Hi,

Are the LHC and the FCC projects - really - secure. I have though been "investigating" these types of projects in the "layman" view of "security" since about 2003.

Does it exist any sort of physics that to a 100% risk level makes such projects secure?

/chron44

Edited yesterday at 07:35 AM1 day by chron44

1 hour ago, chron44 said:

Hi,

Are the LHC and the FCC projects - really - secure. I have though been "investigating" these types of projects in the "layman" view of "security" since about 2003.

Does it exist any sort of physics that to a 100% risk level makes such projects secure?

/chron44

What are you talking about? These are particle colliders for science experiments, not bombs.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by exchemist

Explain what you mean by secure.

7 hours ago, chron44 said:

I have though been "investigating" these types of projects in the "layman" view of "security" since about 2003.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/why-conspiracy-theorists-are-obsessed-with-cern.htm

But could the Large Hadron Collider and CERN also be at the heart of potentially planet-destroying experiments? Theories run rampant. When the collider was experiencing setbacks and delays in the early 2000s, some thought that perhaps a time-traveler from the future was returning to the past to deliberately sabotage it in order to prevent some disaster. This supposed time-traveler tried everything — including a time-traveling bird with a baguette — but the collider was turned on in 2012 anyway.

Other theories accuse CERN of causing earthquakes by sending plasma from Switzerland to Italy at high speeds, opening portals into hell or other dimensions, and shifting the world into an alternate timeline. In 2015, CERN even admitted it's attempted to create tiny black holes so scientists can study antimatter. CERN insists its research, including that of microscopic black holes, is perfectly safe, but some theorists believe it could cause a collapse of the entire universe.

12 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/why-conspiracy-theorists-are-obsessed-with-cern.htm

“Some theorists”? Anyone apart from nutters?

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

“Some theorists”? Anyone apart from nutters?

I think the use of the phrase is a signal in this article. I get the feeling "some" implies a fringe support, and "theorists" implies that they may be "theorizing" or just professing a strong suspicion or belief.

In print, I rarely see scientists, even those involved in developing a theory, referred to as "theorists". Is it different in professional life?

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

“Some theorists”? Anyone apart from nutters?

I think they are glossing over the nature of the “theories” that are being cited. I can imagine there being some conjecture out there that predict that certain outcomes are possible (though perhaps still unlikely), and these got amplified, but the fact that naturally-occurring events haven’t precipitated these outcomes is ignored.

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I think the use of the phrase is a signal in this article. I get the feeling "some" implies a fringe support, and "theorists" implies that they may be "theorizing" or just professing a strong suspicion or belief.

In print, I rarely see scientists, even those involved in developing a theory, referred to as "theorists". Is it different in professional life?

You may be right. I think those specialising in developing scientific theory would generally be described as theoreticians.

In about 2003 national media in some "half-serious" short articles was reporting about average ppl's concern over ongoing or planing of the LHC "project". I myself wasn't that worried, but I noticed that the reassurances from the CERN staff wasn't 100% OK, just 99.999999... or something like that. -For the negative chance of any sort of unexpected incidence of any sort possible. The standard manner of mentioning extreme high energy particles from outer space reaching velocities and energies far over any LHC capacity, when entering earths atmosphere did settle my worry on any "unfortunate" incident.

Although when handling the most powerful machine ever built for experiments - and - "only" referring to outer space particle entering earths atmosphere for common reassurances of its impossible hazardous character. -This type of reassurance although, for me at that time, did hint on both a very extreme small risk of any hazard, and it hinted on a not fully (100%) comprehended physics involved.

OK, I took this as an hobby project for to "investigate" this "double" extreme small hazard risk.

Nowadays I'm 100% convinced over such powerful physics projects, to be non-hazardous.

/chron44

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by chron44
grammar problems

Whatever you do, don't cross the streams.

-- Dr Egon Spengler

2 hours ago, chron44 said:

In about 2003 national media in some "half-serious" short articles was reporting about average ppl's concern over ongoing or planing of the LHC "project". I myself wasn't that worried, but I noticed that the reassurances from the CERN staff wasn't 100% OK, just 99.999999... or something like that. -For the negative chance of any sort of unexpected incidence of any sort possible. The standard manner of mentioning extreme high energy particles from outer space reaching velocities and energies far over any LHC capacity, when entering earths atmosphere did settle my worry on any "unfortunate" incident.

Although when handling the most powerful machine ever built for experiments - and - "only" referring to outer space particle entering earths atmosphere for common reassurances of its impossible hazardous character. -This type of reassurance although, for me at that time, did hint on both a very extreme small risk of any hazard, and it hinted on a not fully (100%) comprehended physics involved.

OK, I took this as an hobby project for to "investigate" this "double" extreme small hazard risk.

Nowadays I'm 100% convinced over such powerful physics projects, to be non-hazardous.

/chron44

Quantum mechanics deals with probabilities; if you were familiar with it, not having 100% certainty would be utterly unsurprising.

14 hours ago, chron44 said:

Hi,

Are the LHC and the FCC projects - really - secure. I have though been "investigating" these types of projects in the "layman" view of "security" since about 2003.

Does it exist any sort of physics that to a 100% risk level makes such projects secure?

/chron44

This kind of thinking has a tendency to snowball that, as I remember, reached a peak somewhere around 2008, bordering into horror-sci-fi:

https://cerncourier.com/a/the-day-the-world-switched-on-to-particle-physics/

News values

Fears that the LHC would create a planet-eating black hole were a key factor behind the enormous media interest, says Roger Highfield, who was science editor of the UK’s The Telegraph newspaper at the time. “I have no doubt that the public loved all the stuff about the hunt for the secrets of the universe, the romance of the Peter Higgs story and the deluge of superlatives about energy, vacuum and all that,” says Highfield. “But the LHC narrative was taken to a whole new level by the potty claim by doomsayers that it could create a black hole to swallow the Earth. When ‘the biggest and most complex experiment ever devised’ was about to be turned on, it made front-page news, with headlines like, ‘Will the world end on Wednesday?’”.

I remember arguments both from theory (evaporation of black holes) and experiment (existence of high-energy particles from cosmic rays) putting the matter to rest.