let's talk about LHC security.

So, LHC - Large (although some paranoids, like me, prefer the word Last) Hadron Collider. Or speaking in ordinary language, this is a bandura for pushing hadrons, protons, for example, which have energies of the order of 10 TeV - 10 terraelectrons volts, that is, with those that an electron could gain in a field of 10 terVolts, running one meter in it. Nehilaya bandura, for the first time allowing to reach such energies, but ... Europeans want to spend their billions on such banduras, let them spend it. It would seem, what do we care? But the problem is this.



(1) Theoretical physics predicts the creation of black holes at such energies. Microscopic, small, but black holes, that is, such configurations of matter that do not let out even the light from themselves. Scary. CERN believes that these microscopic black holes will evaporate through Hawking radiation or will not be able to interact with matter. I would like to emphasize that these arguments are purely theoretical, while purely strange topological, which are based on modern cool mathematics, the truth of which even mathematicians themselves sometimes call into question. Yes, even in these arguments with this mathematics very freely.
')
But on the other hand, theories exist and the probability of creating black holes is high, some physicists (probably insane, similar to Dr. Evil) even hope for it. But what is the likelihood that these black holes evaporate? The point is that the creation of these holes and their evaporation are predicted by DIFFERENT theories, between which there is no necessary logical connective: if holes can be created, then they will definitely evaporate.

In addition, experimental evidence that the holes do not evaporate. In addition, there are theoretical works that prove the opposite: black holes do not evaporate. What is the result?

(1.1) A black hole (perhaps, perhaps, there is such a probability) will be created at the LHC. And (1.2) the black hole (perhaps, perhaps, such a possibility exists) will not begin to evaporate and will be able to draw matter down. A creepy picture, even taking into account the fact that many physicists consider the probability (1.2) to be negligible. But on the other hand, each physicist can calculate the insignificant smallness of the probability of his birth.

(2) You think black holes - is it creepy? Ha, blissful unknowing. The scariest thing is the stringlets. These are particles that act on other particles in such a way that other particles are transformed into linelets. And rangelets can also be obtained by experiments on the LHC. Generally speaking, physicists believe that these rangelets will be positively charged and, therefore, will not be able to come close enough to protons ... BUT, there are theoretical works that show that rangelets can be charged negatively, with all the consequences for the surrounding matter . So, we again have two horrible positions. (2.1) Linelets can be obtained at LHC, and (2.2) linelets can begin to turn ordinary matter into linelets. The probability (2.2) is estimated by physicists as small, but according to physicists, the probability of the origin of life on planet Earth is even less.

Personally, it all scares me. Honestly, well. And at the same time, it is not necessary to assume that I am here making statements that science should be stopped, that progress is evil and similar. I am for progress. Artificial intelligence in tanks and machine guns - please. Deadly viruses - develop nazdorie, suddenly find something interesting. Gray death from nanoapokallipsisa - do, if you really do not want to live in peace. And so on and so forth. But the LHC ... scares. Everything else can still somehow fight, resist, survive, but what to do if the very structure of space and time, matter, makes life and any other complex organization impossible?

For me, so every reasonable person who has the opportunity to get to the LHC construction site should do this and protest there against rash actions preoccupied only with funding and their own physicists priority.

PS In general, there is some small group of physicists who oppose this experiment. Their representation on the Internet is www.risk-evaluation-forum.org . However, against it is not true. They are in favor of demanding a detailed analysis of the two catastrophic opportunities described above from the top scientific LHC. They (and I) would be happy if they were shown the inconsistency of these fears, but the behavior of scientists from CERN on this occasion raises serious doubts that such an analysis was conducted and that there is something other than pure CERN 'faith sheep in small (in this case, just in small, without specific numbers) the likelihood that catastrophic scenarios are possible.

At the same time, CERN is quite aggressive in trying to publish these doubts about the reasonableness of launching the LHC without such serious analysis. For example, in wikipedia, on a page describing the LHC, material about these risks is constantly being killed. Someone in the comments already called it the information war.

Perhaps the most serious argument of CERN in favor of the fact that the LHC is safe is that the particles of cosmic radiation constantly bombard the Earth, the Moon, the Sun and other Lego visible astronomical objects. And cosmic radiation contains particles with energies millions of times larger than what is possible to get at the LHC. This would be reassuring if it were not for the conservation laws of momentum, which says that the fragments from such a collision would have less momentum, of course, but surely directed to where the attacking particle flew. The results of such collisions can simply be carried out from the solar system. And in the LHC proton collisions will be head-on with the complete abolition of oncoming movements.

This is how it is. Maybe I played in the second episode of Half-life, but May 2008 is approaching.