It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What are the actual risks involved with our current science on small particles?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:36 PM
I was wondering what the risks are of our current research on small particles conducted at several facilities around the world, CERN to name one.

When we start talking about creating singularities like black holes and using enourmous amounts of energy to try and create fission reactions that produce more energy then put in them.

I know this technology is still in its early stages, but would anyone have considered what will happen if we do eventually develop that superconducting material and do develop a way to get antimatter/matter reactions and other extra-ordinary effects..

..what if somewhere in those barely explored micro-dimensions an effect occurs that no one knew of before... you know? it happened so many times before in science.. an accident happens and something new is discovered.

But what if that something is uncontrollable.. for instance, we accidentaly open a worm hole wich on the other end lands in the middle of a star, 1000 times the size of our sun, and the star gets sucked thru the wormhole, into this 2 by 2 foot device in a lab, somewhere in Europe...


if you want the sun in a box, better build a strong enough box.
just a thought...

[edit on 24-3-2006 by phiniks]

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 09:53 PM
I think you mean fusion not fission, since we use fission reators fpr power currently.

It takes more energy than we can produce to create a black hole that would last more than a second and be big enough to cause damage.

Well, if it opened in a wormhole, the plasma would be sucked through, and it would become a plasma jet, anyways though, it takes energy to keep a stable macroscopic wormhole open, and all they'd have to do is shut off the power.

Anyways, we just have to accept the risks of scientific advancement, plus the likelyhood of such events happening is so low that you have more of a chance of an alien woman coming down and giving you a lap dance.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:17 PM
I would see anti-matter as a bigger danger then making a blackhole & wormholes thats way far away we dont have close to enough energy to make those. For things like wormholes to make them work even in theory it requires astronomical energy your talking more energy then the sun produces in its lifetime.

Anti-matter we can already create but since we are only able to make Picograms (trillionth of a gram) thats not really any threat.

We have already created "suns in a box" except they are millions of times hotter then any sun and we can still contain them. We call them fusion reactors and they could very well create a near limitless energy source for mankind if we can ever get them working right.

posted on Mar, 24 2006 @ 10:26 PM
YOu don't have to worry about any blackholes being created, or wormholes, or vortex. You are not a physicist (I am probably right about this), and I am not a physicist, but there is nothing to suggest that anything like what you have mentioned will happen. In fact, this same sort of nonsense was present when RHIC was being built.

Cosmic collisions (particle) happen everyday all around us, yet, no blackholes, wormholes or vortex are created. You are safe. I think acclerators and large pieces of equipment similar to accelerators are far more likely to become underfunded and be shut down then they are to explode and created a wormhole. That is the only risk!

The what if scenarios are great for public debate because they offer a chance for everyone to think like a physicist, without the knowledge. This in turn leads some people to believe they have a good view or grasp on certain subjects. It happens all the time here on ATS with the childish debates about relativity, free energy, oil alternatives, etc...because most of what you are talking about is very theoritical and has very little grounds to be tested on and very little physical evidence, data or observances to be based on.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 12:34 AM
well, okay... but many a non-scientiest, like me can see that some technolocal developments from the past are also potentially dangerous things. to use another whatif: ... whatif a thermo nuclear war did happen a few decades ago? I mean we have the power to destroy ourselves allready (if things go that way wether we plan them to or not) and keep producing more powerfull (and thus more destructive if so used) things.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by phiniks]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 01:37 AM
An anti-matter bomb would be a very fearsome thing..

But it will be the same as the atomic bomb but with a greater release of energy and no harmful after effects (i think havent really studied this). But i guess it will be lots and lots more difficult to make.. wich might not matter if a magnetic flask full of the stuff gets stolen (speaking only theoretically). But its probably more fearsome that atomic bombs are becoming more accesible for smaller countries.

Science would gain alot on having the tech to make and store larger amounts of anti-matter. This would probably make big leaps for space propulsion and could also make a good kick start for a fusion reactor

I think also if a few countries would have this tech it would then become like the atomic bomb is today.. many nations have it but of course no one will use it or they know some other nation will bomb you back into the stonage..

Maybe you have seen the Fantastic Four movie ??
Where they tell Jonny to calm down on his flame before opening an uncontrollable plasma that will burn the oxygen in the earths athmosphere. Well im not a physicist so i dont know if there would be any danger for something like this with the fusion tests etc.. but i would like to think they they have the situation under control

Also there are the russian Elipton weapons, that if they exist that are a very fearsome thing...

Secret Weapon--Elipton: ". . . This weapon is stronger than nuclear weapons because its consequences are different, and there is no antidote. This is where its strength lies. There is no way of defending against it. It is the same with the sonic weapon. We also have this. What happens is that the cartridge detonates, and the sound is such that it brings down an entire military division. That is it; they are dead. . . . The elipton has the same effect. There is no radiation, no fire. There are no wounds. An entire military division simply dies. It is similar to the neutron weapon, but the latter has radiation. It has a damaging effect. The neutrons enter the human body; those cause the destruction. With the former, there is no damage, but all of life is immediately destroyed . . . (asked if the Americans or others had the weapon) No . . . No one. Russian scientists developed it exclusively. . . . (asked why no one had heard about it) Because it is secret." (Budapest MTV Television Network, 7 Jan 94)

"It is my personal weapon. It completely destroys buildings and people, not by fire, but with a laser beam that destroys all targets. (asked if he could destroy the world with the "Elipton" weapon) "Of course I can, but I do not want to. It is important that we possess such a weapon. If any danger threatens us, in the case of extreme necessity there is nothing strange about us using it in certain regions--for defense." (Sofia 168 CHASA, 28 Feb 94)

Also try not to think about comet collisions, traffic accidents and other things, have a nice day

[edit on 25-3-2006 by SilverSurfer]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 04:39 PM
ya know.. there;s a difference betweem fear and knowing the risks...

but whatever.. I'm being ridiculed anyways

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:18 PM
Don't be bothered with what a few members said phiniks. You raised a important and basic question IMHO. The question of how mankinds technology can effect the world when he hasnt gained the wisdom to use it correctly.

Our knowledge and technology are increasing at a astronomical rate unprecedented in history. Its very debatable if our wisdom is keeping pace. Knowledge and wisdom arent the same thing just because we can do something doesn't mean we are mature enough to use it correctly.

I have no doubt if we could now easily create and contain large amounts of anti-matter people would be making horrible weapons with it.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 05:25 PM
I think the people making the desicions are aware of the risks. Even though their are many things that they wouldn't be able to predict, the most concern should be what the end product is going to be used for.

When the atom was split I dont think anyone intended on it being used for a weapon of mass destruction. But thats what it ended up as.

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 07:30 PM

Originally posted by iori_kome
Anyways, we just have to accept the risks of scientific advancement, plus the likelyhood of such events happening is so low that you have more of a chance of an alien woman coming down and giving you a lap dance. [/quote

have you read some of the post on this forum


[edit on 25-3-2006 by EVIL ILLUMINATI REP]

posted on Mar, 25 2006 @ 08:51 PM
if I'm correct on this Einstein was allready well aware of the potential misusage of his discoveries. And no doubt the same thing goes on in the heads of people who are working on current developments..

There always seem to be 2 sides to discoveries like this.. 1 side is the benifit it might have for mankind, as with the discovery of nuclear power, and the other side being the potential use for destruction.

I guess there will always be the danger of something powerfull ending up in the wrong hands.. since the wrong hands are very much tempted to use these powers, and lack the moral state of mind to choose otherwise.

It wouldn't surprise me if the plans exist already for applying the technology, wich is still under development now, to certain kinds of weaponry. I mean, seriously.. name the one country wich is claiming to have an energy shortage in a short while, and wich is financially entirely running on it's war-machine... what would the real motivation be for developing new ways of harnessing almost unlimited power...

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 02:48 AM
First off... there is NOT a country out there that is running on it's war machine to any extent. The war industry is a net drain on every countrie's economy as wars of territorial gain are now a virtual death sentence because of the UN... If you are going to build an argument never build it on a false and skewed premise.

Corporations are the only entities that win when modern nations beat the war drum.

Secondly as to the actual point of this thread. Yes there are some risks involved in the experiments being currently conducted. But compared to the inevitable failing of our only planet that we inhabit they are worth that risk... If something were to go wrong and a particle accelerator were to mash one subatomic bit into another causing a serious serious reaction at least we'd all die quickly.

As opposed to the death of a thousand cuts our current technological level promises sooner rather than later than any theoretical accidental particle collision.

So in the risk versus gain column of the spreadsheet of life yes we are tempting fate but if we stay static our extinction is assured

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:16 PM
I am not sure what any of Einstein's few discoveries could be used for, much less misused. Szilard on the other hand was well aware of the misuses of his ideas.

Military/Defense is one of the oldest businesses in the history of mankind. The Defense bussiness has always demanded a contingency of mathematicians, statiticians, physicist, engineers, chemist of all sorts.

As far as linear accelerators and atom smashers go, I don't think the risk are anything like what you had described. There are countless numbers of collisions between particles everday in space, fusion of nuclie or fission, yet nothing of the elaborate blackhole or wormhole is formed. It is hard enough to detect these anomolies, muchless prove beyond a certain point of their existence, and further muchless to know the mechanism of creating these anomolies.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:32 PM
As mentioned the chances of bad things happening are pretty remote.

I mean, if you create a super-tiny black hole, Hawking Radiation will mean that it will dissipate all mass before the hole can absorb any more mass. Also, the size of the event horizon for this massively tiny hole would be so small that other forces such as electromagnetism would have a totally and completely more important effect on nearby masses rather than just the pathetically weak force of gravity.

As I've also said before, radiation would also be produced in such tiny amounts that even super-deadly radiation would be in such a remote dose that it wouldn't/shouldn't affect anything.

The only thing we would have to worry about would be some way of creating some of these things en-masse or of much greater strength/size that our particle colliders are capable of. Such as anti-matter being produced en-masse into anti-matter bombs, which one the size of your person could destroy a small state.

The only thing we have to worry about is the "possibility" of a certain kind of quark - I can't remember which - that could in theory react with other matter and change it into more quarks like itself that would then essentially destroy the universe.

However, whether this quark can actually exist or not is in question, as is the effect it would have on other matter if it did exist.

In the end, I say go for it. Let's smash things up at ever higher energies and see what comes out!

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:56 PM

In the end, I say go for it. Let's smash things up at ever higher energies and see what comes out!

Yes, but when we get beyond a certain energy level, we should start locating these experiments, say, outside our solar system.
Just to be on the safe side.

posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Yarium

In the end, I say go for it. Let's smash things up at ever higher energies and see what comes out!

That really reminds me of Trinity the first Atomic bomb test. Some scientists at Los Alamos thought before hand there was a chance it might ignite the atmosphere or oceans in an unstoppable chain reaction.

But they tested that sucker anyway

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:33 AM
Just on a side note, saw an article in the recent new scientist claiming to go down with the current model of a black hole, ill see if i can find a link to a related article(probably cant get it from new scientist online since its recently published), but its amount them just being dark stars with a sort of crystal layer on the surface with certain properties which stop the star from collapsing further, and it accounts for the fact that light stops(ie time apparently stops) on the surface of the black hole, which currently violates some part of quantum theory, but this new model resolves all problems AND also accounts for all the dark energy/ matter thought to be in the universe. sounds interesting

[edit on 27-3-2006 by quiksilver]

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 03:47 AM
EDIT: Disregard this comment. Reacted before reading through, it's late

From the article.
Because information about the matter is lost forever, this conflicts with the laws of quantum mechanics, which state that information can never disappear from the universe.

If anyone is interested in the actual Paper, then I'll dig it up.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by sardion2000]

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 06:58 AM

Originally posted by phiniks
well, okay... but many a non-scientiest, like me can see that some technolocal developments from the past are also potentially dangerous things.

Please remember that a lot of the speculation you see around is based on ...err... comic book/movie knowledge of the science and a lot of it is just dead wrong.

HOWEVER... to see what scientists are concerned about (and yes, they get hysterical about some things, including weaponry), check out the Union of Concerned Scientists:

This is a citizen-scientist cooperative, with lots to read AND programs to participate in.

There are other organizations out there (just google "concerned scientists" and any particular field or issue) where scientists are speaking out against something or for something. Sadly, there are some real whiffy organizations out there, too, with people who got their degrees over the internet and who call themselves scientists.

Look for: large organization, the members having MDs or PhDs and Masters' and for names that you can google (preferably on Stay away from organizations where the scientists (or pseudoscientists) are ranting on about something they don't have a degree in (as when people with a religion degree announce they're scientists and start ranting about physics or people with history or journalism degrees start holding forth on statistics. While it's not impossible that they'd know quite a bit about the situation, the organization itself should be full of people with degrees in that particular subject.)

(Yeah, I"m just a TAD biased, there, but I've seen how badly professionals in one discipline can misunderstand another. I had to sit through an uncomfortable lecture this weekend by a writer with many, many wonderful writing credits who was going on about how the Internet is in imminent danger of being taken down by truck bombs. It was very obvious he knew nothing about the structure of the net and knew nothing about computer science.)

posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:26 AM
Another thing you have to remember is that the Earth is being slammed by highly energetic cosmic rays all the time. These are way more powerful than any Earth-based particle accelerator. So we don;t have to worry about destroying ourselves just yet.

new topics

top topics


log in