čtvrtek 29. ledna 2009

AWT and LHC safety risk

The LHC "black hole" issue disputed (1, 2, 3) and recently reopened (1, 2, 3) is manifestation of previously disputed fact, every close community becomes sectarian undeniably and separated from needs of rest of society like singularity by total reflection mechanism. Ignorance of fundamental ideas (Heim theory) or discoveries (cold fusion, surface superconductivity, "antigravity") on behalf of risky and expensive LHC experiments illustrates increasing gap between priorities of physical community and interests of the rest of society.

The power of human inquisitiveness is the problem here: as we know from history, scientists as a whole never care about morality, just about technical difficulties. If they can do something, then they will do it - less or more lately, undeniably. No matter whether it's nuclear weapon, genetically engineered virus and/or collider. Which makes trouble at the moment, the results of such experiments can threaten the whole civilization. We should know about this danger of human nature and we should be prepared to suffer consequences. Max Tegmark’s “quantum suicide” experiment doesn't say, how large portion of the original system can survive its experiment.

So, what's the problem with LHC experiments planned? Up to this day, no relevant analysis, evaluating all possible risks and their error bars is publicly available. Existing safety analysis and reports (1, 2) are very rough and superficial, as they doesn't consider important risk factors and scenarios, like formation of charged black holes or surface tension phenomena of dense particle clusters. There's an obstinate tendency to start LHC experiments without such analysis and to demonstrate first successful results even without thorough testing phase. Because the load of accelerator was increased over 80% of nominal capacity during first days impatiently, the substantial portion of cooling system crashed due the massive spill (100 tons) of expensive helium and monitoring systems of whole LHC are in extensive upgrade and replacement to avoid avalanche propagation of the same problem over whole accelerator tube in future.

Up to these days, publicity has no relevant and transparent data about probability of supercritical black hole formation during expected period of LHC lifetime and about main factors, which can increase total risk above acceptable level, in particular the risk associated to:

  1. Extreme asymmetry of head-to-head collisions, during which a zero momentum/speed black holes can be formed, so they would have a lot of time to interact with Earth with compare to natural protons from cosmic rays. The collision geometry is has no counterpart in nature, as it's a product of long-term human evolution, not natural processes.

  2. Avalanche-like character of multi-particle collisions. When some piece of matter appears in accelerator line, then whole content of LHC will feed it by new matter incoming from both directions by nearly luminal speed, i.e. in much faster way with compare to collisions of natural cosmic rays appearing in stratosphere

  3. Proximity of dense environment. With compare to stratospheric collisions of gamma rays, the metastable products of LHC collisions can be trapped by gravitational field of Earth and to interact with it in long term fashion. Some models are considering, the black hole can move in Earth core for years without notion, thus changing the Earth into time-bomb for further generations.

  4. Formation of charged and magnetic black hole. As we know from theory, real black holes should always exhibit nonzero charge and magnetic field as the result of their fast surface rotation. While force constant of electromagnetic force is about 10^39 times stronger then those of gravitational interaction (and the force constant of nuclear force is even much higher), the omitting of such possibility from security analysis is just a illustration of deep incompetence of high energy physics and it looks rather like intention, than just omission. It's not so surprising, as every introduction of such risk into safety analysis would lead into increasing of LHC risk estimations in many orders of magnitude, making them unfeasible in the eyes of society.

  5. Formation of dense clusters of quite common neutral particles, which are stable well outside from LHC energy range (presumably the neutrons). This risk is especially relevant for ALICE experiment, consisting of head-to-head collisions of heavy atom nuclei, during which the large number of free neutrons can be released in the form of so called neutron fluid. The signs of tetra-neutron existence supports this hypothesis apparently. The neutron fluid would stabilize neutrons against decay due its strong surface tension by analogous way, like the neutrons inside neutron stars. The risk of neutron fluid formation is connected to possible tendency to expel protons from atom nuclei in contact with neutron fluid, thus changing them into droplets of another neutron fluid by avalanche like mechanism, which was proposed for strangelet risk of LHC originally.

  6. Surface tension effects of large dense particle clusters, like the various gluonium and quarkonium states which CAN stabilize even unstable forms of mater, like neutral mesons and other hadrons up to levels, they can interact with ordinary matter by mechanism above described under formation of another dense particle clusters, so called strangelets (sort of tiny quark stars, originally proposed by Ed Witten). The evidence of these states was confirmed recently for tetra- and pentaquark exotic states. By AWT the surface tension phenomena are related to dark matter and supersymmetry effects observed unexpectedly in Fermilab (formation of di muon states well outside of collider pipe), as we can explain later. If this connection will be confirmed, we aren't expected to worry about strangelet formation anymore - simply because we observed it already!

With compare to black hole formation, the risks of strangelet and neutron fluid aren't connected to collapse of Earth into gravitational singularity, but to release of wast amount of energy (comparable to those of thermonuclear fusion), during which of most of matter would be vaporized and expelled into cosmic space by pressure of giant flash of accretion radiation.

As I explained already, cosmic ray arguments aren’t wery relevant to highly asymmetric LHC collisions geometry, so it has no meaning to repeat them again and again. This geometry - not the energy scale - is what makes the LHC collisions so unique and orthogonal to extrapolations based on highly symmetrical thermodynamics. It’s product of very rare human evolution. Whole AWT is just about probability of various symmetries.

So we are required to reconsider LHC experiments in much deeper, publicly available and peer reviewed security analysis. We should simply apply scientific method even to security analysis of scientific experiments - no less, no more. By my opinion, these objections are trivial and mostly evident - but no safety analysis has considered them so far from apparent reason: not to threat the launch of LHC. So now we can just ask, who is responsible for this situation and for lack of persons responsible for relevant safety analysis of LHC project of 7 billions € in total cost?

Safety is the main concern of LHC experiments. You can be perfectly sure, LHC experiments are safe because of many theories. After all, the main purpose of these experiments is to verify these theories.

Isn't the only purpose of LHC to verify it's own safety at the very end? Is it really enough for everybody?

14 komentářů:

  1. According to Roberto Casadio at the Universita di Bologna and associates, raising concerns with some physicists, a new study of
    Mini-black holes generated by the Large Hadron Collider suggests they could decay over a period of more than one second.

  2. Colliding Particles Can Make Black Holes at presence of extradimensions. Do we have theory of black hole evaporation at the presence of extradimensions?

  3. The only subtle problem is, they already demonstrated, when extradimensions are involved, black hole can be formed with compare to existing theories:

    Does that mean the LHC will make black holes? Not necessarily, Choptuik says. The Planck energy is a quintillion times higher than the LHC's maximum. So the only way the LHC might make black holes is if, instead of being three dimensional, space actually has more dimensions that are curled into little loops too small to be detected except in a high-energy particle collision. Predicted by certain theories, those extra dimensions might effectively lower the Planck energy by a huge factor.

    Funny thing is, we have theory of extradimensions forty years already, which just waits for its confirmation - it's a string theory. If existing theory of black hole formation could be impeached so easily, what about theory of Hawking radiation? After some month some other guy will anounce with smile, the presence of extradimensions would slow-down black hole evaporation considerably, neverthelles "LHC is still pretty safe".

    Well, if some extra-dimensions could wipe-out one quintillion factor (?!?) of LHC safety expected - what we can expect about theory of Hawking radiation?

    Randall-Sundrum model of microblack holes is based on string theory and it considers the existence of stable primordial microscopic holes, for which quantum mechanical effects play an important role. These black holes should be stable enough to survive up to present time.

    The funny thing is, we have theory of stable black holes already for many years, which just waits for its confirmation at LHC. I'm not sure, I really want to confirm these theories just by LHC.

  4. The ability of scientists to predict some problems is pretty pathetic. Even small child could expect, when some supermagnet will explode, the leak of helium from neighboring supermagnets will lead to their quenching, too.

    Believe it or not - no one expected it.

    They're just trying to cover their incompetence, which makes CERN is more secretive, then the Vatican. For example, they published first photos of LHC destruction just after three months - until this time they babbled about "some helium spill"

  5. John Conway informed about a fresh decision concerning the plans for the Large Hadron Collider: In 2010, the LHC will be pumped up pretty quickly to twice 3.5 TeV i.e. 7 TeV center-of-mass energy. 7 TeV is a whopping 3.5 times higher than the current total energy at the Tevatron. It will work to accumulate one inverse femtobarn of collisions and stop, but not later than at the end of 2011.

  6. Secret danger of steady-state models:

    It's well known, general relativity predicts, every sufficiently dense object should collapse into singularity fast, the faster, the smaller such object is. But the main problem of Schwarzschild black hole model is, it's a steady-state model: it doesn't care, how much time it would take to create true singularity for such dense matter (where energy spreads very slowly). As the result, true singularity can never exist in Universe of finite age.

    The same, just AdS/CFT dual problem exist for quantum mechanics, which predicts in Hawking model of black hole radiation, every sufficiently dense black hole should evaporate fast - the faster, the smaller is. In this theory no such dense object could really exist inside of Universe...

    Well, in Universe of infinite time, again.... But can our Universe wait for it? Note that even Albert Einstein didn't believe in both singularities, both in quantum mechanics very much.

  7. As usually, L. Motl fights for LHC research and against legal action proposed by E.Johnson . The irony is, just the concepts of string theories (as a most advanced physical theory today) are able to warn civilization against LHC experiments, because just the string theory predicts the formation of stable microscopic black holes (Randall-Sundrum models) and just the concept of extradimensions enables to compute it. Note that just string theorist Ed Witten was physicist, who proposed strangelet concept (which I personally consider equivalent to Randall-Sundrum model), too. Supersymmetry at its best.

  8. Seven Reasons for Demanding an LHC Safety Conference

    1) Black holes cannot evaporate because their horizon is effectively infinitely far away in spacetime according to my new interpretation of the Schwarzschild metric [1].

    2) Black holes are effectively uncharged [1]. Therefore, charged elementary particles cannot at the same time be black holes (or point-shaped). Hence non-point-shaped mini objects exist already. This makes mini black holes much more likely.

    3) Mini black holes grow exponentially rather than linearly inside the earth: "mini-quasar principle". Hence the time needed by a resident mini black hole to eat the earth is maximally shortened – perhaps down to “50 months”. This contrasts with the "50 million Years" obtained assuming linear growth by BBC Horizon and CERN’s analogous "5 billion years"

    4) CERN [4, 5] counters that if the hoped-for mini black holes are stable as claimed, equal stable particles must arise naturally by ultra-fast cosmic-ray protons colliding with planet bound protons. However, there remains a fundamental difference: Only the man-made ones are "symmetrically generated" and hence dangerous. For they alone are slow enough with respect to the earth that one of them (at less than 11 km/sec) can take residence – in contrast to the almost luminal speeds of their natural cousins.

  9. Busza, Jaffe, Sandweiss, and Wilczek regarded a one-in-5,000 risk of destroying Earth as
    "comfortable." It's a risk of Hirschsprung's disease, Down's syndrome or the risk of melanoma syndrome development during human lifetime.

  10. Today, an international group of critics and experts filed a complaint at the HRC at Geneva concerning risks and dangers of the planned experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) operated by the CERN in Switzerland.


    Please take a closer look at this important paper including a detailed physical part describing the scientific discourse but also having a general and very profound approach to the topic with clear suggestions to improve safety and to urgently set new standards in high energy particle collider risk evaluation.

    Request to CERN Council and Member States on LHC


  11. "Ancient" USA technology still outperforms the overpriced project of EU. A peak luminosity of LHC 5 x 1029cm-2s-1 is still THREE ORDERS bellow the perfomance of twenty years old Tevatron at Fermilab, which routinely operates at the luminosity 3-4 x 1032cm-2s-1. Illustratively speaking, they're getting the total number of collisions produced at the LHC this year about every couple of minutes. The current luminosity at LHC is almost certainly not enough to find new physics, despite the massive CERN propaganda, the main purpose of which is just to justify jobs for five thousands of physicists involved.