Martin Rees, a well-respected British cosmologist, made pretty bold statement late last year when it comes to particle accelerators: there's a small, but real possibility of disaster.

Particle accelerators, like the Large Hadron Collider, shoot particles at incredibly high speeds, smash them together, and observe the fallout.

These high speed collisions have helped us discover lots of new particles, but according to Rees, this isn't without its risks.

In his 2018 book, called On The Future: Prospects for Humanity, he gives some pretty bleak outlooks.

"Maybe a black hole could form, and then suck in everything around it," he writes, as Sarah Knapton reported over at the Telegraph. "The second scary possibility is that the quarks would reassemble themselves into compressed objects called strangelets."

"That in itself would be harmless. However under some hypotheses a strangelet could, by contagion, convert anything else it encounters into a new form of matter, transforming the entire earth in a hyperdense sphere about one hundred metres across."

That's approximately 330 feet, or around the length of a soccer field. 

And that's not all. The third way that particle accelerators could destroy the Earth, according to Reese, is by a "catastrophe that engulfs space itself".

"Empty space - what physicists call the vacuum - is more than just nothingness. It is the arena for everything that happens. It has, latent in it, all the forces and particles that govern the physical world. The present vacuum could be fragile and unstable."

"Some have speculated that the concentrated energy created when particles crash together could trigger a 'phase transition' that would rip the fabric of space. This would be a cosmic calamity not just a terrestrial one."

Sounds frankly terrifying. But should we really be worried? Surely the smart people at the LHC can clear this up.

"The LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) reaffirms and extends the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern," CERN writes on their website.

"Whatever the LHC will do, nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies."

And this is an important point – cosmic rays are basically natural versions of what the LHC and other particle accelerators are doing. And these rays hit Earth constantly.

The team behind the LHC have an answer for strangelets as well.

"Could strangelets coalesce with ordinary matter and change it to strange matter? This question was first raised before the start up of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, RHIC, in 2000 in the United States," they explain.

"A study at the time showed that there was no cause for concern, and RHIC has now run for eight years, searching for strangelets without detecting any."

Even the late, great Stephen Hawking gave his blessing to the particle accelerator:

"The world will not come to an end when the LHC turns on. The LHC is absolutely safe. ... Collisions releasing greater energy occur millions of times a day in the earth's atmosphere and nothing terrible happens," said Hawking.

In a way, Rees is correct. We're not 100 percent sure, and might never be. But as he explains, many scientific advances can have risks, but that's not to say we need to stop entirely.

"Innovation is often hazardous, but if we don't forgo risks we may forgo benefits," he writes in On The Future.

"Nevertheless, physicists should be circumspect about carrying out experiments that generate conditions with no precedent, even in the cosmos," Rees writes.

"Many of us are inclined to dismiss these risks as science fiction, but give the stakes they could not be ignored, even if deemed highly improbable."

We'll leave that gargantuan task to the particle physicists



By Jacinta Bowler / Science Alert Contributor
(Source: sciencealert.com; January 27, 2019; https://tinyurl.com/ya847kuz)

Views: 53

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No . . . c'mon folks, this is just plain silly. Maybe not as absurd as flat Earth lunacy, but close enough to warrant a response.
Yes, my background is in physics, and no, I have never been in fear of the Hadron collider or any other such apparatus (I spent about a decade at Lawrence Berkeley national lab).
The idea that a contrived "black hole" would suddenly start to consume all of the matter around it, in this context, is not just "highly improbable", it's ridiculous.
Yes, it does make for an interesting headline, and no doubt will get attention, especially among those for whom any sort of background in credible science is simply not part of their life.
In that context, this item is interesting to note, not because of what it suggests, but rather that there could be an actual audience for this sort of material.
In any case, for those who are genuinely worried . . . not to worry, the world is not going to be crushed by a contrived black hole anytime soon.
There are plenty of real world potential science related problems to be genuinely concerned with . . . this would not be one of them.
But, no doubt, some film producer somewhere is already scheming on how to make a film with this as the story . . . and there will likely be an audience who truly believes the movie script to be real.

Likewise. There's far bigger issues to tend to than bother with blackholes demolishing us.

RSS

© 2019   Created by rose.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service