

The astrophysical universe of the mid-70’s is not the universe we know today…

  • Black hole existance as real objects was purely speculative at this time.

  • Energy production in quasars and Seyfert galaxies was poorly understood.

  • Cosmological background radiation was not mapped nor totally explained.

  • Black holes were thought to be extremely rare objects — as if black holes were disappearing by some unknown mechanism over cosmic timescales.

The ‘new’ theory of black hole evaporation / radiation at this time (Hawking Radiation) was eagerly sought as an explanation for each of these observations… It seemed to solve many problems.

OF COURSE, THIS WAS TOTAL NONSENSE…

The astrophysical universe of 2007 looks very different…

*Black holes are common — an estimated 10,000 extra-solar mass black holes exist in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

*Supermassive black holes exist in the heart of most, if not all galaxies.

*Supermassive black holes drive the enormous energy production in quasars – not the evaporation of primordial black holes left over from the Big Bang as had been suggested.

Within the context of the modern universe, Hawking radiation theory is becoming a horrible unnecessary anachronism.

It is an explanation in search of a problem which no longer exists…

That Hawking’s theories should be used to rationalize micro black hole creation at CERN is completely out of context. It is a non-sequitur …

I don’t know what to make of this. I don’t know whether it’s true or not. But my overall impression would be that humankind should not be messing around with such potentially dangerous stuff. Like I said, I’m not talking about a nuclear meltdown that could destroy a city, I’m talking about the instantaneous destruction of the ENTIRE PLANET, orders of magnitude more worrying than mere nuclear disaster. And for what benefit? And why are we acting like these physicists are infallible gods or something? As if they’re completely incapable of making any mistakes? As that site points out, they couldn’t prevent an explosion at their own facility:

Someone in the other thread mentioned that these scientists were not foolish and cold enough to risk destroying the planet, because “it’s not as if they have an escape plan.” It’s a good point, but I would still fully believe that even thousands of scientists could be swept up in a fervor of potential progress and discovery and be able to ignore the risks of destruction.

Scientists are only human. They can be just as foolish, twisted or power-hungry as any other flawed human. There were scientists doing experiments on Jews during the Holocaust. There were Japanese scientists doing experiments on American POWs during World War II. There were scientists behind the development of every bomb and bullet that has ever taken a human life, ever destroyed someone’s house or robbed someone of a loved one.

Science is not perfect.

I realize that since this critique is coming from a non-scientist, I’m opening myself up to all kinds of criticism. I accept that. I might get called an ignorant fool. I might become the most unpopular poster here, who knows. I don’t care, though. Whatever responses this posting gets will become valuable additions to the ethical debate.

2

Fools! I’ll destroy them all! BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAH!!!

3

The simple fact of the matter is that however large the collision energies attained in the LHC, there have been a FAR longer history of FAR higher-energy collisions on our planet as a result of the constant bombardment of cosmic rays all throughout its 4.5 billion year history. We’re still here.

4

Posted by riker1384 in the other thread:

What sayest thou?

5

Only until the CO[sub]2[/sub] levels get high enough to raise the temperature of the tundra enough to release all its bound methane in a single giant belch; which ignites and snuffs out everything more complex than bacteria and primitive algae.

6

I know this topic is kind of asking for jokes, and maybe the OP reads a little too much like the stuff that “guests” pop in to post from time to time, but I was kind of hoping for some more serious answers…

7

Look, what exactly is this mini-blackhole (that we are now assuming is stationary) going to “eat” exactly? We’ve already explained that the LHC could produce a mass equivalent of 10[sup]-23[/sup]kg. Its evaporation time would be nonsensical and its event horizon radius would be … 10[sup]-50[/sup]m. Any further away than that would be safe. And seeing how we think space-time’s smallest dimensions are 10[sup]-34[/sup]m we should be just peachy.

In short there is nothing that implies any kind of cosmic level destruction will occur.

8

What about ‘false vacuum’?

The planet? Heck…we could destroy the UNIVERSE!!

BUHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

BUHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHA

====

As others have noted…it’s not going to happen. What we do is nothing to the power the universe has already done.

9

I would think a rip in the time space continuum would be far more likely.

10

There’s no rip in the space time continuum…that’s just tv sci fi stuff.

Now a tear…that’s another story.

11

Who cares?

We already have enough nukes on this planet to destroy every last living thing. And it is only a matter of time before another insane Hitler-esque dictator takes over a nuclear power and pushes the button. Compared to that, a plank-scale black hole is (almost literally) nothing.

Consider that risk = severity * probability. In this case, severity ~ 0, and probability ~ 0. The risks of things like falling pianos and lightning strikes vastly outweigh the LHC by several orders of magnitude.

12

Actually that would be an eddy in the spacetime continuum, not a rip.

13

Yeah but at least if there were a nuclear holocaust, the planet would still be in existence. At least would be some chance for the human race to survive. That doesn’t worry me anywhere near as much as the world just being completely swallowed up by a black hole in an instant.

Also, the risks of lightning and falling pianos may outweigh the risk of a black hole, but we can’t do anything about lightning striking or a piano accidentally falling. On the other hand, the scientists are choosing to activate the LHC. And lightning or a piano falling might kill one or two people - a black hole could kill every single person, animal, and insect, and destroy the entire planet.

I just don’t get it. What could possibly be yielded from the LHC that would justify even the most tiny risk of a black hole?

14

Fusion as a viable source of power?

Comparing the potential risk to the potential reward, I think I can live with the chance that one moment I’ll be there and the next, dead.

We do it every day.

15

The Theory of Everything?

I think you underestimate the potential benefits of possible massive breakthroughs in physics. Even if it’s unlikely that this particular supercollider will complete our understanding of physics, that seems more likely than a black hole doomsday scenario.

16

Would you please explain to us the risk seeing how we have no models that could account for LHC creating mini-blackholes. It’s analogous to wishing to shut down stem cell research as it could potentially led to mutant cells that devour any organic molecule. Hell that might actually be more likely.

The LHC is a microscope, a tool that lets us examine nature at an unprecedented level. The engineering required maintaining beam focus, vacuum integrity let alone the design of the actual detectors will continue to push material and engineering science forward regardless of the physical discoveries. Beyond that, anytime we see something new we learn a bit more about ourselves and our universe.

17

Would a tiny little black hole really eat up the whole world?

The Schwartzchild radius of the Earth is only like 9mm. In theory, if your little tiny black hole was force fed the whole earth, it would only have an event horizon within that 9mm sphere.

So it other words, your little black hole can’t take in enough mass to grow big enough to hurt anyone. Worst case it would drop through the floor of your partical accelerator and bounce back and forth across Earth’s center of gravity until it eventually settled in the core. It would gather mass as it goes, getting bigger, but eventually it would reach some equilibrium point where it has eaten all the mass within it’s event horizon. There might be a massive explosion when it starts taking in mass, but that would mostly be a local problem.

Or am I missing something?

18

This article should set you at ease:

19

Nah. There’s plenty of things which would survive indefinitely, even if we managed to simultaneously detonate every single nuke on the planet. The first thing that comes to mind are the complete ecosystems at the bottom of the sea in and around geothermal vents. These survive independently of any other ecosystem and are not dependent upon solar energy. There are have also been found bacteria living IN rock from cores taken several miles down. Even our fiercest weaponry can’t touch these critters. Life would survive, even if WE didn’t.

20

Ever notice how nobody considers the possibility that there might be a Universe-destroying false-vacuum singularity developing right now in Swizerland, and that only the existance of a microscopic black hole in the vicinity would prevent it from tearing the cosmos a new spacehole? Sure, no model of physics we know predicts that such a thing would happen, or how the presence of a black hole could stop it, but we don’t know everything, and for all we know, it’s conceivable that it could happen. Can we justify taking the risk of not building the LHC? Because even if the probability is incalculably small, it could happen, and the consequences would be huge.