What are the chances that a particle collider's strangelets will destroy the Earth?

Feb 12, 2014 by Lisa Zyga report
A gold-ion collision in the STAR detector at RHIC. Critics argue that no matter how small the risks of the RHIC program, they are still worth an investigation. Credit: Brookhaven National Laboratory

(Phys.org) —At the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) in Long Island, New York, scientists study high-speed ion collisions that reveal what the universe may have looked like moments after the Big Bang. RHIC is the second-highest-energy heavy-ion collider in the world, after the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and currently the only operating particle collider in the US.

Even before RHIC began operating in 2000, some people worried that the unprecedented experiment would pose risks of potentially catastrophic scenarios. Some of the concerns included the creation of a black hole or production of strange matter that could result in the destruction of the Earth, possibly within seconds.

In 1999, before the collider opened, the media attention on the subject prompted BNL to form a committee of scientists to investigate the probability of such catastrophic scenarios. A few months later, the committee concluded that RHIC was safe.

RHIC has now been running for nearly 15 years, and scientists have used it to make many fascinating discoveries, such as that of a quark-gluon plasma with a temperature of 4 trillion K. This liquid-like substance is unlike any kind of normal matter and recreates the conditions that existed during the first seconds of the universe.

But due to budget cuts, in 2013 a government advisory panel recommended shutting down RHIC in the coming years as funding is put toward other projects. The US Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, passed just a few weeks ago, includes a provision for the establishment of a nine-member commission to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of all of the US national labs, including RHIC. It's called the Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories.

According to Eric E. Johnson, Associate Professor of Law at the University of North Dakota, and Michael Baram, Professor Emeritus at Boston University Law School, this may also be a good time to reevaluate the safety risks at RHIC. They have written an opinion piece on the subject that is posted at International Business Times.

Johnson and Baram are calling for the new commission to look into the risks of RHIC destroying the Earth in addition to evaluating the financial aspects. A large part of the motivation for their appeal is because of the ongoing upgrades to RHIC. The collider is preparing for its 14th run, where it will be operating at 18 times the luminosity for which it was originally designed. The high luminosity will enable scientists to conduct more detailed studies of the quark-gluon plasma's properties and investigate how it transitions into the normal matter that we see in the universe today.

Another area that Johnson and Baram argue begs some scrutiny is that RHIC is now running at lower energies than in the past. Somewhat counterintuitively, lower energies may pose a higher risk than higher energies. In the original risk assessment report in 1999, the scientists stated that "Elementary theoretical considerations suggest that the most dangerous type of collision is that at considerably lower energy than RHIC." That assessment referenced RHIC's original design energy of 100 GeV. Over the years, lower-energy experiments were performed, and the 2014 run will include three weeks at 7.3 GeV.

Johnson and Baram are concerned that these changes might increase the possibility that the collider will generate strangelets, hypothetical particles consisting of up, down, and strange quarks. Some hypotheses suggest that strangelet production could ignite a chain reaction converting everything into strange matter.

In their opinion piece, Johnson and Baram quote Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom, who stated that the Earth would then become "an inert hyperdense sphere about one hundred metres across."

Along with other critics concerned with safety, Johnson and Baram are concerned that the original risk assessment in 1999 was biased because all of the committee members were either planning to participate in RHIC experiments or had a deep interest in the RHIC's data. The diversity of the new commission may allow it to overcome that problem.

Since the new commission will reflect a broad range of expertise in science, engineering, management, and finance, Johnson and Baram think that "this gathering of talent is a unique opportunity to ensure the RHIC gets the rigorous, independent risk analysis it has long warranted."

"The luminosity upgrade, along with other evolutions of the RHIC program—including running collisions at different energies—suggests that the question of risk needs a fresh look," Johnson told Phys.org. "For example, one of the reassurances given in the original safety report in 1999 was that the RHIC would run at a relatively high energy that would make strangelet formation less likely. But now the RHIC is being run at much lower energies. So, a re-evaluation is in order.

"Bottom line, I can't say whether or not the RHIC program is so risky that it should be shut down. But I do think it's clear that the original safety assessment lacked independence and that it is now woefully outdated. The Commission to Review the Effectiveness of the National Energy Laboratories is an opportunity to look at the issue in a fair and complete way."

In the end, the dilemma raises the question of whether and how to perform unbiased low-probability, high-impact for large science experiments—and whether it's possible to achieve this feat in a way that satisfies everyone.

Explore further: Big chill sets in as RHIC physics heats up

Related Stories

Brewing the world's hottest Guinness

Jun 27, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The positive and sometimes unexpected impact of particle physics is well documented, from physicists inventing the World Wide Web to engineering the technology underlying life-saving magnetic ...

RHIC's perfect liquid a study in perfection

Jun 18, 2013

(Phys.org) —When heavy ions (the nuclei of heavy atoms such as gold and lead) collide at high energies at Brookhaven National Laboratory's Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) and Europe's Large Hadron Coll ...

Big chill sets in as RHIC physics heats up

Feb 04, 2014

If you think it's been cold outside this winter, that's nothing compared to the deep freeze setting in at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), the early-universe-recreating "atom smasher" at the U.S. ...

The heaviest known antimatter

Feb 14, 2011

When an international team of scientists working at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) announced the discovery of the most massive antinucleus to date — and the first containing an anti-strange ...

Recommended for you

Acoustic tweezers manipulate cell-to-cell contact

5 hours ago

Sound waves can precisely position groups of cells for study without the danger of changing or damaging the cells, according to a team of Penn State researchers who are using surface acoustic waves to manipulate ...

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Mayday
5 / 5 (11) Feb 12, 2014
The phrase "the most dangerous type of collision" most definitely suggests that there is not zero risk. This has never been my layman's understanding. I thought that high energy particles were always colliding with the Earth's atmosphere (along with all other planets' atmospheres!) at nearly every variety of conceivable energies across the full span of time with no apparent drastic effect. So how wrong am I exactly?
Nestle
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 12, 2014
What are the chances that a particle collider's strangelets will destroy the Earth?
The answer of this question has a two sides: the AWT one and the mainstream science one. From AWT perspective this question is rather nonsensical, as the alleged strangelets and micro-black holes don't exist, or better to say, they're represented with common atom nuclei, which are pretty safe. The other side renders the mainstream scientists as highly irresponsible, because the strangelets and their danger is mainstream science invention and the microscopic black holes were proven to be more stable by computer simulations, than the CERN safety analysis claimed. So by mainstream science criterion the black hole risk at LHC is real and physicists are playing Russian roulette with the rest of civilization. IMO they're just missed the concept in similar way, like the search for WIMPs and SUSY and we're safe.
Nestle
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 12, 2014
If you will believe in mainstream theories, than there are many controversies connected with search of black holes. For example, the string theorists believe, that the extradimensions would stabilize them - so if the string theorists would be vindicated, then the black holes formed at LHC will not evaporate, but they will consume the Earth instead. So what the string theorists actually hope in quiet is the Earth destruction. If they're wrong (as the existing LHC experiments indicate), then the black holes cannot be formed and we're safe - but after then these experiments have no meaning as a money waste. Now you can choose, which variant sounds better for you. In reality, the artifacts which correspond the microblack holes are routinely formed at LHC in form of atom nuclei, so that the string theorists are actually more correct, than they could ever imagine - just in different, way, than their theory predicts. IMO it's all one huge misunderstanding, which has no apparent winner.
barakn
4.8 / 5 (17) Feb 12, 2014
The chances are nil. 7.3 GeV cosmic rays are far more abundant than 100 GeV cosmic rays and they've been bombarding the enormous surface of our planet for the last 4.55 billion years at a rate that puts RHIC to shame. But surely ubavontuba has something to say about this.
Nestle
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 12, 2014
In brief, the string theorists are just right in their point, that the extradimensions would make the black holes more stable, because in Hawking radiation theory its intensity ceases to zero with increasing number of dimensions of space, where this radiation applies. But the same extradimensions would make the black holes much less dangerous, than the gravitational law implies, because the strength and scope of gravity force decreases with increasing number of dimensions too. IMO the scope, where both dependencies will met together are just the common particles and atom nuclei. You can consider them as the strangelets and microblack hole sought rather safely. IMO no other similar artifacts can actually exist and the mainstream science are both insightful, both wrong at the same moment. They're both wasting money in search for artifacts, which cannot exist, both behaving highly irresponsibly, when they believe, these money aren't wasted.
Nestle
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2014
7.3 GeV cosmic rays are far more abundant than 100 GeV cosmic rays
The products of 100 GeV cosmic rays with Earth atmosphere have both nonzero momentum with respect to Earth (the products of collisions will still have high enough speed for being trapped with Earth), both they occur in sparse stratosphere, so that if such black holes could be formed there, it would have nothing to swallow anyway. But the atom nuclei and another particles are formed with cosmic rays collisions, in this sense these microblack holes are already formed routinely - they just appear quite differently, than the scientists are expecting. The black holes are product of general relativity, which predicts the matter collapse - but the quantum mechanics leads to quite different predictions and it predicts the fast expansion of particle wave packet. The predictions of these two theories are just averaging/compensating mutually at the case of massive bodies at multiple nested scales.
mvg
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 12, 2014
We do not know, what we do not know.

And thinking we do--does not make it so.

We do not know whether our theories explain accurately, everything that can occur.

Caution is in order.
Q-Star
4.9 / 5 (14) Feb 12, 2014
What are the chances that a particle collider's strangelets will destroy the Earth?


About the same chances of me quantum tunneling into and out of Fort Knox undetected.
Skepticus
1 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2014
I don't know why protesters are making such a fuss. Stranglets and blackholes don't take half-meals. If their fears turned out to be true, then the whole Earth and everyone on it will be gone in seconds, so fast that everyone practically won't feel or know a thing! Even if they do aware of dying agonizing deaths, who would they tell it to then? None will be left! Are they believing in the afterlife? That the blame game, their anger and anguish will be going on...???
Nestle
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 12, 2014
If their fears turned out to be true, then the whole Earth and everyone on it will be gone in seconds
This is just one of theories. Some other scenarios consider instead, that such a black hole could reside at the Earth core for years, while revolving its center and causing earthquakes only. My problem with it is, all these scenarios are mainstream science scenarios. The scientists don't realize, what I know. They do realize all that shit instead - yet they're willing to risk the destiny of human civilization for it.
Nestle
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2014
My opinion is, neither the scenario of sudden implosion of Earth, neither the idea of quiet black hole residing at the center of Earth are physically realistic. The black holes do interact strongly with their magnetic field at medium distance, i.e. not just gravity. The interaction of substellar black hole with Earth would be fast, but must most of Earth would be shattered and evaporated into space during this instead.
chardo137
4.9 / 5 (9) Feb 12, 2014
Hats off to the engineers at RHIC for figuring out how to make a machine that was really not designed with this energy level in mind function as if it were built for the task. Conquering this energy regime will hopefully yield some new physics. This is exciting!
Argiod
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2014
All this fuss... for generations they've been scaring people with religious clap-trap... now they're scaring us with scientific clap-trap...
Fact is: not matter how they lean on their math; we have only been studying the heavens for a few hundred or thousand years. We are trying to deduce what's been going on for million, billions, or for all we know, trillions of years... like trying to figure where a thrown ball is going to go by measuring it's movement over a nanometer...
And one has to factor in the idiotic belief that because some Prophet who ate moldy rye bread and thinks he was transcribing the very word of God, and wrote: "In the Beginning". And everyone took that to mean there was nothing prior... When, in fact, the Big Bang Theory... is just that... a theory... and as Isaac Asimov once told me when I inquired about the Tired Light Theory... that it had been discounted because "...it can't be proven in a laboratory..." How more difficult the Big Bang?
Argiod
1 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
...And, the Big Bang Theory flies in the face of the most basic tenet of Physics: that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form... and, since everything in the universe is, at its core, pure energy (atoms, made of negative electrical charges [electrons] and protons [positive electrical charges] and neutrons [neutral electrical charges]) it stands to reason that if everything we can perceive today were contained in a nearly infinitesimal point of space (and space implies something in which all this could exist) then it would have been the granddaddy of all black holes... and there would not have been enough energy to blow it up...
Urgelt
4.6 / 5 (8) Feb 12, 2014
"I thought that high energy particles were always colliding with the Earth's atmosphere (along with all other planets' atmospheres!) at nearly every variety of conceivable energies across the full span of time with no apparent drastic effect. So how wrong am I exactly?"

Sounds about right to me, Mayday. Cosmic rays - which are particles, not photons - hit the upper atmosphere all the time. Some of them are extremely energetic.

Extremely.

We use particle accelerators on the ground to study high-energy particle interactions because we can place detectors there and collect data easily, not because high-energy interactions are rare.

I think it's fair to say that if 'strangelets' were a likely outcome of high-energy interactions, Earth would have been converted to 'strange matter' long ago. Ditto with other planets in our solar system.

That's not an expression of certainty, of course. But I doubt a 'review' will shed much more light on the subject.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2014
There are many planets that can support life and yet all withing scanning range appear inert or dead. This hints at some catastrophic technological threshold in civilizations that either destroys them utterly or propels them so far beyond human senses that they are effectively invisible. So there is either a catastrophic lunge of knowledge forward at some tipping point, or a catastrophic failure destroying the entire civilization and all traces of it's existence

What is clear is that the future is forked and it will be all or nothing at some critical point
grpugh
1 / 5 (1) Feb 12, 2014
Sounds like another instance of the strange libido for the Precautionary Principle.
Lex Talonis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2014
Only idiots would debate such a point.....

Black holes = mass overcoming resistance to crushing.
Mimath224
not rated yet Feb 12, 2014
@Nestle for BH in the classical way wouldn't it be more worrying if colliders managed to create some bizarre object that began absorbing energy etc from the surroundings without disintegrating into smaller or 'component parts'? From what I've read about these massive machines the magnetic field(s) could be a lot more damaging than what is going on in the experiment confines. As these machines are inspected regularly (well, I hope they are!) wouldn't engineers/techs notice some form material/construction decay that would indicate some form of reaction that might be a precursor to a collapse?
You mentioned string theory...are you suggesting that perhaps compactification is a form BH collapse...or have I misunderstood?
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
Sounds like another instance of the strange libido for the Precautionary Principle

Caution isn't a bad thing. Such ideas should be discussed (even if, as in this case, they turn out not to be tenable)
Stranglets and blackholes don't take half-meals.

A black hole created from a few particles would be immensely small. It would just drop to the center of the planet without meeting a lot (if any) other particle along the way and stay there. Maybe oscillate a bit back and forth.
Its cross section (cross section of the event horizon) would be infinitesimal, and it's garvitational attraction outside that at any distance would be as much as that of the original particles (which is virtually nil). Atoms are mostly empty space. It'd fall right through
MrVibrating
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
@Mayday

- the risk arises not from the absolute energies involved (indeed as the article explains, it is the planned reduction in the experiment's energy that has given rise to the new uncertainty, moving the bounds beyond those of the previous risk assessment), but rather from the current uncertainties regarding how strange matter will interact with the regular type.

All six of QCD's quarks are now pretty much confirmed, so we can be pretty sure that strange matter CAN be generated. However as we don't know it's ever existed before, we can only admit a non-zero risk that its creation might precipitate a cataclysmic phase transition, and quantifying this likelihood is the objective concern here.
vlaaing peerd
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014

A black hole created from a few particles would be immensely small.
*cut*
It'd fall right through


That's quite a statement, I'd like to look up more about this, but I'm not really finding a lot of material that handles this matter. Would you (anyone) know some documents, books, information that cover "few-particle" black hole formation?

The gravity is almost 0, so why would it sink into the center of the earth? What would have happened with the other forces from the original particles, would the forces remain after the particles have become a mini BH and still able to interact with surrounding particles?

I also fail to see how a black hole is formed in the first place, it's supposed to be created by gravity, not just smashing stuff into each other.

Or can the gain of mass caused by the velocity of a near C particle become so large it creates a mini BH?

questions,questions,questions,questions,questions,questions,questions... I should take up physics at open-uni.
draph91
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
from this article
http://www.birmin...-2823710

The killer strangelet produces a chain reaction that causes the rest of matter on the planet to turn into strange matter," said Prof Evans, speaking under a shower of photons in the sunlit grounds of Restaurant 1 at Cern, the European Centre for Nuclear Research.

With a characteristic twinkle, he adds: "Not only would this destroy the Earth in five minutes, but it would go on to destroy the universe.

Strangelets are bound at low energies (in the range of 1–10 MeV), while the collisions in the RHIC release energies of up to 100 GeV. Thermodynamics very strongly disfavors the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. As an example, it is far more probable that ice will form spontaneously in boiling water

draph91
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
from this article
http://www.birmin...-2823710

The killer strangelet produces a chain reaction that causes the rest of matter on the planet to turn into strange matter," said Prof Evans, speaking under a shower of photons in the sunlit grounds of Restaurant 1 at Cern, the European Centre for Nuclear Research.

With a characteristic twinkle, he adds: "Not only would this destroy the Earth in five minutes, but it would go on to destroy the universe.

Strangelets are bound at low energies (in the range of 1–10 MeV), while the collisions in the RHIC release energies of up to 100 GeV. Thermodynamics very strongly disfavors the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. As an example, it is far more probable that ice will form spontaneously in boiling water



Also 7.3 GeV. is equal to 7300 MeV, but I do understand their concerns
draph91
3.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
I agree that the RHIC should be given a fresh safety report, also I would to make a correction in my last comment here and combine it with my quote

models have indicated that strangelets are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures and are bound at low energies (in the range of 1–10 MeV), while the collisions in the RHIC release energies of up to 100 GeV. Thermodynamics very strongly disfavors the formation of a cold condensate that is an order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. As an example, it is far more probable that ice will form spontaneously in boiling water

Also 7.3 GeV. is equal to 7300 MeV, but I do understand their concerns
thingumbobesquire
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
I started to read this without noticing the author. Then, I figuratively slapped my forehead and mentally intoned the words Lisa Zyga. Ah yes... It had to be her. (Sigh)
draph91
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
I started to read this without noticing the author. Then, I figuratively slapped my forehead and mentally intoned the words Lisa Zyga. Ah yes... It had to be her. (Sigh)


could you explain why?
marcush
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
Ok we can have another committee meeting but engineers, managers and people from finance? What on earth would they know about it? I'm not sure anyone but well respected physicists should be included.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
would the forces remain after the particles have become a mini BH and still able to interact with surrounding particles?

If the constituent parts have a net charge it would be a charged black hole. Which might be interesting as it might just behave like a small atomic nucleus and gather up a passing electron to form a 'black hole hydrogen atom' - which would pretty much isolate it from everything else. It might just be incorporated as a hydrogen substitute in any moelcule and no one would know.

The Schwarzschild radius of an object is 2GM/c^2
In the LHC with collision energies of 14TeV (which is, if I didn't fudge my calcs, larger than the energy contained in the protons mass that are being accelerated), I get that energy to be roughly 1E-7J which gives us an equivalent mass of 1E-24kg. Which in turn gives us a Schwartzschild radius of somewhere around 1E-51m (much smaller than the Planck scale and much, much, MUCH smaller than an atom.)
Raygunner
5 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Detailed studies on "micro black holes" were done in 1999 to address this worry. It was determined that even if a MBH was formed, it would evaporate almost immediately because there would not be enough mass to sustain it from surrounding particles. So MBH's could be formed as byproducts of the collisions, but would wink in and out of existence almost immediately and be almost impossible to detect. That is my recollection and I remember breathing a sigh of relief after all of the predictions of a catastrophe.
RichManJoe
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
Ice 9
Mayday
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
I authored a sci-fi novel that deals with the scenario of tiny black holes being created in the ALICE collider at CERN and falling to the Earth's core. As a result, the core begins to gradually destabilize so it soon becomes time for the human race to get out of Dodge. The title is "Civilization Starship, the Maiden Voyage." It was originally inspired by the One Hundred Year Starship initiative. I worked hard to get the science right. It's a fun read. On Amazon, of course.
-we now return to our regularly scheduled program-
TechnoCreed
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
By the way AA, so far, the LHC had collisions of 8 TeV at center of mass energy; two opposite hadron beams of 4 TeV.

And Mayday, ALICE is a detector not a collider.

Yesterday, I read this article and tough that people on Phys.org would ironize about the situation (the déjà-view phobia about high energy physics). To my surprise, the level of speculation is frankly unexpected for science aficionados. But anyway, I will remind the readers here that the only strangelet I ever observed so far is zephyr.
fmfbrestel
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
i went round and round on this topic back when LHC was being built. cant believe its still controversial. There are a great many natural observable objects that would not exist if dangerous strangelets could be produced.

That we exist at all, and are able to observe the universe should be proof enough.

i hate the "but cosmic ray collisions would result in fast moving particles" sure sure, but they would still be getting produced, and produced all around the universe. all those strangelets should be running into stuff and destroying it. but we do not observe that.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
draph91
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
I started to read this without noticing the author. Then, I figuratively slapped my forehead and mentally intoned the words Lisa Zyga. Ah yes... It had to be her. (Sigh)


.... she's one of those people, isn't she?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
The answer of this question has a two sides: the AWT one and the mainstream science one. From AWT perspective this question is rather nonsensical, as the alleged strangelets and micro-black holes don't exist, or better to say, they're represente...The other side renders the mainstream scientists as highly irresponsible
This is curious... Zephyr/jigga/alizee/osteta are you saying that awt may not be right? Are you losing faith, or are you just hedging your bet? I know hedging bets may be difficult for you because probability requires maths, but I'm curious anyways.
I authored a sci-fi novel that deals with the scenario of tiny black holes being created in the ALICE collider at CERN and falling to the Earth's core. As a result, the core begins to gradually destabilize
Im sure you're familiar with a similar scenario Greg bear presented in Forge of God?

"the mutual annihilation of a piece of neutronium and a piece of antineutronium dropped into Earth's core..."
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
Otto you forgot Nestle
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TechnoCreed
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
My problem with scientists isn't, that they're doing dangerous things (because these things are just nonsensical waste of money instead) - but that they're doing things, DESPITE they're expecting, they can be dangerous. If you bring an unexploded grenade in your children bedroom, it's would be irresponsible behavior from you despite that some smart alleck already knows, that this grenade is actually harmless. The problem is, it's you, who doesn't know about it - or even worse - who even believes, that he could make fame and glory with attempts for exploding it.

If the scientists would continue in their job with black hole collisions, they will be forced to admit the intentional safety breaching or intentional money wasting of the rest of civilization - they will have no other option.

And there is the proof that Zephyr is just a luddite. He comments on Phys.org and other science blogs to spread disinformation. Please everybody do not feed the troll, Just scroll down!
Mayday
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
Ghost, I'm not suggesting that a story of Earth's core going haywire or tiny black holes or an alien intelligence attempting to save us are original sci-fi fodder. I do think I offer compelling new takes on them. Plus new takes on government surveillance, suspended animation, and what our lunar landings were really all about. It's also a how-to for interstellar travel. The book's logline is "Meet Alice Hope, official spokesperson for the end of the world." There's a snarky alien, romance, space-action, an immortality pill, and a grizzly bear attack. I'm considering a sequel.
rkolter
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
I remember touching one of my computers once and feeling that all too familiar shock of house current. By a freak set of coincidences, my computer case had gotten electrified. The chances of that happening are vasty tiny. The fact it DID happen, has not stopped me from using computers.

There is lots of evidence of electrocution. There is no evidence of stringlets, let alone stringlets that have the very specific properties suggested. I am more worried about my computer trying to kill me, than I am about stringlets.
ralph638s
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
I am reminded of an episode of the Outer Limits TV show (originally broadcast on April 20, 1964) entitled "Production and Decay of Strange Particles" starring George Macready and Signe Hasso, with Leonard Nimoy in a small supporting role...

http://en.wikiped...articles

Here is the opening narration by the "Control Voice:"

"In recent years, nuclear physicists have discovered a strange world of sub-atomic particles, fragments of atoms smaller than the imagination can picture, fragments of materials which do not obey the laws of gravity. Antimatter composed of inside-out material; shadow-matter that can penetrate ten miles of lead shielding. Hidden deep in the heart of strange new elements are secrets beyond human understanding - new powers, new dimensions, worlds within worlds, unknown."
TechnoCreed
3 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
@rkolter
Strangelets not stinglets: They are hadronic particles theorized to be stable. But no such particles has been observed yet.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
If you bring an unexploded grenade in your children bedroom,

@Osteta/nestle/zephir
ONLY Zephir could relate fundamental physics with unexploded ordinance
and I bet that sounded logical in your head, too, didnt it?
But wait! There's more! Then says
that this grenade is actually harmless

well, what is it? Unexploded or inert?
Two different things there PEPPY
so he segues into
that he could make fame and glory with attempts for exploding it

WOW
from science to terrorism in one mental leap!
If the scientists would continue in their job with black hole collisions

FINALLY, the explanation for the above idiocy

THEY ARE DOING FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH!
particle coll.
Not black hole collisions
Just scroll down!

@TechnoCreed
sorry... just HAD to point out that bit of stupid he posted there.
i really SHOULD scroll down... but then again, if you dont refute it, some other idiot will come along and use it as justification to spread more disinformation...
krundoloss
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
I seriously doubt that crashing two particle together will cause any kind of catastrophic event. You need a Reaction to produce something that could destroy earth. How could a micro black hole have enough energy or cause a reaction that could destroy earth? It would seem that a black hole is hyperdense matter, runaway gravity effect. But with only its own material, it is doubtful that it could form anything resembling a full-scale black hole. With the scalar nature of gravity, I just don't see a small number of particles being able to produce anything dangerous. Even atom bombs require a certain amount of material to create a Fission chain reaction. You can't make an atom bomb with two atoms. You cant make an Earth Destroying Black Hole with a particle collider. All this is just fear based thinking, with a shaky foundation of Quantum Theories that change like the wind. It will be fine.
Osteta
Feb 13, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Nestle
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2014
New U.S. Science Commission Should Look At Experiment's Risk Of Destroying The Earth Judge Posner pointed out that "career concerns can influence judgment in areas of scientific uncertainty, and scientists, like other people, can be overconfident." Dr. Rees wrote that theorists "seemed to have aimed to reassure the public … rather than to make an objective analysis." Even putting aside the weaknesses of the original report, it is nonetheless time for an update.

Apparently the PO version about the same subject is slightly different..
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2014
kochevnik has habit of narrowing his thoughts (sigh)
..many planets that can support life and yet all withing scanning range appear inert or dead. This hints at some catastrophic technological threshold in civilizations that either destroys them utterly or propels them so far beyond human senses that they are effectively invisible. So there is either a catastrophic lunge of knowledge forward at some tipping point, or a catastrophic failure destroying..
OR, you have absolutely no study, experience or training at any substantive level of; probability, permutations/analysis, statistics, actuarial or risk assessment issues & thus automatically "feeling" all those empty particles 'of planets' had an inherent purpose - when there are billions upon billions of particulates, whether tiny (atoms) to planets existing in massively random interactions of collisions & require no personified deity whatsoever to form an umbrella of comfort confirming you desperately need a parent figure :-(
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2014
ou need a Reaction to produce something that could destroy earth.

The idea is (probably) that they think the tiny black hole will somehow have "super gravity attraction" - because they only know of black holes from hollywood movies.
What they forget is that a black hole will have the gravitational attraction of that which formed it. In this case the mass of two protons and the mass equivalent of the acceleration energy - which amounts to...not much.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
Otto you forgot Nestle
-And perhaps 2 dozen others-
My problem with scientists isn't, that they're doing dangerous things (because these things are just nonsensical waste of money instead) - but that they're doing things, DESPITE they're expecting, they can be dangerous
Well thats not an answer. You say your theory says that black holes are harmless yet you think LHC should be shut down. This does not compute.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
.
The idea is (probably) that they think the tiny black hole will somehow have "super gravity attraction"
'Probably'?? Was that a guess? Why not find out for real?

Otto Rossler Professor for Theoretical Biochemistry at the University of Tübingen
"(1) Black holes arise much more readily than expected, do not evaporate and are invisible to CERN's detectors for their being uncharged.
(2) As soon as a sufficiently slow specimen is generated, it grows exponentially inside earth so as to shrink the planet to 2 cm after a few years' time delay.
(3) The hoped-for black holes are not (as CERN claims against better knowledge) "proven innocuous" by the fact that nature's own fast analogs must get stuck inside neutron stars in much the same way as an artificial one will get stuck inside earth. The reason the neutron stars are protected is solely the superfluidity of their cores."
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2014
Rainer Plaga astrophysicist Max-Planck-Inst. f�Ľr Physik
"A plausible scenario in which these black holes accrete ambient matter at the Eddington limit shortly after their production, thereby emitting Hawking radiation that would be harmful to Earth and/or CERN and its surroundings, is described. Such black holes are shown to remain undetectable in existing astrophysical observations and thus evade a recent exclusion of risks from subnuclear black holes by Giddings & Mangano (2008) and and a similar one by Koch et al. (2009)."

-Im guessing these 2 gentlemen dont get their ideas about Physik from movies.
What they forget is that a black hole will have the gravitational attraction of that which formed it
What you forget is that these 2 gentlemen know all about gravitational attraction but have written papers based on the possibility of catastrophe at CERN. Many other physicists disagree with them. I wonder why? Do you wonder why aa?
Nestle
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 13, 2014
The microblack holes do exist only in form of common hadrons and atom nuclei, which were prepared at much weaker Tevatron collider routinely before many years. There is nothing interesting to find anymore. The LHC should be shut down, because the synchrotron technology has hit its limits - the further increase of power will just increase the noise/signal ratio. It's the remnant of cold war era, when the soldiers and politicians were still impressed with performance of physicists in research of nuclear weapon. At the best case the upgrade of LHC could lead into confirmation of another Higgs bosons (which are already visible clearly) and traces of fourth particle generation. And as I wrote already, it just takes the focus of qualified people from work on really interesting and useful problems, like the cold fusion and scalar wave technologies.
Nestle
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 13, 2014
If we would implement the cold fusion before fifty years already, then we wouldn't suffer with energetic crisis by now and the physicists could now build their colliders in free cosmic space at the safe distance from Earth. In addition, we would save the money for expensive cooling (draining of helium resources), for maintenance of deep vacuum and the accelerator rings could be as large as the whole solar system (= no lost of energy by synchrotron radiation).
Johnpaily
1 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2014
You can never understand the Secret of Universe unless we involve life and over selves into the Picture. Universe is conscious intelligent being as the ancient east thought. We need to trace the secrets of Universe, the Big Bang, Singularity, Ekpyrotic Universe Scenario, Inflation Universe Scenario, Holographic Universe Theory, Electric universe theory all back to a Single Life, a single, single atom, and God particle in it. http://www.scribd...nologies

gculpex
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2014
A waste of time.....
Protoplasmix
not rated yet Feb 13, 2014
…conditions that existed a few seconds after the big bang

Fascinating and most impressive. Out of curiosity, what conditions are required to precipitate inflation of the quark-gluon plasma? A polarization of local vacuum? Absence of spacetime? Lots of energy in a small volume? Inflation never happened? Something else? You're sure?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2014
You can never understand the Secret of Universe unless we involve life and over selves into the Picture

The universe has had its secrets long before life appeared on the scene. Life is an (inconsequential) byproduct of the universe and doesn't have any bearing on its 'secrets'.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
@Mike_Massen OR, you have absolutely no study, experience or training at any substantive level of; probability, permutations/analysis, statistics, actuarial or risk assessment issues & thus automatically "feeling" all those empty particles 'of planets' had an inherent purpose - when there are billions upon billions of particulates, whether tiny (atoms) to planets existing in massively random interactions of collisions & require no personified deity whatsoever to form an umbrella of comfort confirming you desperately need a parent figure
Maybe my English is not so strong but I cannot understand your writing. It would seem you did not address or understand my post
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (1) Feb 14, 2014
kochevnik did admit the possibility
Maybe my English is not so strong but I cannot understand your writing. It would seem you did not address or understand my post
You seem to be writing, albeit you used the word 'hint' that many worlds don't have life "because" there a catastrophe or they are so advanced & invisible !

What about the probability there is no life because it never had the chance to develop ?

No, you imply (and partly from your earlier posts) that some god/deity put it there & the life-forms then (must have) killed themselves.

ie.You seem to be coming across with the philosophy of 'determinism' - some god/advanced being "Did It" & put life everywhere but, some killed themselves & THAT is why we see many worlds with no life - even if they are old.

However, probabilistic view seems to carry much more evidence which supposes that:-
life is just the (complex) extensions of chemistry & few places support that.

We just happen to be the lucky few !
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 15, 2014
What about the probability there is no life because it never had the chance to develop ?

No, you imply (and partly from your earlier posts) that some god/deity put it there & the life-forms then (must have) killed themselves.

ie.You seem to be coming across with the philosophy of 'determinism' - some god/advanced being "Did It" & put life everywhere but, some killed themselves & THAT is why we see many worlds with no life - even if they are old.

Life is probably ubiquitous not rare. Space is filled with amino acids, sugars and elements needed for life. Complex life is another question. Yet I would assert that humans are not so advanced. There will probably be nothing but fossil remains of humanity in a million years

Yet there is consciousness and aging of the universe seems to be making more of it. If at some point beings make consciousness a goal, more of the universe will become sentient. That would be something of a god, though a god made in man's image
thingumbobesquire
1 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2014
What are the chances Al Gore's acolytes will destroy humanity?
Nestle
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 15, 2014
What are the chances Al Gore's opponents will ruin the discussion dedicated to quite different subject?
draph91
1 / 5 (1) Feb 15, 2014
http://ams.nasa.g...oped.pdf

also take a look at this
Nestle
1 / 5 (2) Feb 15, 2014
"You could get strange matter floating around in space"
IMO all strange quarks and particles are inherently unstable According to the strange matter hypothesis, strangelets are more stable than nuclei, so that the nuclei are expected to decay into strangelets. In the same "logics" we could say, that if many nuclei are more stable than the chemical molecules, then these molecules should decay into atom nuclei - which is an apparent nonsense. But If such a hypothesis will help the mainstream physicists to reconcile the true utility of collider experiments (which are just a product of cold war era, when each of both governments hoped, it develops a more powerful weapon than its enemy), then I indeed welcome the strange matter theory too.
Accounts
1 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2014
Scientists said, with total assurance, that nuclear power plants would never fail.

I'm science oriented and very liberal. Yet I believe it's incredibly naive to think that scientists can be trusted when their egos want to do something that "might" be disasterous and they attempt to assure us it's not.

Move this kind of research to space. (Not even the moon is safe for this kind of thing).

- greg
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 21, 2014
Yet I believe it's incredibly naive to think that scientists can be trusted when their egos want to do something that "might" be disasterous and they attempt to assure us it's not

@Accounts / greg
dont you think that scientists take into consideration their own survivability to an experiment?
That is essentially the question...
you assume that scientists just like banging stuff together... you are thinking military, or maybe MythBusters, not science … well, maybe SOME science :-)
this science being done in colliders is carefully considered, with risk assessments, and then driven forward, as it is the underpinning of everything.
BASIC FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE
really!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2014
Accounts might realise he has been badly manipulated by media with this blurt
Scientists said, with total assurance, that nuclear power plants would never fail.
No !
A true "Scientist" wouldn't say this. Business execs in nuclear industry claim this all too often as well as the phrase "too cheap to meter", all economic BS.

True Scientists (those with integrity) don't say that rubbish, if they do then they are not 'true' Scientists as they do not have an understanding of 'Probability & Statistics' (ie As trained).

Accounts admitted (sadly)
I'm science oriented and very liberal
Unfortunately that view is one huge cause of misunderstanding.

Everything useful came from Science & its problematic exploitation by commerce.

When you say 'Liberal', it has political overtones, please don't go into that mess.

Rather than merely "science oriented", please get a good education & hopefully a passion for the core of what Science is about, start with "hypotheses" & "theory" with Math.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.