Talk:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments

Hawkings Thoughts

A cool interview with Stephen Hawking is on the BBC website right now: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7598000/7598686.stm

Worthy of inclusion? THMRK1 (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

this entire article seems like it was written from a very pro-LHC stance; i am not informed enough to make any major edits, but i did change the labeling of Rossler and others with safety concerns from 'antagonists' to 'opponents.'

-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.6.194 (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hawking says "If the collisions in the LHC produced a micro black hole, and this is unlikely, it would just evaporate away again, producing a characteristic pattern of particles. Collisions at these and greater energies occur millions of times a day in the Earth's atmosphere, and nothing terrible happens.". Can any one tell me on what basis has he said the black hole created will be evaporated?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Has any one so far witnessed the creation of black holes in the earth's atmosphere? I am sure no one. So, I do not know on what basis comments like "Black holes will evaporate" etc are made?BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is commenting on what Hawking has said not whether it is correct or not. This isn't the place to answer individual questions, you could ask someone who edits the black hole page on their talk page to answer your personal questions, they maybe able to help. ^Khukri 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, I request that a small piece of content be then added, that states the actual data of presence of black holes in the earth's atmosphere. From the statements of Hawkings, it looks very obvious that scientists have recorded the same, looks obvious from the scientist's statement. I think that's needed and is missing.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 11:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see where it states the actual presence of black holes in the atmosphere or he states they have been seen, which of course they haven't, black holes themselves are a theoretical object. Also it's not advisable to analyse one newspaper article in too much depth when the basis for his opinions are covered by some 3000 scientific studies which can be found on the Arxiv. ^Khukri 11:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The center-of-mass energy for LHC collisions will be of 14 TeV. The center-of-mass energy for collisions between the highest energy cosmic rays and the atomic nuclei in the atmosphere is of the order of 1000 TeV; and there are plenty of cosmic rays with lower energies that will match the LHC. Nothing ever happened in the atmosphere, or in the moon / other planets / stars (those are all bombarded by the same cosmic ray spectrum as the Earth). Therefore, if black holes are created in CR collisions, they do no harm. BH from the LHC would be MUCH less massive, and therefore would last even less than those from CRs, and would do even less harm. Pmbarros (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so I think there's lot of unnecessary noise for Black Holes those are never evidently found so far.BalanceΩrestored ^Talk 12:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

False vacuum

Why is there no concern about false vacuum, while there was such concern with RHIC? --78.1.130.17 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not an expert, but isn't it a case of, if it was shown to be OK for RHIC, then must hold true for LHC, as the higher level energy isn't a factor? ^Khukri 16:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

although analogies with cosmic rays have been questioned...

I agree with Stevenj's removal of "although the analogy with the safety of natural cosmic phenomona when applied to Earth conditions at the LHC, and the reliance on conclusions based on theoretical but as yet unobserved predictions of particle behaviour, has been questioned". This brings too much detail in the lead. If we include Wagner's specific criticism, we must also include Plaga's and Rossler's criticism, as well as the rebuttals, which would add too much detail and length in the lead per WP:LEAD. Also, the 2008 report specifically addresses these concerns, so the statement is misplaced. I like the lead the way it looks now, thanks largely to MickMacNee. It's just the right length, with the safety reviews and safety concerns respectively covered in paragraphs of equal length, and doesn't go into to much detail. --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my mind. I believe the lead should predominantly expose the safety reviews and arguments per WP:NPOV, since the concerns are tiny-minority views. --Phenylalanine (talk) 07:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the article looks pretty good now. Good work! THMRK1 (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks THMRK1, I gotta get some sleep now. I hope someone will be able to keep an eye on the article in the next few hours. --Phenylalanine (talk) 07:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of expertise in CERN-commissioned reports

I propose adding the following section "Use of expertise in CERN-commissioned reports" under the section "CERN-commissioned reports", and add to the next section "Other published reviews"

Although most of the 20 countries comprising the consortium responsible for CERN and hence the LHC are members of the European Union, the way expertise is used in the LSAG report does not follow European Union guidelines for the use of expertise, guidelines which can be seen as current best practice.

This is especially pointed when it is considered that what triggered the creation of the guidelines were events in which people died partly because of inapprpriaite use of scientific expertise.

The guidelines state that one of the three determinants of quality of advice is pluralism.

“Wherever possible, a diversity of viewpoints should be assembled. This diversity may result from differences in scientific approach, different types of expertise, different institutional affiliations, or contrasting opinions over the fundamental assumptions underlying the issue. Is it appropriate to mobilise experts beyond the scientific community? These may include, for example, lawyers, ethicists...”

How then does the CERN process used for the present 2008 CERN-commissioned reports compare with the EC guidelines on plurality of expertise?

The LSAG report itself was conducted by five particle physicists. The associated report “Astronomical Implications of Hypothetical Stable TeV-Scale Black Holes" was conducted by two particle physicists, one of whom was also in the LSAG report team. It was reviewed by the 20-member CERN Council Scientific Policy Committee, also composed only of particle physicists.

So all these 26 were particle physicists. Despite this large number, none were “experts beyond the scientific community… for example, lawyers, ethicists..”, despite that being recommended by the European Commission[x1] .

This particle physicists-only advice was then put to CERN Council for consideration and advice to the governments. CERN Council represents the 20 governments funding the LHC and consists of 14 particle physicists and 14 civil servants. Half of the Council is therefore the interest group concerned – particle physicists. And the other half is also not immune from possible vested interest. This is because the Council as a whole has approved the prior funding of and building of the LHC. As such, CERN Council is far from arms-length from the project, and may feel a bias to justify its prior decisions of support. Given this possibility of bias in the decision-making within and about the LSAG report, thoughtful people are uneasy because of reference to a basic sense of fairness. This is embodied in one of the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness: the rule against bias (nemo debet esse judex in propria sua cause – "no one to be a judge in their own cause") So, even though the EC guidelines on the use of expertise arose precisely out of an event in which people died partly because of narrowly-based scientific advice, CERN, also assessing the possibility of events in which people may die has used none of the EC guidelines, indeed gives no inkling that it is aware they exist, and has produced exquisitely narrowly-based advice. The lessons learnt by society from the recent BSE and other crises may never have been learnt as far as CERN is concerned. The lack of cognisance of best practice is eloquently attested to as follows. The main freshly commissioned paper underlying the LSAG report is the paper by Giddings and Mangano 2008 (G & M). It is a study of the (i) safety of a (ii) physics phenomenon. However, while G & M call extensively upon the physics body of knowledge to the extent of citing 119 references, to the safety body of knowledge there are no references at all. Or, indeed, as mentioned, to the body of knowledge on the use of expertise. Other published reviews On 22 July 2008, three particle physicists Benjamin Koch, Marcus Bleicher and Horst Stöcker published a research paper titled "Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC" in which they summarize the proofs which they argue rule out any possible black hole disaster at the LHC. Their framework explicitly allows for any number of additional spatial dimensions. [24] On 10 August 2008, Rainer Plaga, an astrophysicist working at the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI), in Bonn, Germany, posted on the arXiv Web archive a paper concluding that current safety reports have not demonstrated that white dwarfs stop cosmic-ray produced mBHs in general.[10] According to Plaga, exclusion of mBHs that would be dangerous at the planetary scale thus remains not definite. His paper also draws a methodologically different scenario than any that have been discussed so far. Plaga indicates that, if a micro black hole is created at the LHC, the Hawking radiation emitted from the decaying black body may be dangerous to either CERN and its surroundings or to the Earth itself. He argues that the effects of cosmic-ray produced mBHs radiating at the Eddington limit might not be detected in heavier astronomical bodies, such as white dwarfs, but depending on the parameter values, might still cause significant damage to smaller bodies such as the Earth. Plaga states that a micro black hole produced at the LHC could set off a chain reaction that "would appear like a major nuclear explosion in the immediate vicinity of the collider." He proposes measures for risk mitigation for the start up phase of the LHC.[10] In a follow-up paper posted on the arXiv Web archive on 29 August 2008, Steven B. Giddings and Michelangelo L. Mangano, the authors of a 2008 study on the safety of the LHC collisions,[7] respond to Rainer Plaga's safety concerns.[11] They argue that Plaga's scenario is inconsistent and that their own conclusions on the safety of the collider,[7] as referred to in the LHC safety assessment (LSAG) report,[5] remain robust.[11] On 18 August 2008, the particle physicist Michael E. Peskin published an article which affirms the Steven B. Giddings and Michelangelo L. Mangano 2008 paper that excludes the risk of dangerous micro black holes.[9] Following the publication of the CERN-commissioned LSAG report, the Executive Board of the Division of Particles and Fields (comprised of particle physicists of the American Physical Society (APS) released a statement on the safety of collisions at the Large Hadron Collider, indicating that "there is nothing to fear from particles created at the LHC".[25][26] A paper including a physicist among its authors – but also authors with qualifications in philosophy (including ethics) and mathematics, so providing the plurality of expertise recommended by the European Commission "has analysed the LHC risk. The paper observes that when an expert provides a calculation of the probability of an outcome, they are really providing the probability of the outcome occurring, given that their argument is watertight. However, their argument may fail for a number of reasons such as a flaw in the underlying theory, a flaw in their modelling of the problem, or a mistake in their calculations. If the probability estimate given by an argument is dwarfed by the chance that the argument itself is flawed, then the estimate is suspect." The paper multiplied the probabilities that the theory, model, and/or calculations on which the operation of the LHC rests are wrong. This dramatically increased the probability estimates that switching it on will destroy the world, to greater than 1 in a million. With those at risk equalling the population of the Earth (6 billion), the paper concluded the value of the risk was 6,000 lives, and therefore that the LHC should not be turned on until further independent research into the risk was conducted.

Transcept (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, CERN or it's reports in general doesn't have to follow such a thing as "European Union guidelines for the use of expertise[1], guidelines which can be seen as current best practice", by it's very nature as it is partly in Switzerland which isn't tied to these conventions. CERN is governed by a number of accords set up between the member states which aren't all EU, which range from safety, employment, to the very report you mentioned. So after that is irrelevant, sorry. Anyway most of what you have written constitutes original research, stringing the facts together, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. ^Khukri 06:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Khukri has the right idea here. What is said past that sentence is basically original research and it also shows a huge lack of understand about LHC, and what actually happens within. I seriously doubt 10,000 scientists have gotten their calculations wrong, but maybe that's just me...THMRK1 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A similar argument is published in the UK Telegraph yesterday We must be wary of scientific research By Gerald Warner

"International law needs to wake up to the scientific challenges of the 21st century. Scientists are now dealing with forces so potentially destructive they cannot be allowed to exercise their discretion. Decisions to proceed with certain types of research should not be taken within the magic circle of "the academy", where the presumption is always in favour of enhancing knowledge rather than taking precautions. We need an international authority, dominated by laymen but with access to expert technical opinion. The precautionary principle should prevail."

--Jtankers (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

I decided to do improve the lead yesterday, because, well it didn't have one. My initial attempt was this [1]. It was probably too detailed, so it was contracted to this [2], to which, last night I re-added some of that context that was removed [3]. Reaching it this morning, subsequent edits to the lead have given me concerns.

First, I am concerned about style - per the lead section guideline, I moved all references to the main body - all lead statements should merely describe the main body text, not become sourced facts themselves - this merely encourages disputes over precise wording of the lead, and causes the main body's factual accuracy to become neglected.

"The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none." (WP:LEADCITE)

Secondly, specific dscriptions of the concerns I added to the lead (which is after all the premise of the article), NPOV and especially UNDUE notwithstanding, have in my view been overly summarized, however the assertions of safety have become more detailed and specific. It debunks the doomsday scenario fears, without even explaining what the scenario is, doomsday event has been delinked, and destruction of the Earth has been moved. Without these, reading the lead it would be hard to determine why this topic is even notable.

I agree with Stevenj's removal of "although the analogy with the safety of natural cosmic phenomona when applied to Earth conditions at the LHC, and the reliance on conclusions based on theoretical but as yet unobserved predictions of particle behaviour, has been questioned". This brings too much detail in the lead. If we include Wagner's specific criticism, we must also include Plaga's and Rossler's criticism, as well as the rebuttals, which would add too much detail and length in the lead per WP:LEAD. Also, the 2008 report specifically addresses these concerns, so the statement is misplaced. I believe the lead should predominantly expose the safety reviews and arguments per WP:NPOV, since the concerns are tiny-minority views. Also, one general statement in the lead was technically incorrect and weaselly (e.g. "and was itself reviewed and corroborated by other scientific bodies and journals"), so it was necessary to specify it to correct the problem. I mentioned the doomsday scenarios in the lead to clarify per your suggestion. However, I don't think it's appropriate to add the emotive phrase "the destruction of the Earth" in the lead. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Finally, I think a crucial element has also been removed from the lead - the date of the first planned collisions. Already, the media are erroniously claiming that the LHC is safe based on the fact today's first test didn't go bang. That was not a surprising outcome because today they didn't even collide anything - this is the exact type of factual misconception an encyclopoedia should be seeking to correct. MickMacNee (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I added that also. I hope this addresses your concerns. Regards. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Whole premise of this article is dumb

If there is a 1/100000000000000000000 chance that the earth could be destroyed, because A. the machine is out of alignment or working improperly(software bug), B. we don't know what could possibly happen because it has never been tried before, then it is incredibly stupid to say it is safe. Plus I doubt there are any real benefits to the average person of this research. Some country should invade or bomb the site and stop this. 71.131.7.244 (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the thing's been turned on...

What's going to happen to this article? Zazaban (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Typo that it would be really simple for a helpful editor such as myself to put right in a few seconds if only the article wasn't protected, but since it is, I have to put it here and hope that some sysop will (1) read this, and (2) act on it

In the second paragraph of the subsection headed "Micro black holes", the phrase "on the order" should read "of the order". - 88.109.98.70 (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC) I