What are we talking about?

In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The Large Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along the French and Swiss border with a total estimated circumference of 17 miles will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down), Electrons, and Protons discovered.

The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the "Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be smashing these Hadrons (specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the average person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).

To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt = 1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV. Although such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space, this will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other possibilities that could arise.

Why haven't I heard about this before?

Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest, or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of understanding something so complex. Still however there are several Documentaries and other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific Expirement of al time.

Why We're Concerned

To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator in history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O. Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction of the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH Production, Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as relevant possibilities.

So, what's different this time?

this is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a total combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies generated by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality, in fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here is an excerpt from Safety at the LHC

"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC are harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink, evaporate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it vanishes. If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."

We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.

So, what's the problem?

In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would evaporate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer Published a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this document go here Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)

In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and theories which have gained a lot of support in the scientific community such as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced, which do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than previously thought.

The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately references Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.

Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create Black Holes on Purpose?

Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in fact not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.

Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't evaporate, what next?

Here is another place that CERN's safety assessment is incapable of addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton beam is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in each beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative sense any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.

At that point two hypothetical scenarios exist. It would either maintain a rather low orbit within our planet itself, slowly accreting mass at an exponential rate, or it's possible it may "gravitate" to the direct center of the planet in which case would accrete mass very quickly

Wait a second, I've also heard of other dangers like "Strange Matter", "Bubble Nucleation", and "Magnetic Monopoles", why the focus on Black Holes?

it is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem with representing them accurately is the true danger can never be quantified as None of these have been observed, however that does not mean the risk is zero. The very fact that this experiment is called an experiment is the prove a hypothesis, if the results were truly known then this would not be occurring in the first place.

The Large Hadron Collider is going to be forcing Protons together in a very unnatural way, not only forcing them into groups of roughly 3,000 protons for the collisions, but exposing them to temperatures colder than space as well (1.9 K or -271 C). These types of collisions in a sense are unnatural because collisions at those speeds and temperature would never happen, meaning at the point of activation, no one will truly know these results until they occur, in a matter of Femtoseconds we would be placing the entire world in potential Danger. I've seen many websites calculate possiblity/problem or a percentage of risk, however without many of these theories as proof, there is no accurate way to calcuate them, So although the risk potential is unknown, the risk can never be calculated at zero.

Although the credence given Strange Matter production, and it's subsequent catalytic behavior by the scientific community is not always mutual. Certain types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically convert all matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is not as likely as creating a Black Hole, it's worth mentioning because it is a possibility.

I want to learn more, where can I go?

The internet is a good place, it brought you here, didn't it? Of course you could always visit the links on the site, and take part in our discussion on the forum, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with all the issues, and a basic understanding of Black Holes won't hurt either, of course I can always recommend reading A Brief History of Time or the Universe in a Nutshell there is always Google, for as many people as there are concerned, there are people who believe the danger is zero, it's important for you, to properly evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion, of course we would like your support, however, the goal of this web site is information, discussion, action, and rationale, we are real people after all, and so are you.

Thinking outside the box can't hurt either, I encourage you to Talk to a Professor at a local college, write a Letter to CERN, do whatever you need to do to inform yourself and make an informed decision, any contribution you make, even discussing with one other single person in the world, has the possibility to make all the difference.

Now hold on, CERN does address some of these concerns...

They do, They address Black Holes, and Strange matter, however if you read their arguments they unfortunately use a lot of faulty analogies. They use the argument classically referred to as the "Cosmic Ray" Argument, this states that energies produced at the LHC are far less than those produced in cosmic rays, but also that Black Holes that would be theoretically created from cosmic rays pass through our planet everyday.

So what's wrong with this analogy

First off these are moving so fast, if they exist they are not given enough time accrete mass as they are traveling at near c, meaning actually that they would only grab a few protons as they sped through our Planet, the analogy falls apart at speed, whereas all MBH production on earth would be moving far slower than near c, thus giving it a chance to accrue. We are also referring to fundamental particles on a quantum scale, the Schwarzchild radius(size in which matter would need to be compressed to become a black hole) on such smaller particles would of course then be lower, and since they are being forced (protons) in clumps, this also increases the likelihood of MBH production at lower speeds. The argument has an obvious rational flaw.

This actually brings me back to a second point raised, referred to as the mosquito analogy, where CERN describes the collisions as having the force of a mosquito, however this also logistically differs from CERN's own analogy of the LHC as "recreating the conditions shortly after the Big Bang Singularity", but this also affects the size and force requirements of such MBH's, so that analogy falls apart as well.

Questions and Answers

Perhaps someone here can elaborate.

We had a good question posed to us on our forums, and both the question, and the subsequent responses are worth posting on the front page, in fact it's motivated us to start a questions and answers section highlighting some of the best, anyone can feel free to start a thread on our forums, some good questions will be placed on the front page, here is the initial question posed by Jumpbutton :

Jumpbutton:

If it is so easy for someone of my age (high school, to generalize) to grasp these concerns and accept them as such, indeed able to (I'm assuming here) understand them as the theories they are, then why is it so ungodly difficult for the far more educated people at CERN to accept and investigate? I mean, I may just be sounding arrogant, but if the majority of us can understand these risks, surely they can too.

I would think that it's simple human reaction to ensure it's own safety, rather than to ignore risk. There are some who would debate that ideal, but I for one stand by it. The only conclusion I can come to is that they're either in it for material reasons, which is beyond my belief, or that they're simply not thinking normally. That probably sounds incredibly stupid unless you're me, but it's what I've come to believe.

It couldn't really harm their project so badly to delay it a while more and investigate the concerns fully... could it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems so easily comprehensible to me.

jump

I'm sorry if this post sounded assholish, btw. It kinda does in retrospect.

Ebenonce:

That's a great question!

Infact this is something that I asked myself initially quite a bit, the answer is subjective, but here is my answer.

Some of it I blame on "groupthink" (Groupthink is a concept that refers to faulty decision-making in a group. Groups experiencing groupthink do not consider all alternatives and they desire unanimity at the expense of quality decisions.) ; so what does that mean? Right now in the world the physics community believes in Hawkings Radiation almost to the degree where it is viewed as fact. as people are educated within a system and things it tends to get treated in our mind as fact, even though it's theory, but this is just from a psychological perspective. Almost any documentary I've seen with the LHC (Search for the Higgs, Lords of the Ring, Etc.) the statement of Hawkings radiation is never questioned, neither is it questioned or even treated as questionable on CERN's website.

Also at this point I'm afraid that people are simply lumping the LHC arguments in with the arguments put forth about the RHIC, which, has not destroyed us. it is important to point out this is highly faulty reasoning for the fact alone of the difference in luminosity. I'll upload the Paper on Hawkings Radiation by Helfer for you to look at, that way you can see the kind of variables that really fall into Hawking's theory and why they may infact be faulty.

Walter L. Wagner:

Good question and good response from ebenonce.

Most physicists are concinvced that Hawking radiation is a reality, so they've never investigated issues from the perspective that perhaps Hawking radiation isn't real [it's thus-far only theory, as it's never been observed]. Thus, they quickly jumped to the [erroneous] conclusion that the cosmic ray argument backs them up.

In that argument, they recognized that high energy cosmic rays routinely impact earth [moon, etc.] at center-of-momentum energies greater than the center-of-momentum energies of the LHC. So, if micro black holes [MBHs] can be created, then they're created in nature too, and since we're still here, that means that Hawking radiation works [if there is such a thing as micro black holes -- most physicists don't necessarily believe that they can be created, but admit that they might be creatable].

Having a quick 'back-up' to their pet theory of the reality of Hawking radiation, they looked no further.

The fallacy of that cosmic ray argument, however, as pointed out by ebenonce, is that any such MBH createad in nature is nearly relativistic relative to earth, i.e. travelling at 0.9999+c
At that speed, earth would essentially be invisible to them, and they would travel through unimpeded. This is analogous to neutrinos that can travel great distances through matter without interaction.

Yet the LHC would create many such MBHs [again, if they can be created, and we don't know that for a fact either] at slow speed, such that they are gravitationally captured by earth. At slow speed, a) earth would not be quite so invisible, and b) they would repeatedly pass through earth over and over again, and thus be able to interact on occasion, grow larger, and increase their ability to interact. While some now estimate that it might take billions of years for any one MBH to grow large enough to rapidly consume the earth, the LHC might create them at the rate of 1/second, which would allow them to have an additive effect, reduce that time of destruction to millenia or less.

CERN has now recognized this oversight, and is trying additional arguments, which they anticipate to publish soon. Once such argument relies on the existence of neutron stars in our galaxy. They reason that cosmic rays impinging on neutron stars would create MBHs, and that they would convert the neutron star into a BH. Because there are still lots of neutron stars, they reason that the MBH must instead evaporate via Hawking radiation. However, again, it might be possible for a high speed MBH to transit a neutron star [as a neutrino can] at 0.9999c, while a low speed [.0000001c] one would not. We really don't know the difference in cross-section for interaction for such particles. For neutrons, we had to measure it by experiment, and they differ by many many orders of magnitude.

Also, some 95% of the mass of our galaxy is "dark matter", matter that can't be seen by light, but has gravitational influence. Perhaps we do lose some neutron stars over billions of years by a few that managed to capture even a high-speed MBH, and they are now the "missing mass" of our galaxy. This also needs to be investigated more thoroughly, in my view.

Thanks for thinking about this. Why don't you write to CERN about this?

James_Blodgett:

Why are physicists building a collider if it is dangerous? Why are they not worried? I have talked to a bunch of physicists. I will tell you my model.

At first, physicists had good reason to think that there was no problem. When Walter Wagner suggested in 1999 that black holes might be created, fairly simple math (even Wagner's own math) showed that the energy required would be beyond the reach of any collider. The collider of interest at the time was the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven, which started up in 2000. Brookhaven produced a safety paper that listed several safety factors. To this day, physicists still cite that paper to show that there is no problem.

The problem was, subsequent physics papers eroded several of the safety factors. String theorists developed a new theory that showed how colliders could create black holes. The theory behind Hawking radiation, supposed to dissipate black holes, was found to have theoretical problems. And so forth. It is somewhat like a frog in water that is slowly heated. The frog will not notice the heat.

Part of the problem is that physicists are not risk analysts. They feel, correctly, that the theories that permit trouble are a small subset of all theories, so that trouble is not likely. As one physicist said to me "You do not understand probability. A probability of 0.001 means it is not going to happen." Well, I have a master's degree in statistics. I do understand probability. What the physicist did not understand is that 0.001 times the value of Earth gives a tremendous negative expected value. We should NOT be taking chances like that. A shuttle astronaut faces similar personal risks at every launch. If physicists where shuttle astronauts, we would applaud their confidence in their craft and their willingness to back up their confidence by risking their lives. However, a shuttle astronaut is a volunteer. A commercial airplane with a 0.001 risk would not be allowed to fly. A commercial airplane carries many passengers who did not volunteer for a risky mission. The Earth has 6.5 billion passengers, so we should hope for a risk to Earth that is less than that of a commercial airplane.

I once interviewed a physicist who had written an article for a popular publication telling us not to worry. His reasons were not clear from the article, so I asked him over lunch. It was a stimulating conversation, he seemed to be a nice guy, and he paid for lunch. His reason turned out to be that he did not believe in any kind of black hole. As he said, "When an equation goes to infinity, that is a sign that there is something wrong with the equation." He has a point, and he might just be right. But that is not what most physicists believe. I applaud him for his theoretical creativity. I understand why he might not be personally concerned. But he doesn't quite realize that he is betting the Earth, and telling others it is okay to bet the Earth, based on a theory that many would question.

Scientists are used to testing theories carefully. In order to publish, data need to be statistically significant, and they need to pass peer review. They tend to think like this about risk too, wanting it to be proven before they will believe it. (Consider, "The risk is only 50%, that is not proven, so we will launch.") To address this, risk specialists have developed what they call the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in areas of scientific risk. Precaution does not need to prove risks to a high degree of confidence. Rather, the burden of proof is on those who propose risky experiments, to show that they are safe. The precautionary principle has been touted by many risk specialists, and has been formally accepted by the European Union, the home of CERN. Unfortunately, many scientists are not used to this type of thinking, are not aware of the precautionary principle, or if aware do not like it. Even those who accept it are sometimes reluctant to apply it. Even though the precautionary principle has been formally adopted by the European Union, EU functionaries are currently passing the buck as to who is responsible for its implementation.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is Europe's moon shot. They have spent billions. It will bring them back to the preeminence in physics they enjoyed in 1910, when Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg were all Europeans. Also, a sizable portion of the world's physicists are working on the LHC, or on theories that will be impacted by the LHC. They are reluctant to hear that it might have a problem. If that problem is a low probability risk, that is a risk they are willing to take, or rather willing to ignore.

I should add that estimates of components of collider risk are quite subjective and quite variable. In 2004, I tried a series of Delphi questionnaires in which I asked physicists their estimates of several components of collider risk. As an example of the variability, estimates that Hawking radiation would fail ranged from 0% to 50%. The data are as follows: 0, 0, 1E-10, 0.001, 0.01, 0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.07, 0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.35, 0.5. This was at the time that CERN was relying on Hawking radiation, before we were aware of the papers questioning its theoretical background. I guess that estimates would be higher now. (Note that even then, when Hawking radiation was relied upon by CERN, most physicists estimated a non- zero probability that it would fail.) Also, ten of these physicists were aware of my interest in the collider issue from the Delphi instructions. A few may have been shading their estimates to game the results. CERN's Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was quoted in the New Yorker as instructing CERN scientists to say that the risk (the overall risk of the LHC) is zero.

The model of risk in the Delphi questionnaires was [ Total risk ] = [ Risk that black holes would be created ] x [ Risk that Hawking radiation would fail ] x [ Risk that accretion would be rapid ] x [ Any other risk factor they propose ]. (These probabilities were stated as successively conditional, given that the earlier ones were true.) Ten of the physicists received these questionnaires, the others received a preliminary questionnaire. The fact that none proposed a fourth factor at least suggests that this model is plausible. I would consider the collider/cosmic ray analogy as a separate consideration that would limit the risk calculated by this model, but that should not be calculated into it.

Ebenonce:

Again, like I've said, the largest danger is assuming Theory as fact, the other danger is not fully analyzing information discovered since the project was first started. Most of the time I feel like people's over all opinion seems to be that people thought the RHIC was dangerous, and since it has yet to cause our destruction then of course the LHC will not. I'm concerned by the blatant usage of faulty reasoning.

I believe that people involved in the project are aware of these unanswered questions, but no one seems to be raising them from the inside, atleast not loud enough for us to hear, CERN is a large and powerful company, And this project is supposed to bring almost a scientific renaissance, but really, at this point people who have a vested financial interest in this are going to want to silence the loudest voices of protest because of financial interests.

In other words, this discovery could very well revolutionalize physics, assuming everything goes well, it would be one of the final steps to what many have called "a unified theory of everything", Europe wants this, so does CERN, with that much political and financial backing it doesn't surpise me that we don't hear louder voices.

That's what this site is about, I hope you visit this thread again and feel free to ask more questions.

We Welcome Questions and Opinions

We welcome and questions or opinions you may have which is why we have a forum here at LHC Concerns, if you have anything to ask, or completely disagree with us, we would like to hear what you have to say, our goal is to spread information on safety concerns, however anything you as the reader would like to contribute is infact more than welcome, the forums are open to anyone who is concerned, or anyone who wants to pose a question, or simply discuss issues with the Large hadron Collider, or give suggestions and ideas.

The forum index can be located here The LHC Concerns Forum. we would like to hear what people think, and address any questions with real answers.

Okay, I Want to Help, what can I do?

Many people who stumble upon us ask one thing, What Can I do? Individually we accomplish a lot less than we do in groups, the first order is to Raise Awareness. :

Write to your local officials, We have a generic template on LHC concerns that you could very easily print out and mail discussing the potential for MBH creation and concerns over the verity of Hawking Radiation. The Template can be downloaded here Letter Template in PDF form (Just right click to "Save as" , or print directly from the site)

Spread the news any why you can, On your Personal Weblog, Through Flyers, Discuss with friends, raising awareness can start with just a few people. I have Seen Cartoons on Youtube, Seen Music Video's and songs Such as Ebenonce's Atom Smasher, and of course read many articles and spoken to several individuals, any way you can spread awareness has the chance of succeeding.

Get involved with people/organizations already involved, the Large Hadron Collider took an investment of several Billion dollars and years to construct, that can be intimidating for someone who would be inclined to act, you're not alone. This website Exists, the Myspace group STOP CERN With almost 1,000 Members exists, the LHC defense fund exists, but what is more important, you exist, and you can take action any way you see fit.

Join our discussion forum here at LHC Concerns where you can talk/discuss with other people about the dangers and what you can do to help, we can collaborate on papers, documents, even creating templates for letters to government officials, Although it may not seem much, signing petitions can accomplish things, especially when backed with several thousand signatures.

Finally don't tell yourself that you can't do anything about it, overcoming this though allows you to take direction. If your concerned as we are, Have a sense of urgency about it, be proactive, take ten minutes of a day and help, you may very well be doing the most important things you have ever done.

Disclaimer

Although we at LHC Concerns feel our cause is just we are not specifically against CERN as a company, This is not meant as Slander, or Libel, however we feel very strongly about voicing the dangers of the Large Hadron Collider itself, our issue is with the Particle Accelerator, not CERN.

Regarding Affadavaits and complaints filed March 21st 2008

A piece of very large news here, you can see the individual complaints and affadavits filed with the court in Hawaii Here, these were brought forth from several people concerned with LHC Safety including Walter Wagner, James Blodgett and others.