James Blodgett on Risks
James Blodgett has a masters degree is statisitcs and leads the Mensa Special Interest Group Global Risk Reduction
(Orginally posted at LHC Concerns)
Why are physicists building a collider if it is dangerous? Why are they not worried? I have talked to a bunch of physicists. I will tell you my model.
At first, physicists had good reason to think that there was no problem. When Walter Wagner suggested in 1999 that black holes might be created, fairly simple math (even Wagner’s own math) showed that the energy required would be beyond the reach of any collider. The collider of interest at the time was the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven, which started up in 2000. Brookhaven produced a safety paper that listed several safety factors. To this day, physicists still cite that paper to show that there is no problem.
The problem was, subsequent physics papers eroded several of the safety factors. String theorists developed a new theory that showed how colliders could create black holes. The theory behind Hawking radiation, supposed to dissipate black holes, was found to have theoretical problems. And so forth. It is somewhat like a frog in water that is slowly heated. The frog will not notice the heat.
Part of the problem is that physicists are not risk analysts. They feel, correctly, that the theories that permit trouble are a small subset of all theories, so that trouble is not likely. As one physicist said to me “You do not understand probability. A probability of 0.001 means it is not going to happen.” Well, I have a master’s degree in statistics. I do understand probability. What the physicist did not understand is that 0.001 times the value of Earth gives a tremendous negative expected value. We should NOT be taking chances like that. A shuttle astronaut faces similar personal risks at every launch. If physicists where shuttle astronauts, we would applaud their confidence in their craft and their willingness to back up their confidence by risking their lives. However, a shuttle astronaut is a volunteer. A commercial airplane with a 0.001 risk would not be allowed to fly. A commercial airplane carries many passengers who did not volunteer for a risky mission. The Earth has 6.5 billion passengers, so we should hope for a risk to Earth that is less than that of a commercial airplane.
I once interviewed a physicist who had written an article for a popular publication telling us not to worry. His reasons were not clear from the article, so I asked him over lunch. It was a stimulating conversation, he seemed to be a nice guy, and he paid for lunch. His reason turned out to be that he did not believe in any kind of black hole. As he said, “When an equation goes to infinity, that is a sign that there is something wrong with the equation.” He has a point, and he might just be right. But that is not what most physicists believe. I applaud him for his theoretical creativity. I understand why he might not be personally concerned. But he doesn’t quite realize that he is betting the Earth, and telling others it is okay to bet the Earth, based on a theory that many would question.
Scientists are used to testing theories carefully. In order to publish, data need to be statistically significant, and they need to pass peer review. They tend to think like this about risk too, wanting it to be proven before they will believe it. (Consider, “The risk is only 50%, that is not proven, so we will launch.”) To address this, risk specialists have developed what they call the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle reverses the burden of proof in areas of scientific risk. Precaution does not need to prove risks to a high degree of confidence. Rather, the burden of proof is on those who propose risky experiments, to show that they are safe. The precautionary principle has been touted by many risk specialists, and has been formally accepted by the European Union, the home of CERN. Unfortunately, many scientists are not used to this type of thinking, are not aware of the precautionary principle, or if aware do not like it. Even those who accept it are sometimes reluctant to apply it. Even though the precautionary principle has been formally adopted by the European Union, EU functionaries are currently passing the buck as to who is responsible for its implementation.
The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is Europe’s moon shot. They have spent billions. It will bring them back to the preeminence in physics they enjoyed in 1910, when Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg were all Europeans. Also, a sizable portion of the world’s physicists are working on the LHC, or on theories that will be impacted by the LHC. They are reluctant to hear that it might have a problem. If that problem is a low probability risk, that is a risk they are willing to take, or rather willing to ignore.
I should add that estimates of components of collider risk are quite subjective and quite variable. In 2004, I tried a series of Delphi questionnaires in which I asked physicists their estimates of several components of collider risk. As an example of the variability, estimates that Hawking radiation would fail ranged from 0% to 50%. The data are as follows: 0, 0, 1E-10, 0.001, 0.01, 0.01, 0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.07, 0.1, 0.1, 0.3, 0.35, 0.5. This was at the time that CERN was relying on Hawking radiation, before we were aware of the papers questioning its theoretical background. I guess that estimates would be higher now. (Note that even then, when Hawking radiation was relied upon by CERN, most physicists estimated a non- zero probability that it would fail.) Also, ten of these physicists were aware of my interest in the collider issue from the Delphi instructions. A few may have been shading their estimates to game the results. CERN’s Chief Scientific Officer, Jos Engelen, was quoted in the New Yorker as instructing CERN scientists to say that the risk (the overall risk of the LHC) is zero.
The model of risk in the Delphi questionnaires was [ Total risk ] = [ Risk that black holes would be created ] x [ Risk that Hawking radiation would fail ] x [ Risk that accretion would be rapid ] x [ Any other risk factor they propose ]. (These probabilities were stated as successively conditional, given that the earlier ones were true.) Ten of the physicists received these questionnaires, the others received a preliminary questionnaire. The fact that none proposed a fourth factor at least suggests that this model is plausible. I would consider the collider/cosmic ray analogy as a separate consideration that would limit the risk calculated by this model, but that should not be calculated into it.
May 24th, 2008 at 4:04 am
I posted the following on the Wikipedia discussion page for the Large Hadron Collider
Supportable Risk Calculation
Are CERN’s calculations of no risk from MBH (Micro Black Holes) supportable and accurate? Has CERN published any scientifically supportable risk analysis other than the article titled: Microscopic black holes will not eat you… published at CERN’s Safety Web Site
My research [of existing published material] indicates [based on some assumptions] a risk of up to 10% of a single MBH being captured by Earth’s gravity per month of LHC operation. Supporting assumptions and estmates: CERN states that microscopic black holes might be created at a rate of one per secondCERN Safety (USA Today).
Assuming that that CERN’s prediction is correct, [experimental physicist Greg Landsberg at Brown University in Providence, R.I.] estimated in 2004 that 10 million microscopic black holes could be created by LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in a year and 1 in a million would be captured by Earth’s gravity if Hawking Radiation fails to cause the HMBs to evaporate (Live Science). James Blodgett published survey results from 15 physicists estimating odds between 0% and 50% that Hawking Radiation would fail, with an average estimate of 9.9% for failure. However [Greg Landsberg] also estimated that a single stable microscopic black hole would grow so slowly that it would not be a threat to Earth, though other physicists estimate much faster growth patterns. –Jtankers (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler warns that the experiment may result in the black hole destroying the planet within 50 million years. His own calculations indicate that this time frame may in fact be closer to 50 months…
Dr. Raj Baldev, April 10, 2008, Director of Nuclear Research, says in the International Reporter “But the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”
May 24th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Actually the risks may be closer to 0% or closer to 100%. There is too much that we don’t know to be able to know.
My personal opinion is that the risk is more likely to be closer to 100% based on my research and assumptions.
The legal action estimates 75% risk with a very high degree of uncertainty.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
A factor defining risk could be based on setting safe margins for correctly generating predicted particles. The Higgs boson must be found to prove Quantum Mechanics is right about gravity
Right there we run into the biggest problem of all. To create a Higgs boson requires about 160 GeV with a reasonable margin of error. Already the TeVatron is generating 1,960 GeV collisions. CERN will generate 10,000 GeV collisions using protons in the first summer of testing. Then at full luminosity at some future point up to 14,000 GeV. Then with the upgrade planned to use lead particles 1,048,000 GeV collisions.
Currently:-
At 1,960 GeV the margin is about 12 times the energy required.
Very soon:-
At 10,000 GeV the margin goes to 62 times the energy required.
At 14,000 GeV the margin goes to 87 times the energy required.
At 1,048,000 GeV the margin goes to 6550 times the energy required.
Even more powerful particle accelerators are in the planning only stage.
Science is about testing theories, not setting margins.
All that is in place and all that is yet to come will be set by legislation or not at all.
Michael.
September 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Its inconcebible the we are discussing the Risk of Ending the World is just Estupid!..
even if its 0.002% Shouldnt be made!.
I mean we are talking about the entire life here!
are we crazy? talking about LHC percentages of risks?. this is stupid and should be stopped!. a cientific can do an experiment when the risk is controled even if its 50-50 its enclosed to a limited area or persons not the total world!!
September 13th, 2008 at 2:19 am
masterdi,
Welcome to the world of the understatement. Your point cannot be overstated.
Another
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
The mad CERN ’s project.
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends - antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before - “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
===========================..
The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
====================..
P.S.
Will CERN find the God - Particle?
Hawking bets CERN will not find the God Particle
http://www.physorg.com/news140161003.html
================..
Article by Ivan Gorelik.
What will LHC give us:
the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?
Magnetic trap is an axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole.
It is 10^36 stronger than gravitational black hole.
CERNs specialists do not know about the magnetic trap yet. If
microscopic magnetic trap will be made in CERN’s LHC, the Earth
will be transformed into an infinitely thin emptiness, surrounded
by circular current of 6 meter radius. Compare: Schwarzschild radius
of such mass is 0,009 meters.
Minimal possible magnetic trap has mass, which is equivalent to
1 TeV, or about 1055 masses of neutrons. It has magnetic field,
which is equal to 3*10^16 teslas. Magnetic trap is a magnetic dipole,
which can be imagined as an infinitely thin coil, creating the critica
magnetic field.
Neutrons are smallest neutral magnets and they can be captured by
magnetic trap, ejecting neutrino. Protons are also magnets and they
can also be captured by the trap, ejecting positrons. Neutrons and
protons are fermions, but after neutrino or positron ejection, they
become bosons, - the quanta of stationery magnetic field of neutron
hole.
Half of mass of captured particles goes to the energy of ejected
particles, and the second half goes to the magnetic trap’s magnetic
field. As a result of particle capture the radius of magnetic trap
becomes bigger. It looks as widespreading magnetic soliton.
If magnetic trap of Devil will be made on collider, if the process of
it’s growth will be slow (months, years), you will cry from pane, and
your aggression towards big-bangers, who had made the experiment,
will be much more, than mine aggression now. You will want to
cut sir Hawking and other crazy big-bangers on small pieces.
Now I am forced to convince the prosecutor’s department to open the
criminal case against Rubakov V.A. If you will make the same in your
countries against arrant big-bangers, we will survive. Otherwise we’ll
die, with probability about 50%.
Only crazy people can try to create particles with the rest mass more
then 1000 masses of nucleon. It is possible that in the region from
1000 to 7000 aum, there can be created hundreds types of particles and
resonances. It is clear, that the most of them will decay. But some of
them will grow, capturing the ordinary matter.
Different types of growing particles will work on different forces,
and on combinations of forces.
I hope that mBHs, connected by gravity force, are impossible and safe.
But magnetic traps are 10^36 stronger, and they are the most probable
candidates to explain the majority of cosmic catastrophes – novae,
supernovae… I had understood this only this September.
Academician Migdal wrote 30 years ago about pion condensation in
strong fields. As a result he had come to conclusion that neutron
stars can have any masses. My approximate computation shows that
the minimal possible neutron star has a mass, equal to 1055 masses
of nucleons, and such embryo of neutron star can by made in collider.
A month ago the article were published that new strange unexpected
particle was discovered at Tevatron. It decays at several muons, up to
eight units. Somebody had already named it the Halloween particle. I
named it the muon hole.
What will be made the next, the magnetic trap of Devil? It will not
decay, but it will transform us into it’s magnetic field.
Those persons, with high ranks and high scientific degrees, who cry
about the safety of LHC must be arrested now, because they are
committing the global terrorist crime now.
Stop Tevatron and close the LHC. Throw out big-bangers from
universities. Big Bang never was. The Universe is ever young.
Hubble constant (H, Hbar) is the mirror reflection of Plank
constant (h, hbar). These both constants are describing the 4d-rotation
on opposite scales relatively us. Precise value of Hubble constant you
can find on my web-site. http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ That is my Steady
State model of Universe. I worked with this model more than 30 years,
and I did not receive any cent for my work. And now big-bangers want
to kill me, my children, and all of you. Big-bangers want to touch the
particle of God, but thus, they lead all of us into the magnetic trap
of Devil.
/ Ivan Gorelik /.