How do we know that LHC will not be detecting a "bad particle" we are quite unaware off?

I am reading all of the posts here, but to me, it still appears that many users are ignoring the fact that none of these experiments have been observed as of yet. Its mostly simulation that physicists are justifying their safety concerns from. I don't think this is a safe way to confirm that everything is good to go.

I've read the safety concerns page on the CERN website, but the information provide to me, is not adequate enough.

Also, for the regular people, that mostly comprise this society, how come they are not being clearly informed about this "6-billion dollar" experiment. The media is not even stepping up to the plate. Something is plain wrong here, a missing link I should rather say. If anyone can clear these thoughts up, that would be appreciated.

Thanks.

What is? Or, more to the point, what would it take to convince you that it's safe? The thing is, here, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the science at hand. I mean, I'm hardly claiming to understand it myself, of course--but that's why I put my trust in those who do, and everyone I've encountered who knows what they're talking about on the subject thinks it's safe. Do you think they're all ignorant of potential consequences, or do you think they've considered the consequences and ignored them. If the former, how? If the latter, why? After all, wouldn't they themselves be killed as well?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

With all due respect, I think you may be asking the wrong question. As I mentioned earlier, the scientists on the Manhattan Project were taking bets on whether or not they were about to ignite the atmosphere. Scientists are humans: no better and no worse. And humans do some pretty godawful foolish things.

The proper question to my mind is: what level of risk is too high?

I have no problem with this particular project at all. But, really, shouldn't we, as a race, implement some sort of process for evaluating risk vs. potential gain? Before our toys get too dangerous and it is too late?

Relying on a person's better nature (even scientists) to keep us safe is foolhardy; he or she may not have one.

Wrong. Higher energy events are common in nature, as I just was discussing in my previous post. The advantage of LHC over cosmic rays is that the location of the events are controlled, but the energy is not exceptional.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I don't think you have a grasp on risk. It is measured by calculations. The calculations that take into consideration the probabilities of alternative events just for two particles colliding and giving off photons takes a post grad one full semester to do. The number of blackboards would extend several football fields. For one collision between two gold ions at Brookhaven the same post doc would need a few years. So they need supercomputers that can do 64 trillion calculations per second (by 1990 standards) to predict the probabilities.

Strangelets are very rare occurances and are likely inside of neutron stars. The probability there is greater. Look at all of the billions of neutrinos going right through your body right now. Billions per cubic centimeter. If just one thousand of them collided with your nuclei you would be killed. The chances of getting hit by neutrinos is greater than suffering some miscalculated risk of HR.

If you'll note, you're not the only one who's mentioned it. I had a professor in college who worked at Bell Labs with one of the scientists in question; this particular one sat up all night re-doing the calculations that showed it to be impossible. Because, you see, even though he knew it was impossible, he was still concerned. Because he would die too.

What you have left out is that it's hardly one person's better nature that we're relying on. It's hundreds. Surely they don't all want to destroy the Earth!

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The sum of energies and density over a whole region has to be taken into account. In particles accelerators the temperatures will be enormous at the point of collision but the densities are too low over the entire region to produce cataclymic events for the rest of us. Temperatures far higher than the internal part of the sun have been reached but the density and mass is simply not there to ignite the atmosphere.

This same paranoia existed when the comet Shoemaker-Levy was heading toward Jupiter. Each of the 13 collisions produced the equivalent energy of 250,000 nuclear weapons and gave off incredible plumes but none were enough to ignite the atmosphere. The density and mass of energies was too small.

The LHC is in the same boat. Exactly ONE cylinder of hydrogen gas (the same size of a small propane torch tank one buys at the hardware) is the total amount of fuel that the LHC will use for its particle collisions for an entire year. The amount of heavier ions will come in a smaller cylinder. You cannot bring humankind to an end with that little energy.

The amount of energy mined to create nuclear weapons was enormous. The whole reason the Soviets spied on the the United States dealt with economics and not the lack of scientific design. Zeldovich could not get a stubborn dictator to give him enough funds and equipment and personnel to produce the bomb until Hiroshima went up in smoke. All the scientists working on nuclear weapons in both countries were astrophysicists who collaborated with one another, studying neutron stars before and after the war. So each knew the other had the capability to produce the bomb. If anything was going to blow up humankind, that was it. Now we have a need for them, protecting us from inbound asteroids.

I can't imagine how you could have missed my point more thoroughly. Oh, well.

Daffy,

Read your whole quote again. They were "taking" bets not "making" bets. That means they were sure they weren't going to ignite the whole atmosphere. They alll had enough background in pryotechnics to know that the amount of atmosphere was too great to be ignited by those firecrackers. The atmosphere is not as volatile as the natural gas in a residence that, once left leaking with the windows closed will ignite with one flip of a light switch.

No. These events are observed all the time. In Post #16 of this thread, I linked to webpages from several research groups that study high-energy cosmic ray events.

As I stated in that post, the problem with using cosmic rays as your source is you don't know when they will arrive, from what direction, and with what energy. I suspect it is much easier to do this research having a source you can turn on and off.

As I already stated, events with many times the energy of anything that will be done at the LHC have been observed in our atmosphere.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

A very good point. By the time of the first test, they knew that this would not happen; see, for example, the Wikipedia article on the Manhatten project (I've also read this in other sources, but Wikipedia is quick to link to):
So, this is actually a good analog to the present situation with the LHC - the scientists involved in the project are well familiar with the physics and the risks (or lack there of) involved in it.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Um...read an account of the event. They were absolutely not sure they wouldn't ignite the atmosphere. I grant you they were fairly sure...but is that good enough? In hindsight it is, of course. Everything is looking backwards.

There seems to be a notion here that somehow scientists are different (read better) than ordinary mortals and should be left alone to make these decisions by themselves. I am suggesting that as technology advances this will become a very dangerous assumption; certainly it is one not backed up by facts.

People are people. For those who feel scientists are somehow better, more moral, less self aggrandizing than other people, I can only ask to see your evidence for this. Smarter, yes. But does smarter equal more sensible? Anyone who knows anything about history would argue with that.

Are you aware that when the atom bombs were dropped in Japan, nobody thought people would get radiation burns, let alone long term illnesses? As Peter Wyden said in his book, "The men who made the bomb did not know what it was." It was felt that anyone who was exposed to dangerous radiation would "get hit by a brick first."

So you may be comfortable trusting your betters to always make the right decision for you; I am not. I would like to see some sort of international agreement for evaluating the risks.

With all the worry about these tiny black holes evaporating or not, what evidence is there that tiny black holes exist in the first place?

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

They were well aware of what was going to happen. Radiation was predicted. They didn't think their own government was that insane to use it. It was an "ordianary Joe" ( Harry Truman) that ordered its use.

No one in science can realistically call oneself smarter and never has to all I have hung around with. They merely have more free time to pursue certain subjects that others did not just as the rest of humanity pursued areas they did not. They become upset when they are not afforded the same respect they give other disciplines. They admit they know nothing about delivering mail, driving school buses or being traffic cops. They trust those that do it and have experience at it. The average Joe does not have the same respect for them and appears arrogant to them, just as arrogant as the scientist appears in the eyes of the average Joe.

And who will these people evaluating the risks be under this "international agreement" of yours? The scientists that you evidently do not trust to make the evaluation? Politicians? A good way to lower the risk by getting nothing done! Or maybe the CEOs of large multinational conglomerates? (A good way to guarantee that it gets done risk or no as long as there's money to be made! ) A dozen or so people off the street with no qualifications to judge, who must be educated on the topic so they can perform the evaluation? And who will teach these people? Who decides who teaches these people? Ad nauseam ...

Enough I say!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Sheesh.

I didn't say I have a system planned out; I said I would like to see one.

I also didn't say I don't trust scientists...except in the sense that (again!!!!!) people are people. How many times do I have to say that? I have also said, I DO NOT OPPOSE THE LHC! IN FACT I AM ALL FOR IT!!!!!!! (Shouting intentional for those who are having trouble with the concept.) I am speaking about the future.

I am open to suggestions. Certainly, as a start, scientists' participation would be crucial to help analyze that data (duh). On the other hand, giving ANY group free reign to do whatever they want, no matter what the risk is...what is the term? Oh, yeah: stupid.

The resistance shown to the merest suggestion that we should have a system for evaluating risks shows me, without doubt, how badly it will be needed.

No, Daffy. The question is, who is best qualified to evaluate the risks of a scientific experiment? Would that be scientists? Why, I believe it would! We're not talking about giving anybody free rein, here. (A racing term, originally, and therefore not spelled with a "g.") We're saying that scientists are the best at evaluating science. It doesn't matter if it's the Manhattan Project, the LHC, or some future project. (I think it was known about the dangers of radiation, though I don't have a cite for it--hadn't people already died from it? Like Marie Curie?) The point is that letting non-scientists evaluate the validity of science leads to things like ID in the schools. Or these stupid lawsuits from people who think the scientists, all of them, will be willing to destroy the world.

Besides, if they had set the atmosphere on fire, who'd've survived to collect the bets?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

But a system is already in place; it takes a lot of money to build these things, money that comes from governments, in particular France and Switzerland (on whose territory CERN resides). A few hundred politicians have asked for qualified opinions from people qualified to give them. What more could we possibly need? And since the U.S. and the U.K. and other countries also provide funding and input we already have an international system.
That's good.
What makes you think the next accelerator upgrade project will be handled any differently? Or any other project in that oh-so-ominous "future" you are speaking about?
What makes you think scientists (or anyone else) is being given free rein? Not even multinational conglomerates have free rein. At least not yet, though the little darlings are sure trying hard enough!
No, the resistance comes from knowing that no matter how much these matters are reviewed by qualified experts, there will always be Chicken Littles (not referring to you) who will not be satisfied with any amount of oversight and bureaucratic hoops and will file frivolous lawsuits and maybe even engage in sabotage to get their way. That's why I am saying enough is enough. The costs and the need for government funding and the oversight that goes with it is sufficient to prevent the direst of outcomes. Now and in the future.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

On this one point, can you site a reference that they were not sure. I have cited one that they were.

As far as the discussion about how to evaluate potentially globally dangerous human actions, you and I were discussing it earlier (I gave the example of nuclear weapons and MAD) - I still think it worthy of a seperate discussion.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Teller himself considered it a possibility. Yes, the fact is, the men who disagreed were correct (obviously). Which has nothing to do with my point. I do still agree it is probably worth its own thread; I shouldn't have brought it up again here, I admit.

But I remain shocked, dismayed, and mildly frightened at the hostility shown to the idea that any project should ever be questioned.

Side notes to Celestial Mechanic:

a) Your referring to the global corporations as "the little darlings" really did crack me up up a LOT. Forgive me, but I may have to steal that one.

b) I don't know if there is anything "ominous" in the future or not. I just find people unwilling to question authority very disturbing. That's the way I am wired, I suppose; if you would like to interpret that as having to do with my coming of age in the 60s, who am I to argue?

Cheers, all. I am done with this topic.

Glad you liked it! Be my guest.
I too grew up in the 60s (and it shows!) But the problem here isn't the questioning of authority; it seems to be the mindless questioning of competence. Again, you do not engage in this practice, but quite obviously the people who filed the lawsuit in Hawaii do.

I will also leave this topic and let it drop into oblivion. Unless it comes back again like it did this time.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

What hostility? The project has and is constantly being questioned. Scientists at Fermilab have done some recalculations concerning the mass of the Higgs boson and calculate that they might be able to realize a discovery at energies that the present Tevatron can realize. Competition is how checks and balances exist in particle physics and that is how the government keeps tabs on wasted monies. Study the November Revolution of 1974. The results of that competition was one of the main reasons the internet exists.

"mildy frightened"?

Just what are you frightened about? The particle physics world has been very blunt with the public. Nuclear weapons are definitely the greatest fear the uninvolved public has from their labs. Any new particle realized at higher energies will decay too quickly to do any such false notion as multiplication and spreading. Nuclear weapons rely on fission and chain reaction with the atmosphere's gases. There will not be any atmospheric gases present and there are none present in any of the existing particle accelerators. The beamlines are sealed in vaccums that the beams cannot protrude. Their energies are too low.

The masses used at the LHC will be incredibly smaller than the mass used for nuclear weapons. It takes a freight train to move a nuke and the bomber designed to transport one has to be enormous. (Realize that I am not talking about atomic bombs here but am talking about nuclear weapons.)

The energies at the LHC are going to be larger than Fermilab but not by that much.

Why aren't you concerned about the particle accelerator right in your living room (the TV)? It is much less controlled with much less applied science that organizes it and it gives off more radons right into your room than the LHC will.

Done? This tells me you are not questioning the LHC or anyone on this thread at all. "Done" implies that all one has to do is cross examine you enough and you will quit. If this means a lot to you, then why don't you take up physics and math and cross examine the stubborn scientific establishment that you perceive in its own language? Scientists listen to that language.

Despite your thinly veiled personal attacks, I am disinclined to fire back. "Done" simply meant that I have said all on this topic that I have to say. That you so completely misunderstood my point merely convinces me even more that this was the correct decision.

So what is misunderstood? BTW, you did fire back. Incidentally, the last comment I made is out of respect for my niece. She became upset with the death of my mother due to cancer so much that she went out and got a Phd in biiochemsitry to study a possible cure. No attack on you exists.

My first wife died of cancer when my 2 sons were quite young, so please believe me when I tell you I am very, very sorry about your mother.

As far as this topic, I really did say all I have to say. If I keep posting about it, I will merely be repeating myself. Boring.

Hi, I would just like to say i found this forum very informative=) now i am all for the LHC i tend to think the more advances in science the better but... i kind of understand peoples worries. "(I think it was known about the dangers of radiation, though I don't have a cite for it--hadn't people already died from it? Like Marie Curie?)" exactley it was known still some people caught cancer after the test blasts for the first a bomb right?!?! and wasnt Chernobyl a controlled experiment? werent they trying to keep making energy whilst the reactor was shutting down?? look how smooth that went... and there once was a time that people on earth had total certanty that the earth was flat even the scientist. so i am all for scientific progress but i do understand why some would worry and are not 100% sure of its saftey=)

Actually, this isn't true.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There is a common misperception that a black hole is like a vacuum cleaner. Many people think that a black hole sucks up everything around it, and then goes searching for more stuff to suck up.

__________________
"I'm as accurate as any psychic. And I'm a cartoon!" -- Squidward

"Arrrgh, the laws of physics be a harsh mistress!" -- Bender

hmmmm, what if i say at a time even scientists thought that the earth was the center of the universe?? lol i really did think that the earth being flat was something of a "fact" once and sailors feared falling off the edge of the earth, my bad sorry. but im just saying we fear what we dont understand... and well sometimes we might just think we know alot about something and the possibility of what we know being wrong does exist... ok though improbable heheh.. heck i would just love it if CERN wouldnt go exactley as planned and we would discover something we werent expecting! but it being a positive discovery, as opposed to assploding the universe like some fear=)

So exactly what would you like done about this? There are lots of people, both here and at CERN who do understand this and don't fear it. If you read through this thread you will see that it has been explained many, many times. Should CERN not do something because there is someone on the planet who doesn't understand and is fearful?

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple