WHAT EXPERTS SAY
THE FOLLOWING WAS POSTED IN RESPONSE TO A BBC ARTICLE
The BBC on the LHC
Mark at 1:04 am, January 4th, 2006
The BBC has a nice article about CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
--------
1. Killer black hole?
I like the real world view, where parades of scientists develop consensus around the ideas of a few. For example, the earth is completely flat, and the center of the universe. It’s easy to forget how our whole species believed this, with the same conviction we believe black holes will evaporate with a puff of Hawking Radiation.
CERN is the first device with enough energy to create an artificial black hole. Unfortunately, there are those who object to all the new colliders, creating the impression of a paranoid fringe, proven to be scientifically ignorant. CERN is a very big gun, able to probe matter on the scale of the weak force, the first device with this level of energy. I honestly wonder if physicists are better informed than the paranoid fringe–it’s absolutely new territory.
If everything goes according to plan, black holes created in the matter stream will quickly evaporate as Hawking radiation. Though we have confirmed the existence of black holes, we have never observed Hawking Radiation, so there does seem to be a risk that a black hole might be stable.
I guess we will find out. Such is the way of the world, with big science and big money, gathering solid political support. We freak-out if Iran has a nuclear program, but dismiss the minority report on dangers in high-energy particle physics, as crying wolf. Will the real fanatics please stand up? Probably not. Self-awareness is just what fanatics lack.
I don’t think cosmic rays are good model for what will happen at CERN. At CERN we have much lower momentum, inside a closed system. If a stable black hole were formed, we could see the demolition of our planet in less than ten minutes–the most efficient weapon ever tested, or the final industrial accident.
The current accepted theory is one where no proposed experiment is dangerous, and experimenters have a green light for any experiment they wish to conduct at high-energy.
I am also enjoying this adventure, but believe France should be much more serious in matters of risk assessment. It is risk assessment–not risk–that is nonexistent. Leading scientists should reflect on the history of science, where a minority of one, frequently leads to a breakthrough in scientific thought, by individuals who reject accepted theory. They should admit we have never been able to tell the difference between blowhards and geniuses, before a particular view of nature runs its course–which often takes decades.
We have years before CERN’s collider is operational. Why not assemble teams of teams of physicists to play the devil’s advocate? There are certainly credible scientists who worry about the risks of probing matter at these energies. We should listen attentively to the minority view, given what is proven knowledge on black holes (self-propagating collapse of matter), and what is theory (Hawking Radiation never observed, cosmic ray interactions never observed).
The brute force approach of big money, big names, big theory and a project of unprecedented scope, runs over opposition like a steamroller. I would like to see CERN go forward as much as anyone else–but waving our arms to dismiss the minority reports is reckless and irresponsible. Sometimes, what we don’t want to hear–ideas can only delay or harm the CERN project–are exactly what we should hear. For a few dollars more–a very small cost in relation to CERN’s budget, and allow ourselves the benefits of open-minded debate.
Could this kill the project? That’s the whole point of risk assessment! CERN would not be stopped by objections that don’t hold water, but we might find chilling reasons to proceed with caution, or not at all. We really don’t know if the reflex is censorship, and anyone expressing concerns is perceived as a menace to progress. In examining all the risks, we only employ more scientists, engineers, mathematicians–just what drives CERN in the first place.
What could definitely kill the project is the public perception that CERN experiments are recklessly irresponsible. Censoring those who urge caution and reflection certainly creates this impression. The risk we dismiss so easily is the utter destruction of our planet. If there was ever a good time to listen, it is right now.
There is another danger. Suppose a group of scientists develop a resolutely convincing model for stable black holes when CERN is operational? Any state or nation is well within it’s rights to nuke the facility, if they believe they are in grave danger. So, should scientists present their objections to CERN, or should they present their findings to host governments and military establishments? We don’t know what discoveries will happen before 2010–CERN could very well be shut down at gunpoint, by states or nations who think the risks are too great. No nation, including France, has the right to put everyone in jeopardy.
For working scientists, what would you do with new research assigning a 92 percent probability of stable black holes forming in the particle stream? How about a 1 percent probability? CERN is not listening, so who gets your paper?
Every war in history is based upon smaller issues than complete destruction of our planet. I really think we need greater consensus and less pomp in matters of risk accessment.
While reading Steven Hawking’s excellent book “Universe in Nutshell”, I was struck by how he characterized science in the information age. In his field, papers are being published at a continuous rate of 7 per minute. In terms of raw information, a professional physicist is marginally better informed than janitors who mop the floor. The bias towards accepted theories, which are often wrong, is simply enormous.
I would love to see Dr. Hawking get a Nobel Prize when small black holes in the CERN particle stream disappear with a puff of Hawking Radiation. He’s really a wonderful guy. If we get a stable black hole, all life on earth–and the planet–would evaporate instead. The CERN project is certainly among the wonders of the world, but refusal of the French government to explore and manage possible risks could be called insanity. I think every nation supporting CERN should insist upon exhaustive assessment of risks, and examine ALL relevant theories as if our lives depended on it (this might very well be true).
Lacking momentum, a heavy object like a stable black hole, would simply sink to the earth’s core, where it would do what black holes are proven to do: Eat all the matter the crosses an expanding event horizon. The CERN experiment will mass-produce black holes, which we hope will be unstable and disappear in nanoseconds, or less. If they do not, it will be our final experiment.
If France does not provide an atmosphere of careful risk-assessment, that doesn’t mean nobody else will. Our bias, proven to be enormous, for the entire history of science, could be our undoing. It is especially disturbing when we favor theory and seem to ignore established facts–or act as though working scientists are just trouble-makers, because they urge caution.
I guess I’m a little worried . . . (blab, blab, blab). Let me leave you with this thought for reflection. How many physicists, who believe that risk of a stable black hole is zero—also believe the universe was created a point of zero volume and infinite density? If you believe that, contrary to conservation of mass/energy, it’s possible to believe in most anything. If physics is an experimental science–which is what CERN is all about–then we should base our perception of risk on experimental facts, not popular or accepted theory, having no empirical validation.