Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
IcerocketLarge Hadron Collider Probably Won't Destroy Earth
The Large Hadron Collider, the giant particle accelerator that's scheduled to begin colliding protons in August, has the potential to produce the long-sought Higgs boson. That elusive particle is a missing link in the commonly accepted model of physics. Observing it would be an important milestone in our understanding of the fundamental forces of the universe.
Related Articles
 | Take an Amazing Virtual Tour of a 27-kilometer Particle Accelerator |
| The Un-Particle |
 | Can This Machine Rescue Physics? |
Tags
SciTech, black holes, large hadron collider, lhc, paul adamsMicroscopic black holes, because of their tinyness, are not expected to live long enough to pose a threat; they should decay very rapidly. If one does turn out to be stable, the study predicts that "the rate at which absorption would take place would be so slow . . . that Earth would survive for billions of years before any harm befell it."
Strangelets–fragments of strange matter–have the potential to convert ordinary matter to strange matter, but the research concludes that it is extremely unlikely strangelets could be produced at the LHC.
According to the review, any hypothetical objects created by the collider would be equivalent to ones that are created without physicists' help, by the effect of cosmic radiation on Earth and other local bodies. Since cosmic rays–and earlier colliders, like the the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider in New York–have not destroyed the Earth, odds are the Large Hadron Collider won't either.
[Via arXiv.org]
Subscribe to Popular Science and enter to win $5,000!
8 Comments
Popular Tags
SciTech on Popular Science
Regular Features
Popular Science Photo Pool
Featured
SciTech
A Geek's Guide to Colleges
Where to go if you want to clone mules, hunt aliens, or just build a better videogame
Searching For Dark Matter In the World's Deepest Underground Lab
Will scientists find dark matter 4,850 feet below the surface of the earth? If not, maybe at 8,000 feet
Popular on Popsci
Most Viewed
SciTech
- Your Next House Could Come Out of a Printer
- FYI: Why Does My Voice Sound Different When I Hear it On a Recording?
- GeoEye-1 Captures Poised Space Shuttle Endeavour
- Exclusive: Colored Bubbles Have Landed (and Popped and Vanished)
- Berkeley Lab Builds a Desktop Particle Accelerator
- Seismic Invisibility Cloak Could Hide Buildings From Earthquakes
- Funding The Machine That "Might Save The World"
- For the First Time, Scientists Photograph Memories Being Formed
- A Magnetic Machine Plucks Pathogens from Blood
- What's It Like to Name An Element on the Periodic Table?
Most Commented
SciTech
- Win Jonathan Coulton's New DVD/CD Set!
- Your Next House Could Come Out of a Printer
- Robot Jellyfish Swims Just Like The Real Thing
- How to Lose Traffic and Alienate People: The Revenge!
- What's It Like to Name An Element on the Periodic Table?
- Funding The Machine That "Might Save The World"
- Video: Tiny AMOLED Screens In Passports Make Your Head Spin
- Node Outlet, Where Have You Been?
- Carnivorous Electronics Power Themselves With Digested Insects
- First Solid-State Quantum Computer Processor Created
Most Emailed
SciTech
- Carnivorous Electronics Power Themselves With Digested Insects
- New Fireproof Coating Could Help Prevent Housefires
- FYI: Why Does My Voice Sound Different When I Hear it On a Recording?
- Oldest Musical Instrument Found
- Your Next House Could Come Out of a Printer
- A Magnetic Machine Plucks Pathogens from Blood
- Node Outlet, Where Have You Been?
- Berkeley Lab Builds a Desktop Particle Accelerator
- First Solid-State Quantum Computer Processor Created
- It’s Come To This: Gold Vending Machine Debuts In German Airport
Subscribe for 2 free issues!
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2009 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
That is true even if it was stable it would take too ong for ti to gain enough force for there to be soon problems. There are also many of these microscopic black holes in the atmoshpere especially the upper lecels.
the.nerd.herd.group.googlepages.com
No problem, belive me, the LHC cannot harm the planet.
I hypothesize that black holes are not possible, based on my
analysis of the origins of gravity and inertia, they have natural
limitations. See cosmicdarkmatter.com
I hope it gets up and running and starts collecting data soon. I've got alot of POP$ on this in PPX.
so if we could aim it could we give aliens cancer?
also the title says that it probably won't, i sure hope it doesn't, iron man would have to finally teem up with spider-man to stop it just before so that we would have a massively deformed earth.
from Virginia Beach, VA
I think that even the possibility of these problems turning up. Are hugely outweighed by things we will learn from it. so bring it on....
Awesome video on YouTube "You Prefer Your Collider": youtube.com/watch?v=A1L2xODZSI4
Have you read CERNs SPC Committee's Safety Report disclaimer?
"this argument relies on properties of cosmic rays and neutrinos that, while highly plausible, do require confirmation"
(indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=20&resId=0&materialId=0&confId=35065)
So... Dr. Rosser might still be correct: "...after 50 months the earth to a centimeter would have shrunk"
More at LHCFacts.org
50 months to destroy the earth? That's OK, if John McWar and I are elected in November we'll have started WW III well before then. Don't worry ... be happy in God's War!!!
So if the LHC is successful in colliding protons would it produce any harness-able energy at all? or if so any waste? plus this reminds me of the Manhattan project when the scientists' said this will either be successful or kill the whole world in a chain reaction. so they did it any way because if it did end up killing the world, no one would complain. they had a good point.