- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Commerce
- Register/Login
- RSS
Nuclear Holocausts are So 1950s
I was recently re-watching the movie Thirteen Days, which is about the Cuban Missile Crises. The movie is intense, intelligent, and leaves you without any desire to run for political office. Afterward, I was discussing the show with the beautiful woman who was watching with me (women make everything more fun-- even the Cold War) and she said, "I don't feel like we're in that much danger from nuclear weapons anymore." That struck me as an odd comment, but when I thought about it, she had a point. When was the last time you were afraid of a nuclear holocaust? If you were born after 1990, you may not even have thought about it unless you were watching Terminator on TV.
Why aren't we as worried about that anymore? For starters, we aren't fighting with Russia anymore (at least not seriously), Pakistan can't hit us and China would want us to repay all of our loans before destroying us. Second, if Saddam didn't have them, then it goes without saying that there aren't other nut cases that do have them. Third, we've gotten used to nuclear energy, and there's a big initiative to create many more nuclear power plants; in fact, isn't nuclear energy considered green now?
Another interesting thought that came to mind was that science has either invented or brought to light so many more ways of destroying the planet since Oppenheimer's day that nuclear holocaust is only one of a myriad of scenarios. We have chemical agents, killer viruses, global warming, destructive meteors and anything that creates zombies or mutants, not to mention intelligent computer networks. We've been there and done that with post-apocalyptic capabilities, and our creativity has become increasingly impressive.
Take the new supercollider being built in Europe. A couple of people complained that the collider could create a black hole that would be impossible to stop and which would eat the Earth. But the physicists involved say that that's ridiculous and that there's no way that could ever happen, at least not on a large scale. They're going ahead with it and it should be ready in just a few months more.
You may have noticed that this is exactly the plot line of every major "science gone horribly wrong" movie. The stubborn scientist says it's fine, the rogue intellect realizes the danger, the experiment begins, all heck breaks loose and the intellect has to save the day with the help of some attractive cohorts. I don't think any of that will happen with the supercollider, (although I'm sure that many scientific cohorts are attractive).
You may have read that there was considerable debate about whether the A-bomb would ignite the atmosphere before it was tested, but luckily it only destroyed one city at a time. As unfounded as some of these fears may be, isn't it interesting that these scenarios can seem not only plausible, but imminent?
I bring this up because I wonder what we'll be scared of in 50 years. Are killer plagues no longer going to be a threat? Will global warming come and go? Will we be worried that the fragile new life system support on Mars won't last long enough to support the remaining humans? ARE WE ALL GOING TO DIE?
Don't worry. We'll be OK.
Here's my question, though. In all our years of being afraid of the end of life as we know it, has it helped us to progress? Is our imagination of the worst that could happen getting us anywhere, or is it just leading to unneeded stress? On the environmental side, fear has led to a positive turnaround. Our fear of deadly viruses is spurning all kinds of good research. On the nuclear side, well, we're making fewer bombs. All practical science is propelled by problems or conflicts, but does straight up global terror serve any good purpose outside of Hollywood?
Maybe someone from the future, (I'm talking to you, people reading through 500 years of Scienceblog archives) should find a way to send us a note about anything major that we should be worried about.
In the mean time, I've been practicing. I can duck and cover in under 4 seconds. Bring it on, climate change!
Submitted by Renaisauce on Fri, 2008-04-04 10:10.
- Renaisauce's blog
- Printer-friendly version
- 1749 reads
Re: Minimal Risks and Black Holes
Renaisauce:
I sure wish there was some way to make a black hole in the lab, whether or not it "lasts". :-)
One of the best testbeds I can think of for a theory that would incorporate all of General Relativity as well as all of Quantum Mechanics would be a microscopic black hole. To actually be able to do experiments on such, I believe, would be a real boon to physics. (That is, of course, if it didn't get away from us. :-( )
Since cosmic ray energies far exceed anything mankind can hope to produce in the foreseeable future, let alone the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), I don't expect we'll create anything this Earth hasn't already seen. (Besides, there is absolutely no way we can prove that any micro black holes this Earth has experience were traveling at velocities such as not to be gravitationally captured.)
Personally, I look forward to the LHC. Historically, whenever we achieve a new energy regime we have discovered many unexpected particles (usually ones that we would just as soon have never seen, since their inclusion usually disrupts our nice tidy models :-) ). We may also not discover any scalar Higgs (though I would hope we do actually discover something that will work at least as well).
David
Hawking Radiation
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation ) Hawking Radiation has never been observed in nature - this does not mean it does not exist. From the same article there is no mention of it being in conflict with Einstein's theory of relativity. Relativity ,too, was considered controversial until it was confirmed (the bending of starlight) by Eddington's experimental verification in the 1919 total eclipse of the sun.
From the Bludgeoner
Random Anonymous Internet Surfer Wrote:
"Try to avoid bludgeoning those around you with your clumsy ignorance."
Man, I leave town for a few days, I come back and WHAM! I've been hammered. I apologize for clumsily bludgeoning you. Next time I'll try to bludgeon you with more precision. But I am glad that there are people in near galaxies that are reading my blog entries (or were you kidding?)
I was surprised to read about North Korea, since I haven't heard anything about them since the 50's. Are they still communist?
Here's my question about that comment. If we aren't in danger from nuclear winter for reasons that I stated, why aren't we? You can't just say stuff without backing it up. Criticism does not a conversation make, pal.
I find Dr. Roessler's estimate interesting. 50 months? What would that be like? Has somebody actually modeled this? Who can outline a scenario for us? I'll set it up for you:
"Dr. Nuenhoshvengarder, from Tokyo, is working on a supercollider in Germany, when all of a sudden a miniature black hole forms inside. It defies the previous assumptions that such things become unstable, and it started to ...
(fill in the blank)
...until at last the planet was completely gone."
Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Accretion Tim
Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler estimates 50 months Earth accretion time from a single micro black hole captured by Earth's gravity (www.golem.de/0802/57477-4.html, translation at www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=52)
World not ending shock
JTankers wrote;
"However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity"
True, but how would that be relevant? Cosmic rays are not 'captured by Earths' gravity', they crash headlong into our atmosphere. And have been doing for several billion years without obvious ill effects.
"...and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einsteins highly successful relativity theory"
But Hawking Radiation *is* consistent with, and a natural consequence of the equally successful Quantum Theory.
Yours, looking forward to some interesting - but not too literally Earth shattering - results from the LHC
Dan Ibekwe
Even a broken clock is right twice a day
"Second, if Saddam didn't have them, then it goes without saying that there aren't other nut cases that do have them"
It should have went without saying. Try to avoid bludgeoning those around you with your clumsy ignorance. Kim Jong-il already has them and is definitely a nut job. The logical fallacies in your above statement glare so brightly as to blind anyone in the near galaxies of any points you may have hoped to make.
Which is sad, since, despite your clumsy delivery, we are not in danger of nuclear winter or holocaust, though not for reasons you gave.
Re: Minimal Risks and Black Holes
I've read that about the collider, and I think that they're right. It shouldn't be an issue. By the way, does anyone have any ideas on how to actually make a black hole that lasts? Is there a way to actually do that in a lab? Normally it takes a star imploding. Is there a way to do that in a garage or something?
Minimal Risk
CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.
However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, and Hawking Radiation is disputed and contradicts Einsteins highly successful relativity theory. Collider particles can be captured by Earths gravity, and relativity predicts micro black holes will not decay.
The LHC Safety Assessment Group promised to complete a proof of reasonable safety before the end of 2007, but unfortunately such proof may not be possible.
Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk.
(Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).
JTankers
LHCConcerns.com
Dilbert - Oops
Have you see the Dilbert Oops article, part of it below:
And who exactly ran the numbers to decide it wasn’t that risky? After all, the whole point of the Large Hadron Collider is to create conditions that are not predictable. If someone already predicted what would happen using nothing but his laptop and Excel, and determined it was safe, I don’t think we’re getting our $8 billion worth.
I can’t see the management of this project spending $8 billion, realizing it was a huge boner, and then holding a press conference suggesting it be turned into a parking garage. I’ll bet a lot of people in that position would take at least a 5% risk of incinerating the galaxy versus incinerating their own careers. I know I would.
Post new comment