Earth Can Implode Because of Large Hadron Collider Experiments
Martin Rees, British Astronomer Royal and Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge, describes existential threats facing Earth, including climate change, nuclear war and artificial intelligence in his new book, “On the future prospects for humanity.” Among the threats, Rees cites risks related to the use particle accelerators. Experts, however, say that Rees’s predictions are hypothetical, not backed by scientific facts.
The cosmologist suggests that the scientists who are conducting experiments using particle accelerators — such as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, which breaks down atoms to quarks — particles, that make up protons and neutrons — are playing with fire, as the LHC can theoretically destroy all humanity.
High collision speeds at the Large Hadron Collider has helped scientists discover the existence of the Higgs boson and measure the mass and other parameters of the particle, thus validating decades of research about the basic building blocks of matter. However, according to Rees, these achievements carry certain risks for the planet.
Professor Martin Rees identifies three possible risks associated with the use of a particle accelerator on the Earth, the first of which is the formation of a black hole, which can absorb everything around Earth.
According to Pavel Ivanov, Chief Researcher of the Physical Institute. P. N. Lebedeva RAS, there are many hypotheses in modern science, but only a few are confirmed.
“In order for a collision of particles to form a black hole, their total energy must exceed 1019 gigaelectronvolt (GeV, the so-called Planck energy), which by many orders of magnitude exceeds the energy achievable on modern accelerators,” Ivanov told Asgardia Space News.
However, Ivanov explains, there are theories about the additional dimensions that can be felt by particles only when they reach a certain energy.
“If the ‘volume’ of additional energies is large enough, then the Planck energy corresponding to the multidimensional world will decrease so much that the energy of the particles (which are already beginning to feel additional measurements at such energies) on the accelerator will be enough to form black holes that can gobble Earth up,” he said.
The second risk is quarks, which can reassemble into compressed objects called strangelets. In general, it is a safe practice; however, according to some hypotheses, strangelets can transform everything they encounter into a new form of matter, turning the entire Earth into a superdense sphere about 180 metres wide.
“There are theories where at a sufficiently high density of matter or at sufficiently high energies, strange quarks do not break up into ordinary (upper and downer) and matter goes into a ‘strange’ state with nuclear density. Using a mathematical formula, we can calculate by how much our planet can be decreased. It turns out, that the Earth could hypothetically decrease to approximately 180 metres, which is consistent with Rees estimate about 300 feet,” said Ivanov.
The third risk associated with particle accelerators is related to a catastrophe that can engulf space itself. Empty space — what physicists call a vacuum — is more than just non-existence. It hides the forces and particles that control the physical world. The existing vacuum can be fragile and unstable.
“It is known that in space, there are particles with energies far greater than those achievable on accelerators, for example, cosmic rays of ultrahigh energies. It is not clear why the stars and planets bombarded by these rays did not turn into strange objects or black holes,” Ivanov told Asgardia Space News.
In a sense, Martin Reese’s predictions are not incorrect, even if somewhat unlikely. The astronomer does explain in his book that many scientific advances may have risks, but this does not mean that we should stop exploring the Earth and the Universe, writing: “Innovation is often hazardous, but if we don’t take risks we may forgo benefits. Undiluted application of the ‘precautionary principle’ has a manifest downside. There is ‘the hidden cost of saying no’.”
Image credit: CERN
Learn more on Asgardia.Space
