I remember when the LHC came online some people were worried it had the potential to create micro blackholes that would consume the Earth which proved unfounded (obviously).

Could a physics experiment actually have the potential to if not outrightly destroy our planet, at least cause massive amounts of damage. For example a particle collider many magnitudes in size and power than the LHC.

Cymek said:

I remember when the LHC came online some people were worried it had the potential to create micro blackholes that would consume the Earth which proved unfounded (obviously).

Could a physics experiment actually have the potential to if not outrightly destroy our planet, at least cause massive amounts of damage. For example a particle collider many magnitudes in size and power than the LHC.

there is a big difference in what may be considered ‘massive amounts of damage’ and ‘complete destruction of the planet’.

care to narrow it down a little…

Maybe. There are theories suggesting that the universe is metastable (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum); if so, it may be possible for an experiment to tip the balance and switch the universe to instability, potentially destroying the universe as we know it.

btm said:

Maybe. There are theories suggesting that the universe is metastable (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum); if so, it may be possible for an experiment to tip the balance and switch the universe to instability, potentially destroying the universe as we know it.

Try that with a working link.

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

I remember when the LHC came online some people were worried it had the potential to create micro blackholes that would consume the Earth which proved unfounded (obviously).

Could a physics experiment actually have the potential to if not outrightly destroy our planet, at least cause massive amounts of damage. For example a particle collider many magnitudes in size and power than the LHC.

there is a big difference in what may be considered ‘massive amounts of damage’ and ‘complete destruction of the planet’.

care to narrow it down a little…

I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

btm said:

btm said:

Maybe. There are theories suggesting that the universe is metastable (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum); if so, it may be possible for an experiment to tip the balance and switch the universe to instability, potentially destroying the universe as we know it.

Try that with a working link.

Yes I remember reading that before, scary thought.

• I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

A nuclear explosion brings widespread damage. Come to think of it, wasn’t that a worry with the first nuclear explosion, some thought it would start an unstoppable chain reaction consuming the entire planet?

Cymek said:

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

I remember when the LHC came online some people were worried it had the potential to create micro blackholes that would consume the Earth which proved unfounded (obviously).

Could a physics experiment actually have the potential to if not outrightly destroy our planet, at least cause massive amounts of damage. For example a particle collider many magnitudes in size and power than the LHC.

there is a big difference in what may be considered ‘massive amounts of damage’ and ‘complete destruction of the planet’.

care to narrow it down a little…

I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

I know what you mean, but equally ‘wide spread damage’ is an equally vague term…

furious said:

• I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

A nuclear explosion brings widespread damage. Come to think of it, wasn’t that a worry with the first nuclear explosion, some thought it would start an unstoppable chain reaction consuming the entire planet?

a large fire can cause ‘wide spread damage’ – but the damage causes is a long way short of ‘total destruction of the planet’

furious said:

• I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

A nuclear explosion brings widespread damage. Come to think of it, wasn’t that a worry with the first nuclear explosion, some thought it would start an unstoppable chain reaction consuming the entire planet?

Supposedly

Cymek said:

furious said:

• I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

A nuclear explosion brings widespread damage. Come to think of it, wasn’t that a worry with the first nuclear explosion, some thought it would start an unstoppable chain reaction consuming the entire planet?

Supposedly

it was never thought that a single nuclear explosion could cause a chain reaction that would consume the entire earth – the scientists involved understood the inherent processes rather well.

Ok then lets say could we actually create a micro blackhole and if so what sort of damage would it do.

Cymek said:

Ok then lets say could we actually create a micro blackhole and if so what sort of damage would it do.

no, we could not create a micro black hole…

from wiki…

In familiar three-dimensional gravity, the minimum energy of a microscopic black hole is 1019 GeV, which would have to be condensed into a region on the order of the Planck length. This is far beyond the limits of any current technology. It is estimated that to collide two particles to within a distance of a Planck length with currently achievable magnetic field strengths would require a ring accelerator about 1000 light years in diameter to keep the particles on track.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

diddly-squat said:

Cymek said:

furious said:

• I mean not an actual failure of the machine itself, but something it creates that causes widespread damage.

A nuclear explosion brings widespread damage. Come to think of it, wasn’t that a worry with the first nuclear explosion, some thought it would start an unstoppable chain reaction consuming the entire planet?

Supposedly

it was never thought that a single nuclear explosion could cause a chain reaction that would consume the entire earth – the scientists involved understood the inherent processes rather well.

Not the first, they knew the reaction would blow itself out. But I believe it was a consideration in the fusion bomb, as they can go as long as they have fuel and the hydrogen in the atmosphere may have provided that fuel. But a few calculations sorted that out.

It was never a cross your fingers and hope type of thing which the myth likes to represent it as.

OK, the two best known examples are discussed above.

The loss of the the universe due to the metastability of the quantum vacuum. Humans haven’t been able to produce anything even nearly as extreme as naturally occurring gamma-ray-bursters.

The possibility of a chain reaction following a hydrogen bomb explosion. I’m personally more worried about hydrogen fusion in the Earth’s oceans than nitrogen/oxygen fusion in the Earth’s atmosphere, although the second one was the original scare.

Beyond those, weaponised organisms would have the greatest potential to wreak accidental havok. Next might be any experiment that blankets the Earth in a thick dust of fission products.

After that perhaps a geology experiment that results in the great rift valley in Africa overflowing with extremely fluid lava, the main danger there is releasing sulphur dioxide in sufficient quantities to kill off 99% of air-breathing life.

It’s far easier to deliberately destroy the Earth than to accidentally destroy it.

I think Gods experiment with Homo Sapiens Sapiens is the experiment most likely to destroy Planet Earth.