The paper they cite examines the behaviour of mini black holes in a
specific theory. They clearly conclude that, for the model they studied,
“the growth of black holes to catastrophic size is not possible.” This
conclusion even holds if they let the parameters of the model take
values which are excluded by experiment.

The thing that Fox jumped on is that the lifetime of the black holes in
this model is longer than in other models (although certainly not of the
order of seconds, as speculated by Fox. In fact, the times in the paper
are well below milliseconds).

One should note that the LHC Safety Assessment Group, amongst others,
have taken into account even the production of hypothetical stable mini
black holes. For example, Giddings and Mangano
[http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381] rule out that stable black holes
produced by the LHC — if possible at all — could have an effect on the
earth on timescales shorter than the sun’s lifetime, by investigating
the effect that cosmic ray induced black holes would have on other
objects such as neutron stars and white dwarfs.

So Fox news both mis-cited the paper and greatly exaggerated its
relevance for the safety discussion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483477,00.html

Regardless, I am still not convinced the risk, however small, is thiers to assume. I deal in a world of analyzing risk of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and have previously been in pivotal roles dealing with securing nuclear weapons and resources…we used to tell the politicians that the expense of protecting these assets was well worth it because, although the risk of them falling into bad guy hands was incredibly small, the consequences were unacceptable. I think there should be a better vetting process for these experiments, although I can’t provide a reasonable option for that process.

Thank you Shahn Majid…I would appreciate more words that can alleviate the exceptional anxiety of my young son who is intelligent enough to understand the basic science of the experiment and therefore the potential results but can’t grasp the rationale offered to mitigate concern…all he knows is the scientists can’t ensure he will survive to grow up if this experiment is carried out. In fact, I can barely accept it because, with all my combat and antiterrorism training, I can’t protect my family against this and I have no venue to influence others to hear and mitigate my concerns.

This is most likely posted far too late to warrant attention but any response would be welcome…thanks.

First question: by definition any prediction of the outcome of an experiment is based on theory. This is always true. You can not even rule out that the glass of water explodes when you put a match in it. Remember that matches do not exist in nature, so the conditions for the experiment are reproduce only when performed by manhood. There is no cosmic evidence that such a thing can’t happen and statistics and variation of conditions is poor. From the very beginning and for every experiment there is a small but nonzero probability that something “new” happens and theory must be rewritten. You can put statistically an upper bound on the probability because so far the fire always went out. But in reality once you perform the experiment again, you do not know exactly whether you have precisely the same setup as in the previous experiments. You have a theory that says that this experiment is exactly the same as the others before and from observation and theory you extrapolate that this time this or this happens.

Second question: for the same reason you can never answer this question and give a number. Again you can only compare to other outcomes of experiments and put a reasonable upper bound on the probability that something will not happen at the LHC. Same business as always. There is no alternative and the situation is not worse as always. If you consider this as insufficient and “risky”, stop using any artificial chemistry products or electronics.

Third question: you can even less answer this question, because in addition to the risks you have now also to estimate the chances. No way. For example in medical science there was a risk to experiment with bacteria and immunization. One could explain why the risk to wipe off humans from the planet by these experiments was extremely small, but it was certainly nonzero. Since then millions of people have been saved by the benefits of these experiments which were not foreseeable at that times. The upshot is that science pays off large but in a way that can not be computed in advance, because to compute in advance you would need the knowledge that you can only reach by performing science. No way.

On a larger scale switching on LHC is not different from the first caveman making his own artificial fire. Stay forever in the dark with no risk and no idea about what is around you. Or lighten up your life and perhaps see the sable-tooth lion behind you in time and react.

@ C
Bill, the Santa Claus bot was better.

thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful post. I would like to make the following analogy with reference to your terms question 1, question 2. Biology is also an area where we often have very little idea how things actually work. Yet we can make safety assessments i.e. move on to your question 2 without understanding the actual mechanisms behind how the damage might be caused or not caused (your queston 1).

For example, microwave ovens have been used for some decades now and it can be considered safe to eat the food that comes out of them because of the sheer statistics of how often they have been used. There will always be people who worry about what happens to those molecules of water being jiggled about, what effects that might have on a cell and how that might impact you if you eat the food. Given how much we dont know about the human body there will always be room for doubt from the theoretical or `following the chain of the cause and effect’ point of view. One can try to figure out all the steps in the chain and guess that it should be harmless. But much more incontrovertible is the sheer statistics of usage. From these statistics you can go on to answer your question 2 (the risk assessment) without answering your question 1.

This principle is used for drugs, for radiation levels, all sorts. Thus, low levels of radiation in the lab are clearly safe if say ten times lower than levels that occur naturally in places where people have lived without unusual health problems for generations. In the radiation example we can even point to theoretical damage but live with it.

When you do the stats for the LHC, with the LHC running 10 years there are an estimated 10^17 proton-proton collisions. But cosmic rays from space (most of which are protons) of much higher energies (to allow for relativistic effects on consider ones of 10,000 times or more than the energies in the LHC) collide with hydrogen nucleii in the sun (basically protons) all the time and over the last 4000 million years one can estimate about 10^27 such collisions. So for every `microwave oven use’ in the LHC there have already been 10 billion (10^10) safe `microwave oven usages’ as it were. The safety factor is estimated as 1:10 billion.

These numbers can be found in http://arxiv.org/pdf/0805.4528 Now, the author does have links with CERN but the thing is that this is not rocket science. Its just estimating the relevant number of cosmic rays that already went into the Sun from standard flux data (known from a variety of other contexts) and comparing with the relevant number for the LHC. Unless you deny even the most basic facts about our world such as the size and age of the sun, existence and composition of cosmic rays known for decades, etc. I mean there is a broadly everyday level of science involved in the ballpark number.

The details can still be technical and I’m not saying that we can all do it. But the main thing is that this has nothing to do with your question 1 about understanding the theory behind the creation of black holes, strangelets etc. or what happens to them. It does not require string theory or quantum gravity or even of advanced theories particle physics of the level that the LHC is testing, higgs particle etc. All of that can is treated above as a `black box’ not needed for the safety factor calculation. So in your terms one is answering your question 2 without depending on question 1. Of course our best understanding of question 1 is that it should be safe, just as our best understanding of biology suggests that eating microwaved food should be safe. But the counting exercise is telling us what is/has been the case independently of what should be the case. I think in the critique there is a tendency to mix and confuse these different levels of `science’ and tar them both with the same brush.

Also please note that the above is just one example of the kind of `bound on the risk’ that one can make. There is every reason to believe that the odds are even far far greater.

(Feynman’s “Lectures on physics part III” and Sakurai’s “Modern Quantum
mechanics”)

Chiros is hand or “Hand of the lord ?”
In and out and in are the point vectors, Planks constant is spin.
On the principle of minimization of the action quantity (the natural unit of it is generally known as Plank’s constant)
From Chiral Asymmetry to spin
chirality and reflection as 2 operators on nothing that is 10 -34 cm i.e. Prior to space and prior to Time i.e. Cycles of rotation(spintime).
process: dispersion of rotation in a medium of rotating nothing as opposed to static nothing through axial reflection resulting in a field of eddies consisting of counter-rotating spins and rotating spins i.e. Positive and negative spins balancing out generating Omniaxiality through infinite spin planes in the singularity i.e. Spin interaction becomes possible between equal rotations on aligned planes of rotation. The concept of nearness evolves as similarity of spinvelocity delta S. and reciprocal spinplane orientation. So called quantum soup. From Angle velocities exceeding C i.e. Negative inertia to sub C angle velocities leading to inversion of the singularity in other words it’s inside becomes it’s outside i.e. Expansion of space and sub C angular momentum i.e. Time. And spinvelocity equalisation i.e. Light. Also of interest is noting balance through isoplanar spincoupling (with top and bottom) spinning in opposite directions.(Reflection)
Falling out of singularity by increasingly unbalancing Chirality asymmetry i.e. The connection between the direction of propagation with spin.
C right – C left > 0
Circular logic beaten by circular theory.
Why does spin of nothing occur in the first place? Because nothing is what remains as the zero entropy of an earlier cycle collapse was reached leaving a remainder of chiral unbalance, limes 0 > 0. Hence the process of chiral reflection initializing spin, limes 0.
Repulsive gravity of the inflaton or space particle.
“The neutrinas exists just only in left-handed helicity”

Joining Cantorian infinit sets of points to
genesis of form consideration. From point to sphere
Plank scale:

In the universe the original point or inverted singularity is everywhere i.e rather than the local inception. Non local distribution reigns.
“Werner Heisenberg’s famous uncertainty principle comes into play: the more accurately the momentum of a quantum particle is known, the less accurately can the particle’s position be known. If the particle is scarcely moving at all, therefore, its position ceases to be a well-defined point in space but expands to an uncertain region of relatively enormous size.”
The universe is the inside of the point 2π x lim 0 möbius transformations of the point inside to outside to inside to outside …

The universe may be hunted by an inverted point in a community of möbus transformable points vaciliating between 2 states 2π x lim 0 : 2π x lim ∞ metastructured In a double continuum surface fabric Dx -4 > 0
axial spin mirroring of vectors through the point.
Vacuum gravity created by inversion proportional to volume of the universe negative space versus positive space. Analogue to topology of energy distribution or algebraically states 2π x lim – 0-n : 2π x lim -∞-n

Self reference in the set of space time
or the silent point

- Making rotation of nothingness a possibility
Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time.

Primordial is chirality and reflection leading to spin motion in imaginary time manifesting wobble inverting the point möbially

Mirroring through the point or what didn’t get through accounts for an interaction leading to spin motion of every aspect (within the point) i.e of the expanded universe
Among the things that did’t make it through the gateway of point inversion are for example superluminal spin rates however these make up a unified field with a gradient of supraluminal angular momentum. Slowing down to subluminal C angular momentum is the denominator of limes C -> 0 as opposed to limes C->∞ the content of the universe whereas omniaxiality escapes into D3+1 at that juncture of C.
The observed microwave anisotropy is:
An analogously reflection of the wobble in the unified field. Or opposing spin interaction of mass + gravity and point mirrored axially opposite spins occurring in the unitary field limes C at ultra short distances. Beginning of time in 3D +1 is sub C spin velocity
Larger transfinite cardinal numbers:
The number of steps you may take around the edge of a circle are arguably an infinite set
The number of steps around a sphere would be arguably a larger infinite set.
The angular spin planes around a point would be a larger infinite set because the step’s radius of any sphere size would rally orthogonally to such a spin plane.
A yet larger set includes the inversion of such an invertible point multiplying by 2 the number of spin planes. Giving rise to spin plane parity
A yet larger set is obtained from doubling by spin reversion and spin alternations showing spin to be the primordial set generator.
Yet chirality and reflection are present also in the static state making them primordial to even spin. Hence there is not one string theory that does not presuppose either chirality or reflection
The origin is chirality and reflection as a pair, or mutual origination. Or originators of duality.

I offer the following thoughts on the current debate regarding the safety of the experiments currently being conducted at the Large Hadron Collider (”LHC”) being operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (”CERN”), invite your earnest consideration of them, and welcome any replies you may wish to post.

As we know, the experiments being conducted at the CERN LHC seek to recreate, for the first time in human history, the conditions existing milliseconds after the big bang. As you also know, theses experiments have been the subject of considerable anxiety and debate by the public and by a vocal segment of the scientific community. The most prevalent concern is that it may be possible that the LHC could produce a microscopic black hole which escapes the LHC, possibly undetected, and grows in size until it ultimately accretes the entire earth. Another concern expressed with some frequency is that it may be possible for the LHC to produce a stranglet that could escape from the LHC and convert adjacent matter into strange quarks and ultimately convert the entire earth to strange matter. Other concerns such as bubble nucleation and the creation of magnetic monopoles also have been identified as possible unintended consequences of the LHC experiment. None of the physicists expressing these concerns claim to know that the LHC experiments will in fact result in any of these doomsday scenarios. Their argument is that, applying some current theories in physics, and taking into account alternative possible sequences of events that conceivably could occur during the experiment, there is a possibility, albeit a small one, that the experiments could result in one of these catastrophic events, and that therefore, before proceeding with those experiments, we should determine whether there may be steps that can be taken to make sure such an event will not occur.

Numerous well-respected physicists, however, are participating in and otherwise are supporting the CERN LHC experiments. Based upon complex mathematical calculations and advanced theories in subatomic physics, these physicists argue the LHC experiments are reasonably safe. In addition, they argue that nothing will take place in the LHC experiments which does not occur regularly in nature when cosmic rays strike the earth or each other, and that since cataclysmic events such as planet-consuming black holes are not observed in nature it is reasonable to conclude that no such event will occur at CERN. All scientific experiments, they argue, involve some degree of risk and, because risk can never be eliminated entirely, the relevant inquiry is not whether there is risk in the CERN experiments, but rather how much risk accompanies those experiments. According to supporters of the LHC, the risk is negligible, and the experiments provide scientists an important new opportunity to detect the Higgs boson, or “God particle,” as they call it, which is theorized to give mass to subatomic particles. They dismiss those seeking to halt the experiments as being alarmists.

I am struck by one particular aspects of this debate. It appears that many physicists involved in this debate, but especially those pushing the CERN LHC experiment forward, have forgotten one of the most fundamental of all facts, namely, that none of them actually “know” what happens, or what will happen, in the subatomic world. Certainly, there are many things we can safely claim to “know” about our everyday world. For example, it is fair to say that we “know” that placing a lighted match in a glass of water will extinguish the fire, while placing the same lighted match in a glass of gasoline will have the opposite result. We can even say we “know” the chemical reactions that cause the interactions between the fire, the water, and the gasoline. We cannot, however, legitimately claim such knowledge about the subatomic world. The existence of subatomic particles such as protons and their constituent quarks, for example, has been inferred from scientific observations, and under many situations their behavior can be predicted quite well using mathematical models derived from those observations. Mathematical modeling, however, is not knowledge; it is theory. It is perhaps natural that physicists who spend their lives seeking to unravel the mysteries of the subatomic world, using mathematical models which are incomprehensible to the average person, might come to regard the theories to which they adhere as facts. Intellectual honesty as well as faithful adherence to the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry, however, requires that all scientists, including physicists studying these issues, remember that theories, not matter how reliable or predictive they may seem, remain theories, and later may be found to be wrong or incomplete.

With this in mind, I believe everyone must ask three simple but profoundly important questions.

First, no matter how confident we may be in our theories, can we really say that we know what will occur when the LHC causes a head-on collision of hadrons travelling in opposite directions at almost the speed of light? More importantly, do we really know what will not happen? Do we know with certainty, for example, that the collision will not result in the formation of a stable microscopic black hole which cannot be contained within the LHC? Because subatomic physics is inherently theoretical, this question must be answered in the negative.

Second, if our answer to the first question is that we cannot rule out the possibility of a catastrophic event, then what is the likelihood of such an event? More importantly, how sure are we that we can accurately assess that probability? How confident are we that the probability is one in one million, on in one thousand, one percent, or ten percent? And if we cannot accurantly quantify the probability of a catastrophic event, should we choose to disregard the risk and move forward with the experiments?

Third, if we can accurately quantify the probability that the experiments will cause a catastrophic event, then we must decide whether the potetial scientific gains from the experiment justify the risk. The scientific gains could be significant, since there would be value in either finding or not finding evidence of the Higgs boson.
The consequences resulting from a catastrophic event under any of the scenarios discussed above would be, quite simply, the end of all life on this planet and, in the black hole scenario, the end of the planet itself, over a period of time which has been described as lasting anywhere from months to centuries or longer. Therefore, for example, if the probability of a catastrophic event occurring during the CERN LHC experiments is one one-hundredth of one percent (I pick that probability solely for purposes of illustration), then the question is whether a one one-hundredth of one percent likelihood of ending life on Earth is a risk we are willing to accept in order to determine the existence of the Higgs boson through the CERN LHC experiments.

I am keenly interested to learn of any evidence that CERN has attempted to assess the risks of the LHC experiments using this analysis. Based upon the 2003 CERN report “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions” and other literature and releases from CERN, it seems clear CERN has not done so. Instead, CERN chooses to address only the first question — which asks whether it can be sure that a catastrophic event will not occur — and answers that question in the affirmative.

In view of the theoretical nature of subatomic physics, that answer is plainly untenable. Taking the most charitable view of CERN, one may conclude that CERN’s analysis is the product of intellectual arrogance by well-intentioned physicists. A less charitable explanation would involve the fact that enormous sums of money have been spent building the LHC, and the fact that finding the LHC unsafe could severely damage the reputation and standing in the scientific community of CERN and the physicists who support the LHC. Whatever the true explanation for CERN’s position may be, it is clear that intellectual honesty demands that CERN recognize the limits of its own knowledge, and concede that no one can rule out the possibility that a catastrophic “doomsday” event could occur as an unintended consequence of the LHC experiments.

If CERN were to make this concession, as it should, then the LHC experiments would have to be stopped until the second and third questions in the risk analysis are answered.

Because of its scientific complexity of the second question and the importance of answering it accurately, that question should be studied and answered by the scientific community as a whole, rather than by CERN alone. That fact, of course, creates a powerful disincentive to CERN allowing the analysis to proceed past the first question, and may explain why CERN has attempted to freeze the inquiry at the first question.

In view of global importance of the third question, that question also should not be left to physicists at CERN or elsewhere, and instead is more appropriately answered by the governments of the world. This, of course, leads to the very difficult issue of how the governments of the world could come together to arrive at this answer. Hopefully a “world government” is not something that would even be considered, even if it were possible. The United Nations probably is neither equipped nor capable of serving as the vehicle for answering the third question. Because the LHC is located partly in France and partly in Switzerland, the sovereignty of either country (regardless of any agreement into which it may have entered as part of the European Union) would entitle that country to require that the portion of the LHC located on its soil be shut down, and would give each country an indisputable right to participate in answering the third question, but in view of the global nature of the risk, neither country, nor the European Union, would be entitled to unilaterally deciding that the risks of the LHC experiments are acceptable. Answering the third question indeed poses practical challenges, which likely would require some time to work through. That may be a further reason CERN seeks to avoid the third question by freezing the inquiry at the first question.

We all recall the childhood story of Chicken Little, who is hit on the head by something falling from the sky and so runs to tell the king the sky is falling. The supporters of the CERN LHC experiments tend to apply that caricature to those of us who are concerned about the safety of the LHC experiments. It is worth remembering, however, that there are a number of different versions of the story of Chicken Little, each of which has a different ending. In one version, the sky was not falling, and Chicken Little and her friends are eaten by a wolf who she meets along the way to see the king. In another version, Chicken Little runs back to her house after her friends are eaten by the wolf, and she never sees the king. In yet another, she does see the king, but the king tells her what fell on her head was just a pebble. And in one version, the sky actually was falling, and but she ended up not having to see the king because, before she got there, the sky fell on the wolf. Whichever version of the Chicken Little story you heard as a child, when you heard it I am sure you thought Chicken Little should have been more careful to make sure she knew what hit her on the head, and should have been more careful to avoid the dangers along the way, before she set out to see the king. In regard to the LHC, the lessons of Chicken Little apply much more aptly to CERN than to those of us who are urging caution. CERN needs to stop and think things through much more carefully before it rushes into its journey to see the king, or to find the God particle.