Did you know that when the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) comes online at CERN next spring, it could end up creating mini black holes that destroy the Earth? This is not something from a Dan Brown novel, but from a TV documentary broadcast as part of the BBC’s Horizon series in the UK on 1 May – a programme that has been running for 40 years and is supposedly the flagship of TV science in the country. Although the documentary itself was fairly measured, the producers began the programme with the black-hole claim and used it in their publicity for the show.
Physicists who recall superb Horizon documentaries of the past – for example, on the discovery of the W and Z bosons – will have been disappointed that such a marvellous project as the LHC should have been sensationalized in this way. It was disheartening that the programme makers felt the need to rehash these unnecessary concerns over black holes being produced in particle accelerators, which physicists had already dismissed before the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) came online at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in 2000 (Physics World July 2000 pp19–20, print edition only).
Meanwhile, another Horizon documentary, broadcast on 10 April, claimed that one reason for sending humans to the Moon is so that we can mine it for helium-3 as a fuel for fusion power back on Earth. The need to bring helium-3 back from the Moon has even been briefly referred to in Physics World (May 2007 pp12–13, print edition only) and, more worryingly, has been presented to US congressional committees, including the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Representatives in 2004.
As a particle physicist, I am of course interested in the LHC; and as the chair of a working group set up by the British National Space Centre to look into the future of UK space science – including the possibility of humans returning to the Moon – I am also intrigued by the helium-3 story. Both of the claims bother me and, on investigation, each is revealed as an example of what I call “factoid science” – myths of dubious provenance that propagate, become received wisdom and could even influence policy. So what is the reality and what can physicists do to correct such mis-information?
Strangelet statistics
The story of the LHC as an Armageddon machine would be laughable were it not so serious. Aficionados of Dan Brown – whose novel Angels and Demons was set partly at CERN – might believe that the Geneva lab produces antimatter capable of making weapons of mass destruction. But I did not expect to find similarly outlandish statements used to promote Horizon. As the programme’s website puts it: “Some scientists argue that during a 10-year spell of operation there is a 1 in 50 million chance that experiments like the LHC could cause a catastrophe of epic proportions.” The site then invites the public to take part in a poll on whether the LHC should be turned on or not, based on this “probability”.
While the LHC will create the most energetic collisions ever seen on Earth, cosmic rays at these and even higher energies have been bombarding our and other planets for billions of years without mishap. When I asked the producers of Horizon where they had obtained the 1-in-50-million statistic, I was told it had been taken from a “reliable source”: Our Final Century by Cambridge University cosmologist Martin Rees. But when I read his book, it became clear that the programme’s research had sadly been incomplete. On page 124, Rees discusses a paper published in 1999 by CERN theorists Arnon Dar, Alvaro de Rújula and Ulrich Heinz that uses the fact that the Earth and the cosmos have survived for several billion years to estimate the probability of colliders producing hypothetical particles called “strangelets” that might destroy our planet (1999 Phys. Lett. B 470 142).
Rees fairly describes their conclusions as follows: “If the experiment were run for 10 years, the risk of catastrophe was no more than 1 in 50 million.” In other words, the chance of disaster is one in at least 50 million (as no disaster has occurred); this is rather different from saying, as Horizon does, that there is a “1 in 50 million” probability of a catastrophe happening from the moment the LHC switches on.
Moreover, when Dar and colleagues wrote their 1999 paper, a committee of eminent physicists appointed by the Brookhaven lab was also investigating if RHIC could produce strangelets (arXiv:hep-ph/ 9910333v3). That study used not just information from cosmology but also data from collisions between heavy ions (albeit at lower energies than RHIC would obtain) to show that the chances of catastrophe are at least one part in 1019.
Furthermore, these figures refer specifically to strangelets being produced at RHIC, as Rees makes clear, and have nothing to do with the question of whether we should risk creating black holes. Indeed, why does Horizon talk about black holes at all? The only reason can be that a theory does exist that posits that mini black holes could be produced in a collider. But if one mentions this theory, then one must include the whole of it, which clearly states that mini black holes pose no hazard whatsoever because they do not grow but evaporate and die.
As if any more evidence was needed that colliders are safe, CERN also set up an “LHC safety-study group” to see if its new collider could create black holes or strangelets. It concluded – in an official CERN report published in 2003 (CERN-2003-001) – that there is “no basis for any conceivable threat” of either eventuality, which is as near as science can get to saying zero. Unfortunately, the Horizon programme made no mention of these serious and time-consuming enquiries even though CERN’s press office gave the programme’s researchers a copy of the lab’s 2003 report. Instead, the public has been led to believe that scientists are prepared to embark on experiments that could spell the end of the planet.
Helium errors
Let me now turn to the helium-3 factoid. At most fusion experiments, such as the Joint European Torus (JET) in the UK, a fuel of deuterium and tritium nuclei is converted in a tokomak into helium-4 and a neutron, thereby releasing energy in the process. No helium-3 is involved, so where does the myth come from? Enter “helium-3 fusion” into Google and you will find numerous websites pointing out that the neutron produced in deuterium–tritium fusion makes the walls of the tokomak radioactive, but that fusion could be “clean” if only we reacted deuterium with helium-3 to produce helium-4 and a proton.
Given that the amount of helium-3 available on Earth is trifling, it has been proposed that we should go to the Moon to mine the isotope, which is produced in the Sun and might be blown onto the lunar surface via the solar wind. Apart from not even knowing for certain if there is any helium-3 on the Moon, there are two main problems with this idea – one obvious and one intriguingly subtle. The first problem is that, in a tokomak, deuterium reacts up to 100 times more slowly with helium-3 than it does with tritium. This is because fusion has to overcome the electrical repulsion between the protons in the fuel, which is much higher for deuterium– helium-3 reactions (the nuclei have one and two protons, respectively) than it is for deuterium– tritium reactions (one proton each).
Clearly, deuterium–helium-3 is a poor fusion process, but the irony is much greater as I shall now reveal. A tokomak is not like a particle accelerator where counter-rotating beams of deuterium and helium-3 collide and fuse. Instead, all of the nuclei in the fuel mingle together, which means that two deuterium nuclei can rapidly fuse to give a tritium nucleus and proton. The tritium can now fuse with the deuterium – again much faster than the deuterium can with helium-3 – to yield helium-4 and a neutron.
So by bringing helium-3 from the Moon, all we will end up doing is create a deuterium– tritium fusion machine, which is the very thing the helium aficionados wanted to avoid! Undeterred, some of these people even suggest that two helium-3 nuclei could be made to fuse with each other to produce deuterium, an alpha particle and energy. Unfortunately, this reaction occurs even more slowly than deuterium–tritium fusion and the fuel would have to be heated to impractically high temperatures that would be beyond the reach of a tokomak. And as not even the upcoming International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will be able to generate electricity from the latter reaction, the lunar-helium-3 story – like the LHC as an Armageddon machine – is, to my mind, moonshine.
Rising pressure
Does any of this matter beyond raising the blood pressure of some physicists? All publicity is good publicity, some might say. But I believe we should all be concerned. The LHC factoid has now been repeated in the New Yorker and in various reviews of the Horizon documentary. Even some nonphysics colleagues are asking me to explain what it is all about. If Horizon claims to be the flagship TV science series on which the public rely to form their opinions, I would hope that their researchers do their research, and that the editors then take due account of it.
The factoids about mining the Moon for fusion fuel and of the LHC Armageddon make a cautionary tale. A decade from now it is possible that committees of well-informed scientists and rather less-well-informed politicians, with public opinion weighing on their minds, will be deciding on our involvement in mega-projects such as the next huge accelerator, human space exploration, or even a post-ITER commercial fusion plant.
Decision making driven by public opinion that is influenced by factoids already has a dire history in the bio-medical arena: the controversy over whether to give children a combined immunization against measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) being the most recent example. My advice is that if you see an error in the media, speak out, write to the editors and try to get corrections made. It is an opportunity to get good science in the news.
Physicsworld.com
Dear Sir/Madam,
This article states:
«Rees fairly describes their conclusions as follows: “If the experiment were run for 10 years, the risk of catastrophe was no more than 1 in 50 million.” In other words, the chance of disaster is one in at least 50 million (as no disaster has occurred); this is rather different from saying, as Horizon does, that there is a “1 in 50 million” probability of a catastrophe happening from the moment the LHC switches on.»
Either way there still is the “risk of catastrophe”, even if as a remote probability; and as the British electrical engineer and physicist Harold Aspden clearly states:
« It is not that such a catastrophe might kill 50 millionth of the world’s population, but rather that there is a 1 in 50 million chance that the whole of the world’s population will be killed. » [in ‘Creation: The Physical Truth’, p.143, ISBN 1-84624-050-6, 2006];
And further he elucidates us:
« Are we to believe that those scientists really know how to calculate those odds, when they have no idea how to decipher the messages hidden in the values of the fundamental physical constants that have already been measured with very high precision? » [idem]
Are you still so sure that the experiment justifies the risk [or probability of risk] of a real global annihilation? One can only imagine what would the entire world’s population would have to say if it were aware that there actually is such question to be confronted with.
You may find more data onto this perspective, opposed to yours, at:
* this simple online petition in:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/avoiddarkscience/ * the related discussion thread in http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18225.
Thank you for the attention you have devoted to this brief comment.
Yours faithfully,
raposo.mav@gmail.com
_______
“Truly, the achievements of modern science are marvelous. The best way to learn the secrets of nature, however, is not by inventing instruments, but by improving the investigator himself.” in ‘The RCC’, 1909
Anonymous said this on September 30, 2007 at 4:00 am |
Dear Sir/Madam,This article states:«Rees fairly describes their conclusions as follows: “If the experiment were run for 10 years, the risk of catastrophe was no more than 1 in 50 million.” In other words, the chance of disaster is one in at least 50 million (as no disaster has occurred); this is rather different from saying, as Horizon does, that there is a “1 in 50 million” probability of a catastrophe happening from the moment the LHC switches on.»Either way there still is the “risk of catastrophe”, even if as a remote probability; and as the British electrical engineer and physicist Harold Aspden clearly states:« It is not that such a catastrophe might kill 50 millionth of the world’s population, but rather that there is a 1 in 50 million chance that the whole of the world’s population will be killed. » [in ‘Creation: The Physical Truth’, p.143, ISBN 1-84624-050-6, 2006];And further he elucidates us:« Are we to believe that those scientists really know how to calculate those odds, when they have no idea how to decipher the messages hidden in the values of the fundamental physical constants that have already been measured with very high precision? » [idem]Are you still so sure that the experiment justifies the risk [or probability of risk] of a real global annihilation? One can only imagine what would the entire world’s population would have to say if it were aware that there actually is such question to be confronted with.You may find more data onto this perspective, opposed to yours, at:* this simple online petition in:http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/avoiddarkscience/ * the related discussion thread in http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=18225. Thank you for the attention you have devoted to this brief comment.Yours faithfully,raposo.mav@gmail.com_______”Truly, the achievements of modern science are marvelous. The best way to learn the secrets of nature, however, is not by inventing instruments, but by improving the investigator himself.” in ‘The RCC’, 1909
Anonymous said this on September 30, 2007 at 4:00 am |
Ah yes, I should have expected that crackpot to be here. Look at the petition and you’ll he see he has some very strange views on modern science.
You’ve dealt with the idea that CERN will kill us all quite well and explained why it isn’t something anyone should worry about.
Anonymous said this on October 14, 2007 at 11:33 pm |
Ah yes, I should have expected that crackpot to be here. Look at the petition and you’ll he see he has some very strange views on modern science.You’ve dealt with the idea that CERN will kill us all quite well and explained why it isn’t something anyone should worry about.
Anonymous said this on October 14, 2007 at 11:33 pm |
Just to clarify, I am neither of the two anonimous posters above.
My name is Stef.
To call people “crackpots” is not a mature way of dealing with this debate and I sincerely hope that the “crackpot” comment does not come from Dr Schrodinger himself.
As for the original blog post I am surprised to see Dr Schrodinger dismissing the possiblities of black holes and strangelet as “laughable”. His colleagues at CERN certainly do not think this is a laughable matter and that’s why they spent a considerable amount of time and money to investigate the degree of probability of this happening.
Dr Schrodinger is of course correct when he states that the official CERN report concluded that there is “no basis for any conceivable threat” of either eventuality.
Dr Schrodinger, would I be wrong in saying that the study did not fully exclude the possibility of such a disaster?
Dr Schrodinger, would I be wrong in stating that they came to this conclusion on the basis of our current understanding of the law of physics and associated theories?
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, “any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory”.
Dr Schrodinger, lets hope that in May when the LHC is switched on we don’t disprove a few of the theories used by the CERN and by yourself to conclude that the LHC poses “no concievable threat”.
Good luck to us all.
Anonymous said this on April 3, 2008 at 2:01 am |
Just to clarify, I am neither of the two anonimous posters above.My name is Stef.To call people “crackpots” is not a mature way of dealing with this debate and I sincerely hope that the “crackpot” comment does not come from Dr Schrodinger himself.As for the original blog post I am surprised to see Dr Schrodinger dismissing the possiblities of black holes and strangelet as “laughable”. His colleagues at CERN certainly do not think this is a laughable matter and that’s why they spent a considerable amount of time and money to investigate the degree of probability of this happening. Dr Schrodinger is of course correct when he states that the official CERN report concluded that there is “no basis for any conceivable threat” of either eventuality. Dr Schrodinger, would I be wrong in saying that the study did not fully exclude the possibility of such a disaster?Dr Schrodinger, would I be wrong in stating that they came to this conclusion on the basis of our current understanding of the law of physics and associated theories?According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, “any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory”.Dr Schrodinger, lets hope that in May when the LHC is switched on we don’t disprove a few of the theories used by the CERN and by yourself to conclude that the LHC poses “no concievable threat”.Good luck to us all.
Anonymous said this on April 3, 2008 at 2:01 am |
35 days left.
It is possible that this Universe in 35 days does not exist anymore. And these are not esoterists these are scientists who think so.
Safety of this project should be reviewed or our Universe may be gone. Sucked up into a black hole actually.
CERN LHC will be in production mode on the 21. of May 2008
notepad publishing said this on April 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm |
35 days left.It is possible that this Universe in 35 days does not exist anymore. And these are not esoterists these are scientists who think so.Safety of this project should be reviewed or our Universe may be gone. Sucked up into a black hole actually.CERN LHC will be in production mode on the 21. of May 2008
notepad publishing said this on April 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm |
Visit http://www.notepad.ch for more information
notepad publishing said this on April 16, 2008 at 11:00 pm |
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch
What it is like to work here
The following quote is from a blog at Cernwatch.com, apparently from an insider at CERN LHC:
‘I am writing this blog becuase I am seeing some strange things that I have not seen before. I notice higher levels of security, and more US military presence. I hear strange rumors and weird Jokes. I think that there is more going on that what is being let out. i will report to you everything I hear and see.’
Link to the complete blog message:
http://www.cernwatch.com/2008/04/hello.html
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch
admin
notepad
notepad publishing said this on April 28, 2008 at 10:27 pm |
This is a quote from:http://www.notepad.chWhat it is like to work hereThe following quote is from a blog at Cernwatch.com, apparently from an insider at CERN LHC:’I am writing this blog becuase I am seeing some strange things that I have not seen before. I notice higher levels of security, and more US military presence. I hear strange rumors and weird Jokes. I think that there is more going on that what is being let out. i will report to you everything I hear and see.’Link to the complete blog message:http://www.cernwatch.com/2008/04/hello.htmlThis is a quote from:http://www.notepad.chadminnotepad
notepad publishing said this on April 28, 2008 at 10:27 pm |
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch
What it is like to work here
The following quote is from a blog at Cernwatch.com, apparently from an insider at CERN LHC:
‘I am writing this blog becuase I am seeing some strange things that I have not seen before. I notice higher levels of security, and more US military presence. I hear strange rumors and weird Jokes. I think that there is more going on that what is being let out. i will report to you everything I hear and see.’
Link to the complete blog message:
http://www.cernwatch.com/2008/04/hello.html
This is a quote from:
http://www.notepad.ch
admin
notepad
notepad publishing said this on April 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm |
This is a quote from:http://www.notepad.chWhat it is like to work hereThe following quote is from a blog at Cernwatch.com, apparently from an insider at CERN LHC:’I am writing this blog becuase I am seeing some strange things that I have not seen before. I notice higher levels of security, and more US military presence. I hear strange rumors and weird Jokes. I think that there is more going on that what is being let out. i will report to you everything I hear and see.’Link to the complete blog message:http://www.cernwatch.com/2008/04/hello.htmlThis is a quote from:http://www.notepad.chadminnotepad
notepad publishing said this on April 28, 2008 at 10:28 pm |
http://www.cernwatch.com
Science Consulting Group said this on May 4, 2008 at 12:11 am |
http://www.cernwatch.com
Science Consulting Group said this on May 4, 2008 at 12:11 am |
notepad publishing
geneva, switzerland
07. May 2008
URGENT
PRESS RELEASE from notepad publishing
CERN LHC BLACK HOLE EATING US! PROF ROESSLER HAS SOLUTION: MOON LHC
Robert Aymar, Director of CERN:’Not interested!”
This is a quote from http://www.notepad.ch, by notepad admin Armin Albarracin, Investigative journalist living in Geneva, Switzerland.
notepad.ch is a blog published by notepad publishing
‘Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler currently works at the University of Tuebingen in Germany. He specializes on theoretical biology, theoretical physics, mathematic, philosophy and nature sciences. These areas is what he is talking about.
AND he has a right to do so and to be listened too. As a ‘chaos scientist’ my understanding is that because interdisciplinary know-how is required, his expertise field is quite wide. He also strikes me as a scientist who needs to see the large picture. And yes, he would be allowed in court on the LHC subject. Heard somebody in a post say they would not allow him in court because he is not a subject matter expert. This is complete rubbish and the person who posted this knows it.
Prof. Otto E. Rössler sais that there is a 50% chance that a real black hole gets created at the LHC, that there are then 50 months left for our Earth. But he also offers solutions. He sais, do it now, but do it on the moon.
Prof. Otto E. Rössler sais he has calculated the cost for running the LHC on the moon and they are only 2-3 times higher than here on Earth. Proving his great humor, Prof. Otto E. Rössler continues to say that then we could watch the moon getting eaten up by the black hole. At least then we would get a bit more time, right?
Now if the CERN is really concerned about all our safety and does everything possible to guarantee it like they constantly tell us, why is the proposed solution from Prof. Otto E. Rössler not even taking into consideration by the CERN?
Has Prof. Otto E. Rössler every been approached by the CERN to talk about the solution to re-create the LHC on the moon – and remove this one here, right in my city, right next to me?
The most amazing thing is that Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler believes that creating the LHC on the moon would only cost 2-3 times as much. He may have reasons to explain why his calculations – which he is adamant are exact – show such a low cost.
But if this is true, and works, we cannot underestimate the current achievement of Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler. He may well get a Nobel Prize for this. If not, and the cost is lets say 50 times higher – would you still not do it to save our Universe? Of course you would 😉 If it can’t be done because Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler is wrong – well, let’s at LEAST try it! What is the price to reduce risk here?
Additionally, if the LHC has to be redone on the moon, this would extremely beneficial for World economy. It would
completely remove the current recession crisis I believe. There would be a massive government and private sector investment and benefit in this.’
Read the full article on http://www.notepad.ch
Armin Albarracin, Senior Investigative Journalist
Member of Deutscher Verband der Pressejournalisten e.V. (Reg ID: BD-0742 1055-017)
notepad (= notepad publishing) is a independent News Agency domiziled in Geneva Switzerland. notepad publishing is specialized in investigative journalism. notepad publishing is the Geneva News Agency (Reg ID: FD7 902 00224) for the European News Agency domiziled in Florida, USA.
If you would like more information about this topic or schedule an interview with Armin Albarracin, senior investigative journalist at notepad publishing at
Mail: armin.albarracin@notepad.ch
notepad publishing said this on May 8, 2008 at 12:51 am |
notepad publishinggeneva, switzerland07. May 2008URGENTPRESS RELEASE from notepad publishingCERN LHC BLACK HOLE EATING US! PROF ROESSLER HAS SOLUTION: MOON LHCRobert Aymar, Director of CERN:’Not interested!”This is a quote from http://www.notepad.ch, by notepad admin Armin Albarracin, Investigative journalist living in Geneva, Switzerland.notepad.ch is a blog published by notepad publishing’Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler currently works at the University of Tuebingen in Germany. He specializes on theoretical biology, theoretical physics, mathematic, philosophy and nature sciences. These areas is what he is talking about.AND he has a right to do so and to be listened too. As a ‘chaos scientist’ my understanding is that because interdisciplinary know-how is required, his expertise field is quite wide. He also strikes me as a scientist who needs to see the large picture. And yes, he would be allowed in court on the LHC subject. Heard somebody in a post say they would not allow him in court because he is not a subject matter expert. This is complete rubbish and the person who posted this knows it.Prof. Otto E. Rössler sais that there is a 50% chance that a real black hole gets created at the LHC, that there are then 50 months left for our Earth. But he also offers solutions. He sais, do it now, but do it on the moon.Prof. Otto E. Rössler sais he has calculated the cost for running the LHC on the moon and they are only 2-3 times higher than here on Earth. Proving his great humor, Prof. Otto E. Rössler continues to say that then we could watch the moon getting eaten up by the black hole. At least then we would get a bit more time, right?Now if the CERN is really concerned about all our safety and does everything possible to guarantee it like they constantly tell us, why is the proposed solution from Prof. Otto E. Rössler not even taking into consideration by the CERN?Has Prof. Otto E. Rössler every been approached by the CERN to talk about the solution to re-create the LHC on the moon – and remove this one here, right in my city, right next to me?The most amazing thing is that Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler believes that creating the LHC on the moon would only cost 2-3 times as much. He may have reasons to explain why his calculations – which he is adamant are exact – show such a low cost.But if this is true, and works, we cannot underestimate the current achievement of Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler. He may well get a Nobel Prize for this. If not, and the cost is lets say 50 times higher – would you still not do it to save our Universe? Of course you would 😉 If it can’t be done because Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler is wrong – well, let’s at LEAST try it! What is the price to reduce risk here?Additionally, if the LHC has to be redone on the moon, this would extremely beneficial for World economy. It wouldcompletely remove the current recession crisis I believe. There would be a massive government and private sector investment and benefit in this.’Read the full article on http://www.notepad.chArmin Albarracin, Senior Investigative JournalistMember of Deutscher Verband der Pressejournalisten e.V. (Reg ID: BD-0742 1055-017)notepad (= notepad publishing) is a independent News Agency domiziled in Geneva Switzerland. notepad publishing is specialized in investigative journalism. notepad publishing is the Geneva News Agency (Reg ID: FD7 902 00224) for the European News Agency domiziled in Florida, USA.If you would like more information about this topic or schedule an interview with Armin Albarracin, senior investigative journalist at notepad publishing at Mail: armin.albarracin@notepad.ch
notepad publishing said this on May 8, 2008 at 12:51 am |