What's the worst case, but still realistic, scenario for the LHC?
People always seem to be hand wringing over it, but from what I've read CERN has everything under control.
What's the worst case, but still realistic, scenario for the LHC?
David Turner
Other urls found in this thread:
cc.com
csicop.org
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
twitter.com
Liam Diaz
It breaks and costs us a lot of money. There's no even small-scale existential risk.
Future particle accelerators of much higher power really might carry some massive, global or cosmic level risks. The LHC is nowhere near that though.
Noah Diaz
Worst: it gets shut down because stupidity.
Brandon Roberts
I see.
Thanks for answering my question!
Henry Ross
quick plug for the bit King Current Year did back when he and the daily show were still pretty good.
cc.com
The guy he interviews actually uses the "50% chance because it will or it won't" meme.
The physicist in it also answers you OP
Chase Allen
>that shitty cable management
Should've hired a professional PC builder t b h.
Hudson Russell
*cough-MAX-IV-cough*
Jace Garcia
They didn't even put any RGB LED strips or GAYMING components on it. Weak.
Brayden Foster
What are you hinting at? Did I miss something new or is this still about the black hole bullshit?
Jackson Bell
They weren't worried about black holes. They were worried about this:
csicop.org
This scares me more than anything:
telegraph.co.uk
Henry Johnson
Joseph Bell
lol
Sebastian Reyes
Worst case scenario: it shuts down because a wild animal got electrocuted somewhere on the site.
James Stewart
>accelerating a bunch of particles close to light speed under the ground
>dangerous
Matthew Carter
>This scares me more than anything:
Nathaniel Torres
Strangelet production is the real fear, that is true. It's less likely for the LHC than it was for the RHIC though, and still doesn't avoid the simple objection that right now we're not producing higher energy collisions than what already happens in our atmosphere, meaning the increase in risk is nonexistent.
Lincoln Cox
Yea, that's right.
I was a freshman in college when this all came about and that was my argument from the start. It was still a concern to the point that several faculty involved with the project explained to the uninformed why it was stupid to worry.
Landon Evans
Or, it keeps running and doesn't find anything new, which may not actually be that unlikely at this point.
We could use some new particles to explain certain things like DM.
Jaxon Wilson
>We could use some new particles to explain certain things like DM
Only 5 am, already dumbest post of the day
Christian Anderson
>see DM
>probably not a SM particle
>postulate new particle with the right properties
>never find the thing
how's that not an issue again?
Charles Scott
nvm me just testing
[math]div{B}=0[/math]
[math]divD=\rho[/math]
[math]rotE=-frac{\partial D}{\partial t}[/math]
[math]rotH=j+frac{\partial H}{\partial t}[/math]
[math]\overrightarrow{E} /overrightarrow{E}[/math]