Showing posts with label Physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Physics. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Surreal Higgs Bumps The LHC

Alan Gillis Reports   ¿Es macho el Higgs o no es macho? Did Alexander Calder discover the Higg's boson while inventing the Large Hadron Collider? Well, anything is possible in Quantum mechanics. Physicists at CERN have always been closet Surrealists. Their latest hat trick, Run Rabbit Run, a brand new particle, possibly the one they were looking for. Though it will take more analysis and more experimental data and maybe even a new cleaner very high energy electron-positron collider to find out. The Higgs is an important particle and central to Standard Model physics if it exists. The Higgs has to be nailed or the SM collection of interlocking theories is flawed. Without the Higgs the SM cannot account for the mass of the Universe. Ergo non fiat, no Ferrari in any CERN parking lot. And that's impossible and might start a trend if $10 Billion is not enough to prove anything.

All CERN has for sure is a new particle that looks like a Higg's candidate. And the Higgs may not be fundamental after all, only responsible for a small amount of the mass of the Universe. See the "Higgs Fandango" below.

Chorus from The Rain In Spain ...

“As a layman, I would now say, I think we have it,” said CERN Director-General Rolf-Dieter Heuer (back row 2nd from left, Peter Higgs in front) announcing the preliminary results July 4. “It’s a historic milestone today. I think we can all be proud, all be happy.”

Anyway after 50 years of slaving over hot colliders, you can't blame physicists if they're partying now. It's great for morale and with the whole world watching the party, the applause from enraptured physicists, the Champagne flowing, well it's a relief for any physicist just to be human again.

Then it's the post-collider hangover and maybe we over did it. A heavy particle at 125 GeV or about the mass of an iodine atom looks good in the data but Dr Heuer clarifying "it" as a "fundamental scalar boson"? Sounds like Premature Collider Evacuation Syndrome where circumlocution pops out a Higgs, but with no conclusive evidence for scalar or zero spin from these bosons at the LHC.

The WW decay data channel should tell CERN that the Higgs decays into two W bosons indicating it is the SM Higgs with zero spin, but there is a deficit in this data both in the CMS and ATLAS experiments.

Lots of types of decays happen too and there are other puzzling deficits. Here's the research from ATLAS on what's been discovered in all channels.

There's an odd excess too. The diphoton decay channel for this new boson shows many more photon events than was predicted for the Higgs. Here's the latest diphoton data from ATLAS in pdf.

Higgs? Blasts Into 4 Muons

So it's premature to talk of any Higgs discovery. Maybe we have signals from one of a group of Higgs particles, but not from the Standard Model Higgs. Maybe it's just a new charged particle outside the Higgs group. Or even a composite particle. Two things we know for sure are more research is needed and CERN PR provides more spin than any known particle.

A Simple Higgs Experiment For The LHC

The mysterious Higgs and all from a vacuum too. So why not study the vacuum? CERN already has a space-type vacuum at a space temperature of near absolute zero in its 54 km (27 km x 2) beam pipe system. This heavy Higgs field has to be inside it if it's real. Run the LHC without the protons and see if you can excite the Higgs field with the RF system used to accelerate protons. But CERN does this anyway in any proton run. Both protons and any fields in the vacuum are being accelerated. You could say the data is in. No Higgs field has been excited or accelerated or collided or found. So is there a real Higgs field that exists everywhere? Not at the LHC. No says CERN, that's not how it works:

"Higgs bosons are quantum fluctuations in the Englert-Brout-Higgs field that are visible experimentally only when energy is “injected” into the field. Concentrating the right amount of energy in proton-proton collisions at the LHC excites the Englert-Brout-Higgs field, which resonates at a precise energy corresponding to the mass of the Higgs boson.  The Higgs boson appears momentarily before decaying into other particles that the LHC experiments can measure. Some theories predict the existence of multiple Higgs bosons."


The fundamental Higgs boson decays? So far all big particles discovered at colliders decay. Why? Well the short answer is because they can. That's one answer from Lily Asquith at ATLAS. But maybe these fundamental particles aren't fundamental, but unstable composites from the bottomless pit of collider physics.

Maybe the  E-B-Higgs field is unstable too. Then can CERN kick it with some energy to get a Higgs? Or is there another pathway if it is stable? An electron is stable and an electron field is stable. Do you need to kick the electron field with energy to produce an electron? Unstable particles would have no mother fields.  

What CERN says above, can be translated in another way. CERN strikes a Higgs high C "energy" from its SteinwayLHC that is "injected" into the totally quiet and invisible high C E-B-Higgs field where the energy "resonates" and "excites" the field and out pops an excited real world high C Higgs note that suddenly decays into other minor notes, sometimes 4 bright photons or a trill of mi-mi-mi-mi's etc etc.

Nonsense, as we know the air here is the field that resonates with high C but there are no high Cs in it that pop out. Don't need a collider to prove that at least. In either case, with or without a collider, is there any proof of a Higgs field?

If you don't think a musical analogy works, well CERN started it. Listen to "Higgs" for piano at ATLAS (Bravo!) based on an actual data graph or read more first on data sonification.

Collider Artifacts Of The Universe

Back to work. Nice theory CERN (in quotes above) on how energy (125 GeV) knocks a Higgs out of Higgs Space for us to see, but it is true? Recall the Big Bang in a vacuum? No fields before then and suddenly some super-condensed energy ball the size of an orange explodes, eventually producing everything including the Quantum fields presumably now in Spacetime where everything else is too including the LHC. Unless the LHC is in some hyper-reality because 10,000 physicists concentrate the LHC into a Higgs Player Piano or anything else they agree on just by a collective observer effect you do see in Quantum physics. Which could also be interpreted as a mass delusion like dancing orbs of light over Phoenix and other UFOs the Army always flatly denies. If only the Army reviewed LHC data? Not convincing guys. Call it a night. Your wives are waiting. OK so labcoats are confusing. CERN says 9% of their physicists definitely have larger breasts. See Fabiola over at ATLAS for details.

Shortfalls In CERN's Little Bang Machine

In reality however, the much hyped LHC Big Bang Machine or Little Bang frankly, is supposed to create similar conditions just a very tiny fraction of a second after the first BB explosion. Doesn't seem to be at all that similar. First thing you get is matter particles from high energy explosions that often decay into massless particles.

Blame that on the big Higgs field from the first BB. But then you really can't study the BB with CERN's Little Bang Machine. Fields from the BB are always interfering. Particles with mass seem to appear first and then some decay into particles without mass in these collider experiments. So the real object is not to make CERN PR a real world event, but to tease particles out from BB fields. Then why aren't there a lot of relatively low energy 125 GeV Higgs in all collider data? There aren't, indeed Higgs are extremely rare. Lower power but powerful enough colliders like the former Tevatron at Fermilab (RIP) and the still operating RHIC at Brookhaven should have seen them easily. Why does it take 8000 GeV (8 TeV) to produce a Higgs weighing 125 GeV? Well, there have been mysterious unconfirmed signals from other colliders including CERN's old LEP. But would the old data have been conclusive if it was processed by CERN's mighty computing center? Might have saved a few Billion dollars.

The new Mother Of All Colliders at CERN uses a sledge hammer to smash a mosquito to get one Higgs. Sorry, but CERN used to say they were smashing proton mosquitos together to make high energy physics look modest, familiar and safe.

Well CERN protons are heavy. When a proton at rest of 1 GeV (1 billion electron volts) is accelerated near light speed that adds a lot of mass. In the Higgs experiment CERN was using 4 TeV protons (4 trillion electron volts) meaning each proton punched 4,000 times above its rest mass weight for a collision energy of 8 TeV from just 2 protons. With on average 27 very very near simultaneous head-on collisions/explosions per 2 beam bunches crossing for collisions near twice the speed of light in a very tiny space, you get fireballs that explode. This isn't early days atom smashing. Though there is a lot of smashing due to focusing difficulties.

Millions of other collisions going on at the same time are off center elastic types, and these protons can smash each other to bits. What happens is already well known and this data noise is filtered and deleted. On a good day any of the 4 main experiments can achieve 100 million events each or more per second. But nearly all the data is noisy elastic collisions and so is discarded. Only interesting primary events are recorded for study.


Even so, there are mountains of interesting data that rush out so fast, the events have to be computer modeled if we want to see anything remotely like the original events. So it's complex software and vast computing power, that gives CERN its images and graphs and they are really only simplified schematics of strange but real events. An abstract of abstract events. How accurate are they? As good as the software, as clean as the original signals flowing through miles of fiber optics and copper wire and thousands of cores ganged together.

If you're a pro photographer working with RAW files and converters and then processing and enhancing images with various other software packages always being updated, you get the idea. No real definitive image of reality, just interesting versions. And if you didn't take the original shot yourself of something you've never seen with the shutter set to near light speed, capturing the very very insanely small, what is the image supposed to look like? What are we studying here?
 

Safety First But First The Higgs

In 2 years the LHC should reach its design objective of 14 TeV collisions a little later than planned. Hot on the trail of the Higgs on a giddy July 4th, everything else can wait. A year-long shutdown of the LHC for safety retrofits including more tinkering with weak magnets, has been delayed again, now for 3 months more, so as not to stop the LHC before Spring 2013. Fine except more safety systems after the $40 Million accident of 2008, were recommended and promised by CERN. Some safety modifications were made, and are working. But CERN is driving the collider hard, 24 hours a day.

Imagine an all electric Ferrari with an electrical short like last time. Imagine the mechanic says the liquid helium rad could still blow like last time. You want to go with a few tiny--don't mess with the collider--dimwit relief valves? You twist out some manometers for that? You need hundreds more of those in all 8 Sectors. Big ones are better remember? Gimme the big toot-toot ones you engineers said after the boom-boom-boom, when everything has got to be cooled down as cold as space. If not then it's boom-boom-boom again. This is a 10 Billion Dollar Machine. Safety first you say or gimme-dat Higgs?

As any old hand from the days of the Tevatron will tell you, every relief valve is a big problem. They leak all the time. And they blow all the time when helium pressure fluctuates as it does. And then beams dump and Cryogenic Havoc!

Could that be why CERN avoided installing them everywhere they should have before Catastrophic 2008? Nevermind, now we need them. A few tiny ones will do or maybe no collider for years. Safety, or as they might say in Collider Safety Committee meetings post-2008, Gentlemen we have a solution. Démarrons!


Vraiment? Well so far so good, but to get an idea what power one proton beam has at its eventual 7 TeV, imagine a Subaru travelling at 1712 kilometers per hour around the 27 km LHC ring tunnel. Then a second Subaru like the first but travelling in the opposite direction. All this from a little cc vial of hydrogen gas that's had its electrons stripped from its protons. 

Fortunately it's very difficult to collide protons head-on. From a pokey though much celebrated start, the LHC is now blazing. CERN keeps working up the numbers, hoping that at full power and luminosity it can get 600 million with hopes of a billion collisions per second. Though that's still a tiny fraction of the protons per beam. Yet if CERN loses control these beams can melt near a metric tonne of copper cooled to 2 degrees Kelvin (LHC beam vacuum is at 1.9 K) in a flash.  Or burn holes right through the collider and spill  liquid helium as instantly expanding cold gas that blows safety doors off their hinges. The LHC spilled tonnes of helium in the 2008 accident but due to other causes. Lost beams in a collider or runaway beams have happened before. A runaway beam of about 1 TeV at the Tevatron did cause major damage in 2003. See my article Major Failures At The Tevatron that also covers 1200 faulty relief valves.

Bottomless Pit Collider Physics

To return to what the LHC is for really. Evidently not a Big Bang Machine. No Big Bang yet, we're hoping. Not really a scalable model for the Big Bang either as BB fields distort experimental data. No way of extracting Big Bang data from a dingbat Little Bang Collider relying on Artificial Conditions that did not exist at the time of the Big Bang, like near light speed proton beams colliding head on in gigantic magnetic fields. American Baseball might be similar to English Cricket if you're a moron. So what kind of experiment is the LHC geared to?

Producing particles which it does. With more energy available than any other collider, then maybe new heavier particles. But perhaps this mania for the discovery of particles that need to be produced in colliders to be identified, as they cannot be found elsewhere in the real Universe, is an open-ended search that could produce an untold number of new particles that can exist temporarily in colliders and maybe exist elsewhere. Or don't exist elsewhere and may never have existed except inside rarefied and artificial environments like these gigantic fusion reactors that make them inside gigantic magnetic fields that CERN simply and modestly calls Detectors like CMS and ATLAS at the LHC.

If experiments are open-ended sooner or later the LHC could make dangerous collider objects like theoretically possible micro black holes. So far no experimental data show any being produced, but the race for higher and higher energy collisions at the LHC goes on. Up another big notch now from 3.5 TeV per proton beam to 4 TeV for collisions at 8 TeV and eventually to 14 TeV and that's Tera or Trillion electron Volts.

Proof positive of the Higgs is the main advertised event. But equally welcome to String theorists in the majority at CERN, are mBH from the LHC as Black Hole Factory, no longer advertised. Probable proof then of String theory and its extra dimensions and a chance to study elusive black holes, a quantum mechanical gold mine and a possible alternate for the Big Bang.

The LHC Demonstrates Einstein At Least

Waait a minute. Isn't something obvious going on at the LHC? About as simple as OxyClean on TV. Mysterious Quantum fields hiding in a vacuum are not needed to produce a Higgs or anything else. Just watch the LHC. Concentrate tremendous energies into a teeny bit of space and matter erupts from energy. The original Energy is transformed.

Happens all the time at the LHC. Isn't that what Einstein more or less implied with E=MC^2 ?

Do we even need a Higgs?

The Higgs Fandango 

Sure a particle might make sense inside a theory especially that partially predicts it, but is that why it's there? Can't the same particle fit into a better theory no one has invented yet, that explains that Theory H is suspect, because Particle H is really Particle Y which may be the case with the new Higgs Candidate. Theory H also doesn't predict the Higgs mass so any new boson lurking in the future with Spin0 might be the Higgs. The spectacular Higgs field is even stranger, everywhere, but nowhere we can find it. Thinking about mass for a minute, how does it account for the mass of an astronaut on the moon, one sixth of what it is on earth? Aha! Well physicists and CERN can answer that but don't often in all the brouhaha about the Higgs. Yes, you guessed it. There are other more important forces and the Higgs only accounts for a small amount of mass, like 1% of your body weight.

That's what they say at CERN behind closed doors. Gian Francesco Giudice, a CERN physicist, mentions it in his new book, A Zeptospace Odyssey: A Journey into the Physics of the LHC. Though you'll have to dig deep pp173-175.

"... the Higgs sector is rather arbitrary, and its form is not dictated by any deep fundamental principle. For this reason its structure looks frighteningly ad-hoc". Then he drops the other shoe, "It is sometimes said that the discovery of the Higgs boson will explain the mystery of the origin of mass. This statement requires a good deal of qualification.” And goes on to say, “In summary, the Higgs mechanism accounts for about 1 per cent of the mass of ordinary matter, and for only 0.2 per cent of the mass of the universe. This is not nearly enough to justify the claim of explaining the origin of mass.”
I think I just heard an explosion at Building 40, is it? From the CERN PR Machine.

The fundamental Higgs is not as important as advertised. So why fill the Universe with a Higgs field that doesn't do very much? Would CERN do that even if it could?

No, it's just not simple and elegant enough. Not Premium Grade A Physics.

Then why the Higgs circus at CERN? Why all this categorical rubbish about the importance of the Higgs? Sounds like stamp collecting for physicists, the rare penny black Higgs, but there's a serious Nobel on the horizon and more funding, certainly. In the end it's the not very likely and in basic energy terms very expensive Higgs field with little effect on the cosmos, with the very big question of gravity, unresolved.

The Higgs Key To Gravity? H to 4e

Unless the Higgs is really a graviton and in that case it can also account for the missing 1%, plus all the mass in the Universe which then also happens to be relative. Then we have an astonishing discovery and Alan Gillis should get the Nobel.
     

Nevermind, CERN Like Any Housewife Wants More

Let's face it Higgs are great but what every String theorist wants is funding and a real mBH for a thesis or a knock'em dead paper. In this Brave New World finally all String theorists are proved exactly right, and that's most physicists at the LHC. Except what would mBH do? Decay says Hawking and CERN. Or you can't produce mBH says CERN at the rock bottom On Sale Now new low power LHC, confidently invoking Einstein to cool down earlier PR and excited String theorists. Other worst case scenarios aren't taken seriously as real risks.

Anything new is interesting too. Some strange particles or collider objects may have been already created by colliders. If you don't know what to look for, you might miss them entirely. Always a career risk, but there are always more particles.

If the subdetectors in the big Detectors aren't specific enough to unknown particles or the magnetic fields aren't strong enough for containment, you could lose particles you never even dreamed of. Or maybe some physicists fast asleep have found Mt Blanc closed due to strange matter "tomato paste", leaving CERN ski teams baffled. We don't really know if it's strange matter yet.

CERN has built a CASTOR detector hitched to CMS for not expected but possible events, just in case. Then the unexpected can be familiar like a bus and yet knock you down, going the wrong way down a one-way street. Unexpected Symmetry breaking if you aren't looking both ways. Or something totally unexpected as we don't yet have an infinite number of theories to cover everything happening and anything can happen in Quantum mechanics.

No one wants that many theories of course, just one Theory of Everything that includes the big fields outside, like the gravity of the Universe and now theoretical dark energy and dark matter.

Or on the quest for ToE, have physicists simply reached the end of their mindset? Now padding reality with theories and inventing collider particles to prove them? Maybe it's as simple as going off on the wrong foot, in the wrong direction. Going into the maze that has no end, when maybe you should have stopped at the Starbucks first and had a double slim latte on ghiaccio with Amaretto and biscotti.

Italians are sensible. Neutrinos travel faster than light when they jump from CERN Geneva to Gran Sasso Italy and they make better and cheaper lattes. You would too if you were an Italian Neutrino working for CERN who just passed through a paper stupido cup of espresso americano from one of CERN's autocuppa machinas. But Slim in Italia, non subis est.

The LHC is all about human ambition and imagination like other extreme sports. With no more Everests to climb, there's the power of the surreal to conquer. Build a new fantastic Everest and climb it. And take the world with you.

Except the Maya didn't bring an end to the Long Count and all Long Counts, but CERN could, on or before December 21, 2012. Or after, if the Maya got it wrong. Time at CERN might be wrong too measured in bizarre units of 1 trillion collision events, but interesting as a proof of elastic time that might be real. So how many more Inverse Femtobarns to go you guys?


Back To Square One 

The Maya would be impressed with the magic of the LHC.
Is this your temple? What are you doing? You don't know yet!

In the old Mayan days, the stars told them. Outside on a clear night in Spacetime.

--Alan Gillis

Sunday, November 14, 2010

LHC Rockets Into Big Bang Space

Alan Gillis Reports As usual CERN physicists at the Large Hadron Collider have been excited by finding nothing yet. That's months after the big media event March 30, 2010 for the first proton collisions at 7 Tera (or trillion) Electron Volts that smashed a few thousand protons. Like 10,000 CERN mechanics starting your new car and how-about-that bonus puffs of proton smoke out the exhaust. Not the full power perfectly safe 7 TeV proton collider from hell we were led to expect from CERN PR. Or the 14 TeV fire-breathing dragon delayed to 2013 because of safety issues and the need for a year's worth of further repairs and upgrades, after the LHC crashed in a spectacular $40 Million accident back in 2008.

Suddenly all that's changed. From the purring collider slowly reving up in CERN's 27 km garage, there's more bang per buck from the $10 Billion LHC. From protons as fuel CERN jumps to the heavy ion run, from say an octane rating of 1.0 for protons, the new heavy lead fuel delivers a whopping 82.0 octane (82 protons in each heavy ion) and the LHC smashes all records for power.

Lead ions are now colliding at the LHC since November 7 and will continue for a month through December 6, 2010. A look back at this year's LHC performance improvements and data highlights shows what a slow slog it's been. Lead ion collisions could radically change all that before it's back to protons and repeat the ion run for another month about this time next year, and then shutdown to rejig the LHC for all of 2012.

The big change? No Big Bang Party for the media.

What we get are some great snapshots of collider fire power. No champagne, no paper hats. Ion collisions more or less in line with expectations. It's of course too early to say what happened exactly, so CERN is still excited by finding nothing yet. Back to square one data analysis but with more excitement. Suddenly we have to wait again for results that could be way more exciting if there's any evidence of New Physics at these colossal new energies. That's the big deal right now: tremendous LHC power equals tremendous excitement. It's roulette on a new wheel and the sky's the limit. Wow!

The first few lucky Pb-Pb collisions happened during the set-up phase before stable and focused lead ion beams, at in ordinary proton power terms, a low for the LHC collision energy of 2.76 TeV recorded at ALICE (bottom image) still far higher than at other ion colliders. Though the LHC is poised to go to the max soon or 7 TeV.

Sounds too low to make a fuss at 2.76 TeV ? Yes and no. What the bigger and heavier lead ions absorb in energy and release is far higher than that. These first heavy hadron or ion collisions rocket the Large Hadron Collider into high orbit, well beyond anything done so far anywhere. According to Fermilab/SLAC's journal SymmetryBreaking, the real energy per lead beam was 287 TeV and so collisions were double that, releasing 574 TeV.

Not exactly or maybe unofficially. CERN hasn't revealed what the highest energy collisions were. SymmetryBreaking bases their numbers at, in proton terms, 3.5 TeV so knock off about half those 287 TeVs per beam until CERN Big Bangs the max and says it's official. Even so CERN achieves a formidable power though why not make it clear even to Fermilab/SLAC? ATLAS shows collisions with stable beams at whatever TeV. At CMS, well pick a number. CERN has kept us guessing before during other earlier (modest as it turns out) LHC milestones. It's the simplified CERN PR approach to success: We did it! (Not at 1/400,000 of what we wanted.)

Should get the 574 TeV full monty later this year. In 2013 in any case with a fully amped LHC or 14 TeV proton energies, lead ion collisions will be around double 574 TeV, or 1148 TeV. Even so each ion today packs an unbelievable punch.

The applied LHC energy and acceleration to very very near light speed, makes each heavy ion much heavier and enormously powerful. A beam of these ions can bore through say a dozen meters of solid stainless steel, producing a small peephole big enough to see through to the other side. And when beams collide?

A Swallow Does Not A Summer Make

First result: We're still here but how long will that last? CERN has only started the big adventure into the unknown with a modest display of heavy ion collisions. What we do have before the evidence is in, is apparently what physicists are calling an ion furnace where the spectacular heat of heavy ion collisions is so great as to dwarf the core temperature of our own sun, and produce a new state of matter a 100,000 times hotter than inside the sun, an undifferentiated absolutely slippery state where particles melt into a new Quark-Gluon Soup. It could be called the ultimate plasma state of matter that physicists think formed in the blink of an eye after the Big Bang. Though apparently not a CERN first or second. Recently re-analyzed data shows Quark-Gluon Plasma was produced at much lower energies at about 0.9 TeV in proton terms during gold ion collisions at RHIC. That's another but much smaller low power collider, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Labs.

The LHC ion run discussed in SymmetryBreaking is shooting for much higher power or effectively 14.7 x RHIC and temperatures double RHIC's or 500,000 times the core temperature of the sun. And maybe double that to a million times hotter in 2013.

The Known Unknown And The Unknown Unknown

Unofficially CERN thinks they've nailed the Soup Theory and should be able to produce their own data to support it sometime in the future, if there is still a CERN around in a new altered reality being engineered by CERN now. The more collisions coming at these and way higher energies, the more data for research but also more risks of producing the unknown or some expected and maybe dangerous particles or collider objects like Micro Black Holes and Strangelets that if metastable will affect ordinary matter or even destroy it and the planet.

Then there is always the unexpected in any new experiment and if you believe CERN they're hoping for the unexpected too. Anything would be good it seems. Nothing can be bad, as Dr Fabiola Gianotti, team leader of 3,000 scientists at ATLAS implied recently in The New York Times:


“We have been waiting so long,” she said. “Only good and beautiful things are coming."

The problem is even if CERN gets bragging rights on more and more collisions at higher and higher and higher TeV energies thanks to greater to spectacular luminosities still years away, even without apparent damage to the collider and the world, safety is not assured by any means. For one thing particles ejected from collisions at other colliders are not all contained and some escape. At much higher LHC energies so could dangerous collider objects. Detected or not they might or might not decay harmlessly outside the LHC. If stable they could slowly grow over months and decades or who knows how long and when big enough, then we'll see the threat without the need to agree on theories and complex and mesmerizing data, too late to do anything about a matter destroying object in CERN's big backyard chomping on Geneva and threatening the earth or maybe popping out into space and destroying the moon. It's speculative but what about "Only good and beautiful things are coming."?

The LHC Gateway

It's Reality Sci-Fi. We don't know what the LHC can do and we don't know if disaster will strike. We do have the gateway, a very real $10 Billion experiment. Besides that all we have are a few theories on safety and some reasonable assurances from other low power collider experiments plus some preliminary and minimal results from the LHC. And a lot of don't worry PR from CERN to convince us that the LHC is a perfectly safe Dream Machine that will one day unlock the secrets of matter and the cosmos.

Not perfectly safe yet. What's not being yodeled by the Happy CERN Wanderers a stone's throw from Ja! de Alps, is the very real need for big time upgrades to make the LHC safe beyond the $35 million for the 2012 shutdown and fix, like another $1 to $2 Billion extra to protect the LHC from its own mounting radiation damage (another problem largely ignored by CERN when the LHC was designed and built, like those other problems of poor quality control of the busbars and poor design of the Quench Protection System that both caused the $40 Million 2008 catastrophic failure of the LHC that still needs that $35 Million in 2012 for repairs and upgrades to take a full year to go to a safe 14 TeV).

CERN's lederhosen are down around their knees but they're still not embarrassed in public, because there's no CERN Press Release on that, so no CERN butt showing on the cover of the Rolling Stone.

Yet the sexy LHC has another surprise in its gigantic PR closet. This one better on the accordion and ump-pa-pa if money and beer are no object, but these are hard times. Is $10-12 Billion enough and a Billion more for operations per year for the new already super expensive (so far empty) frontier of High Energy Physics? Probably, actually certainly not, but not in print please. Shhhh we need the PR first, danke. Then comes the shiny new VLHC with something like the mind-boggling power of the abandoned Texas SSC, the Superconducting Super Collider now recycled into a perfectly safe (no PR intended) hole in the ground. What a collider that would have been, a ring 50 km around almost big enough for Dallas? What a terrible blow to particle physics. No wonder CERN has so tenacious a hold on its Ring of Power.

VLHC Anyone?

We still don't know if we'll get any mindbending results from this LHC and will in any case have to go higher to a galaxy very far away to give particle physicists another shot at SSC glory. Why not a souped-up version of the LHC or the Very Large Hadron Collider? Another $X Billion or more? Sure for 33 TeV. CERN has been betting on this upgrade before LHC construction ended, looking 10 years down the road, now 20 after all the Big Bang headaches. Had a big quiet meeting about it in Malta recently. In for a proton, in for a Bigger Bang. But first ramp up the PR research. Develop info mazes where journalists will fear to tread. Don't say needy deserving physicists and poor unhappy half-finished VLHC. Start with Wunderbar Collisions of course. With important spinoffs for BMW and Mercedes in CERN's other bumper-to-bumper network, no better not. Life Ja! is not easy in der Furorbunker, sorry the VLHC Group Think Tank where wistfully Colliders Are Forever.

If all were well at CERN maybe we wouldn't mind being kidded by CERN PR. Might enjoy the thrill of the promised unknown while duped into serenity. Problem is a great deal of effort expended on CERN security and safety is largely from the clattering of keyboards at CERN PR trying to get that just right. There are of course machine safety systems aplenty and they can fail as we've seen in 2008. In the real world at CERN we can only hope that the unsung heros of the Maintenance Department and when all else fails the 2 man teams of Pompiers, can provide safety on the fly as they stand between a rock and a hard place, a stone's throw from Geneva.

The other sort of safety is hard science, but safety papers and arguments regarding experiments are sparse and theoretical and some need revision as there are internal inconsistencies and errors. Other studies are missing. Subsequent new theories and research that bear on possible LHC results have yet to be fully considered. Worse, there are also other possible spooky interpretations of CERN's House of Cards. Here's another rare insight from the CERN shop floor, again from Dennis Overbye's recent article in The New York Times:
In interviews recently, scientists and managers said that they had been too eager to get the collider running at full power in 2008. “In perspective, we may say we started too ambitious,” said Lucio Rossi, a superconductivity expert who joined CERN from the University of Milan in 2001. One reason, in his opinion, was arrogance.

A Brief History Of The End Of The World

Start here. While we're waiting for new revelations there's a backlog of papers on the curious evolution of the hard science of safety at the LHC. There's Professor Eric E Johnson's monumental and entertaining study of CERN's soft safety mythos and other mystifications from a legal perspective in "The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World."

A summary and further comments by Professor Johnson and some CERN feedback like Why didn't you talk to us first? in New Scientist; Professor Johnson interviewed on World Radio Switzerland; these and several major articles on Johnson's 90 page paper by journalists like Kevin Hassett of Bloomberg, can all be found via links from Johnson's blog, Pixelization.

Then there are dozens of my articles here in The Science of Conundrums, NewsHammer and elsewhere, and many of them syndicated in the Chicago Sun-Times and USA Today that cover new and similar shakey ground under the LHC going back to 2007. Here's a sardonic favorite from the Alan Gillis archives: "The Black Hand Of Dr Cern". Wacky? Well compare this with Professor Johnson's coverage of bizarre safety assurances by CERN's LSAG and SPC, in section IV.G "The Rise of Certitude" pdf pages 31 to 34 from the above link to "The Black Hole Case...".

Other major studies critical of LHC risk can be found at www.Risk-Evaluation-Forum.Org/links.htm

Strangelets Yes We Have No Strangelets

If it can't get any more self-serving at CERN, well there's more sauce from the gander, in Eric Penrose's recent startling and comprehensive review of CERN's creative cookie cutting strategy on Strangelets, "How CERN’s Documents Contradict its own Safety Assurances: Plans for "Strangelet" Detection at the LHC" at http://heavyionalert.org/

CERN minimizes risks of whatever sort, but Strangelet dangers are here now if uncertain. Strangelet production starts with Quark-Gluon Plasma discussed above and likely produced in this first ion run. With more and more lead ions colliding at the LHC at higher and higher luminosities now through December 6, Strangelets are the new frontier in planet disaster and Micro Black Holes might show up as well. No, says CERN and CERN might be right.

But if CERN's credibility is an issue and it is, why should we believe what CERN says? As far as Strangelets go, why build a separate super CASTOR detector specifically to detect Strangelets from collisions at the CMS experiment? To detect Centauros with CASTOR of course because CERN says Strangelets won't be produced but Centauros might be. Then why look for Strangelets? The sky cannot fall down but maybe it will. It's as goofy as that and deadly serious. Yet science journalist Alan Boyle in CosmicLog gives CERN a sympathetic hearing:


The CASTOR researchers themselves voice no concern about a catastrophe. Instead, they see their experiment as a straightforward effort to find evidence of exotic phenomena previously associated with cosmic-ray collisions, including centauros and strangelets. The doomsday connection is being made by the doomsayers themselves ... plus maybe a few physicists exercising their imagination.

CASTOR researchers work for CERN like BP researchers work for BP. Doomsayers work for both but won't risk being censured or banished by speaking up in public. We all wait for a maybe/maybe not accident to happen and that includes journalists. Doom scenarious don't materialize out of thin air as we find out later from journalists when it's too late. There are causes and dismissing all risk or saying nothing starts the ball rolling. Before knocking doomsayers there is perhaps a deeper pathological syndrome attached to saying or doing nothing in some cases, a conscious or unconscious death wish that gets doomsayers talking too.

If that's unfair then we can go back to the usual argument used again by CERN outlined in Boyle's article for the shifting ground under CASTOR: That was then and this is now. CASTOR was designed a long time ago during the interminable LHC time warp or a few years back in real time. In terms of physics as understood then. To sum that up, Strangelets are not expected due to recent data analysis from RHIC's heavy ion research. "The theoreticians are changing their minds." said Yasar Onel who works on CASTOR, as quoted by Boyle.

CERN Logic: That Was Then. So What?

Fine, but think that through. CERN was building a detector for Strangelets that CERN thought could be produced at CMS then, that clearly demonstrates a disregard for safety at the LHC. CERN was going ahead regardless of consequences.

What has changed is not CERN attitudes to safety but the theoretical nature of Strangelets, from hints at RHIC. So CERN is off the hook for Strangelet production if CERN is right about RHIC data, that Strangelets shouldn't form in very hot heavy ion collisions at the LHC. But what happens when QGP cools and decays?

How are any of these twists and turns down the CERN maze reassuring?

CERN didn't understand hypothetical Strangelets but now they do? Uncertainties then in physics, but not these uncertainties now? How can we be confident about the present state of theoretical knowledge when according to CERN or any physicists, physics is a science in progress? What can we know for certain? That theories change, that the sometimes dangerous unknown can rear its head? Doesn't this happen daily in all the sciences?

Collider Good. Results Good.

Not at CERN it seems. At the LHC no matter what happens we're safe from hypothetical knowns and unknowns. This at the world's biggest and most powerful machine, the biggest experiment ever, engineered for a very different scale of cosmic discoveries forced into being by colossal LHC energies, with no possible planet shattering impact or local threat? No chance? That's PR/BS. CERN has bet $10 Billion on a scaled down Big Bang. This is an event that physicists say can produce some of the expected hypothetical and maybe the unknown at the LHC. That's why CERN built the LHC to find out what will happen at the LHC.

The amazing collider and its cleverly engineered bigger and better firestorm also has an infectious back-reaction. CERN's heady confidence in the machine spills over into the unknown results that can't be bad. Collider good, results good.

If tiny Strangelets and tiny Black Holes (expected by CERN but also denied by CERN) shoot out of the LHC, will they ever be detected? Even if they are, what can stop them from devoring and transforming matter into more and more Strange Matter and bigger and bigger Black Holes if they are merely detected? CERN has no magic box to collect them and no charms and chains to rattle to spook them out of existance and certainly no anti-mBH or anti-Strangelets to sprinkle on them to destroy them. There's only mumbo-jumbo for planet destroying collider objects that might surface years later, though I suppose CERN's PR department is up to the challenge.

You might read this yet in the CERN The Bulletin: Strangelets and mBH are keeping CERN physicists awake all night . . . but scientists have taken up the challenge and are ready for the future.

--Alan Gillis

CERN Studies On The 2008 LHC Accident

Risk Panel Report
Executive Summary
"It cannot be refuted that issues with quality and a complex and complicated design are responsible for the incident of September 19, 2008."
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?resId=0&materialId=2&confId=53467

The Sector 3-4 incident at the LHC:
fault tree and corrective measures
http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=2&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=53467

Task Force Report
Safety of Personnel in LHC underground areas following the accident of 19th September 2008
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1184225/files/CERN-ATS-2009-002.pdf

Report of the External Advisory Committee with respect to the report of the Task Force on Safety of Personnel in LHC underground areas following the sector 34 accident of 19 September 2008
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1186208/files/CERN-%20ATS-2009-003.pdf

Superconductivity: its role, its success and its setbacks in the Large Hadron Collider of CERN
http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/23/3/034001

Sunday, February 14, 2010

CERN Escape Pod Ready At The LHC


"Yellow Submarine" Prepared For Launch Just In Case

Collider safety has always been a hot button issue at the LHC. Now we know just where that button is connected. CERN of course will say that their Escape Pod is the CMS Coldbox, and it does look suspiciously like the CMS Coldbox. That's what you would expect. Helium cryogenics are mandatory in any OMG Pod scenario. CERN like it's been telling us all along is now finally ready for any safety issues.

Hot hadrons, pas de problème.

The "Yellow Sub" project was fast-tracked years ago when rumors from RHIC of signals suspiciously like Quark-Gluon Soup, were circulating at collider conferences confirming earlier rumors from CERN's old LEP.

Now Hot Quark Soup has been definitely confirmed by RHIC at RHIC. The soup of course is served very hot at 7 Trillion Degrees F or in Europe at 4 Trillion C.

Enough to melt a collider or a planet or pick any star. Fortunately the RHIC ran out of collider juice before physicists could cage a sample. Though the LHC has plenty of juice, 70 times more at 14 TeV and when it comes to those heavy hadrons in the RHIC formula, the LHC can cook them up at 1150 TeV or 5,750 times RHIC's total power.

Not exactly good news for CERN's mega-collider, outclassed by a little shrimp collider from Brookhaven. Not for long though. CERN will be making its own soup soon enough with fancy hors d'oeuvres to start maybe this March, unless some birdbrain drops another baguette.

On the more farcical side of collider safety, I'm publishing a new series of reports on the Large Hadron Collider in NewsHammer. For collider fans and people who read science papers upsidedown like anybody at CERN who needs to find out what's really going on.

The final updated Doomsday Report will be published here in The Science of Conundrums. Check back for the latest episode of:

Doomsday Report: New Physics At The LHC

NewsHammer Part 1: Large Hadron Collider Waiting For Doomsday
NewsHammer Part 2: Fantastic LHC Energies May Be Higher Than Expected
NewsHammer Part 3: Higgs Discovered At The Large Hadron Collider / More Delays
NewsHammer Part 4: Scrubbing CMS Data At The LHC
NewsHammer Part 5: LHC Lords Of The Ring

--Alan Gillis

Monday, October 26, 2009

LHC Beams Back To Life

After a major accident a year ago and $40 Million to fix it, CERN quietly announced today that the LHC has passed some preliminary tests on its way to a restart this November. Some low power proton beams generated by the pre-accelerators were injected into parts of the LHC 27 km magnetic ring, one travelling into the LHCb detector. Like turning on the tap to see if a mended pot will leak. So far so good.

Good news for the army of some 10,000 engineers, technicians and physicists who have been sadly busy for a year fixing broken and damaged equipment and redesigning some of the safety systems that failed and some that were inadequate to signal an impending failure.

In one of the 13,000 Amp power circuits last year a single poor busbar splice between two giant cylinder magnets melted without warning, among thousands of other such splices. That burned a hole in the cooling system and with the tremendous amount of pressure in the liquid superfluid helium, there was an explosive eruption of 4 tons of 1.9K ultracold coolant that the few safety valves nearby couldn't handle. Fortunately no one was hurt and doubly fortunate there were no beams running at the time. This was a Massive Quench at the collider where not only 50 or so 10 meter and longer ring magnets were damaged in the exploding cascade, but the Quench Protection System failed to stop it. If there had been beams they would have gone astray no longer contained by the dead magnets, cutting through anything in their path in the blink of an eye.

It's the kind of accident The Science of Conundrums has been warning CERN about for a year before it happened. No other news outlets and not even science magazines and journals contacted by us were interested in following this lead until after the accident. Even CERN was reluctant to reveal its scope and seriousness, still as of this August calling it "the incident of 19 September 2008" and dismissing it as collider "teething troubles" soon after "the incident" while suggesting repairs would suffice to get the LHC online again soon.


Not soon, and not just repairs. A long and closer look at the collider by CERN determined that there were thousands of similar defective busbar splices that could fail. That to avoid another accident equipment will have to be installed to monitor the resistance developing in any high tension splices while the weakest ones would have to be replaced, eventually all defective busbars replaced so the LHC could run at design energies. That many more safety relief valves would have to be installed, indeed the Quench Protection System would have to be redesigned. Even so a recent CERN Press Release of August 6, 2009 cited also below, avoids a full account and plays down some loose ends. "However, there remain a number of cases where the resistance in the copper stabilizer connections is higher than it should be for running at full energy." . . . "This means that no more repairs are necessary for safe running this year and next."

Are they all fixed or not? OK, good enough. But The New York Times reports, finally getting fed up, August 3, 2009 in Giant Particle Collider Struggles, that Steve Myers, Head of Accelerators said in a recent interview that 5,000 splices will have to be redone. Does Dr Gillies also have a law degree he's not telling us about?

In any case the accident shouldn't have come as a surprise to collider men. Back in 2000, CERN's EEWG had been experimenting with a new type of busbar design for easier much more rapid production. Minutes of their meetings demonstrate the team was well aware that busbars were crucial elements and could fail in various ways even unexpectantly after 4 years in service as one had at DESY. In their discussions full testing of each splice was difficult, costly and time-consuming. Testing at superfluid helium temperatures was also ruled out as impracticable. Sample testing was done using much warmer liquid nitrogen even though they wanted to avoid a "black sheep" getting through.

If CERN could have tested each of the 10,000 busbars, all in fact unique, because soldered together by hand one at a time, they would have avoided "the incident" aye an' forsooth Jim, and saved $40 Million and a year's downtime.

Even just before the accident and the big First Beam media event, CERN was sanguine nothing would go wrong, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. 5 TeV before winter shutdown and 7 TeV before that magnet trouble. (See NYT above.) The media event cemented grins in place. Nothing could go wrong. Nothing went wrong! Even if the much feared test was really no test of the accelerator accelerating and the collider not colliding anything that day, CERN had the media and the public in its lap, tails wagging all day long. A triumph.

Then 8 days later the LHC failed catastrophically with no beams.

Now after a sober reapraisal and with a new Director General of CERN, Dr Rolf-Dieter Heuer from DESY taking office this January, there's a new spirit of caution. Like the low key unannounced LHC tests this past weekend. The modest report of their success. Much more important, more openness, more communication at CERN on the progress of repairs and an announcement this summer that 3.5 TeV would be the maximum per beam, until later. Presumeably modifications to design and equipment would have to be installed along the way to ramp up to higher energies safely. A breath of sanity at last.

How long will that take? According to the August 6, 2009 CERN Press Release, much sooner than I think, well before what is humanly possible.



The procedure for the 2009 start-up will be to inject and capture beams in each direction, take collision data for a few shifts at the injection energy [0.45 TeV], and then commission the ramp to higher energy. The first high-energy data should be collected a few weeks after the first beam of 2009 is injected. The LHC will run at 3.5 TeV per beam until a significant data sample has been collected and the operations team has gained experience in running the machine. Thereafter, with the benefit of that experience, the energy will be taken towards 5 TeV per beam. At the end of 2010, the LHC will be run with lead ions for the first time. After that, the LHC will shut down and work will begin on moving the machine towards 7 TeV per beam.



That's still a guns blazing shootout at Boot Hill. Injection accomplished [September!]. Circulate beams [November?]. Collisions at 0.9 TeV [December?], then let her have it boys: 3.5 TeV and 7 TeV collisions and maybe a slow draw for 5 TeV and 10 TeV collisions, with some real heavy lead shot at [???? TeV?] for the [2010!] finale. Go for broke y'all at 7 and 14 TeV in [2011?]

Sure about that? Nope.

At a CERN meeting recently on LHC Status you can watch here, Steve Myers goes on at length on repairs, retrofits and modifications that are expected to take place over 5 years at an anticipated cost of $275 Million, of which the $40 Million already spent is but the down payment on LHC Safety at 7 TeV.

CERN giveth and CERN taketh away. If there's a backwards causality wave that's been making some journalists smile lately about the jinxed LHC, then I think it's being generated by CERN. Hope they figure it out before it gets 'em.
At any rate we're still waiting for the first low power circulating beams at 0.45 TeV or about half of what the Tevatron delivers routinely, projected for mid-November. Nothing new as the LHC had already passed this test September 10, 2008 in a media frenzy before it crashed 8 days later.

These beams will be generated by the pre-accelerators and the object is just to contain them so they don't go astray. The real test of the LHC is not the next stage either, maybe this December, when the LHC modestly collides beams at 0.9 TeV. Old hat at the Tevatron where collisions are running at 2.1 TeV. When the LHC finally starts accelerating beams itself beyond its own injection energies and beyond the Tevatron's 1.05 TeV per beam and then collides them, we'll see some real action early 2010.

But once the LHC generates more than a hair above 1.05 TeV per beam, it will be in Terra Incognita. How sure can we be that the LHC is safe? Well Dr Heuer who's a collider man from DESY and that's reassuring in itself, as under his watch DESY didn't blow up Hamburg, said in an interview this summer "The LHC is a much better understood machine than it was a year ago." That's refreshingly honest and so must be true.

I'd say knowing Germany and the people there well, not only do Germans make great cars and drive fast responsibly, they have inherited a mantle of caution from their unfortunate 20th Century history. They really do want to avoid another cataclysm for themselves and the world.

If you've been following LHC protests, most of them have been coming from Germany, Austria and Switzerland along with the leading critics of the LHC like Dr Otto Rössler. There's still a suit before the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights brought forward last year by them and other Europeans to stop the LHC. And now I've been informed by Markus Goritschnig of LHC Kritik that a new human rights complaint will be lodged with the UN soon.

These protests and court actions have been focused on the possible formation of dangerous objects at the LHC, like micro black holes, strangelets and magnetic monopoles with a potential for catastrophic destruction as well as a possible fatal disruption of the Universe's vacuum state. Lately more scientists have been taking an interest in this debate as well as in risk assessment and have been publishing their findings. Do CERN's safety arguments hold water? Not according to them. More on these doomsday scenarios next time and another one of my own, where I discuss the potential for ionization of superfluid helium at the LHC and possible small nuclear events. Sorry Bob McElrath.

But add the real world dangers of conventional collider accidents (like we've had at the LHC and Tevatron but at much higher energies) to the hypothetical production of strange matter etc, then what could happen? An unstoppable event as CERN PR might call it.

I'd still be very cautious if I were at CERN. Beyond 1.05 TeV CERN is obliged to test the LHC on the fly. If they ramp up beam energies to 1.1 TeV without a problem, they should maintain that energy for a month to see how reliable the LHC is before they try collisions at 2.2 TeV. Even at a modest 2.2 TeV CERN probably will see unexpected particles as the Tevatron did at 2.1 or so. If there's another overconfident rush to higher energies and bigger collisions, the LHC could miss some spectacular results. In the worst case scenario CERN could destroy the LHC even at half power. And that's where Dr Heuer wants to start after the preliminaries, at 3.5 TeV.

Good luck you guys!

--Alan Gillis

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Someday This Crazy World Will Have To End

PD Smith writes on science and literature as cultural history. His articles and reviews have appeared in the Times Literary Supplement, the Guardian Review, the Independent and the essay below is from his recent column in 3QuarksDaily. His biography Einstein was published in 2003. Doomsday Men: The Real Dr Strangelove and the Dream of the Superweapon, Penguin and St Martin's Press, is his new book on the dawn of the Atomic Age. For links, reprints and his latest blogging, see his website Kafka's mouse.

PD Smith's "Someday This Crazy World Will Have To End" touches the same nerve in CERN's LHC megaproject that promises a new nuclear physics and a new world. The same resistance to an open enquiry or discussion of the potential dangers and merits of the LHC that Dr Edward Teller hotly dismissed about the Bomb, surfaces in CERN's disregard of outside criticism as in my article "Politics And Science At The LHC" and CERN's Dr Bob McElrath's hostile reply in his Comment on it. PD Smith also explores the relationship of Science to Science Fiction here and in Doomsday Men, as I have in my satiric essay, "The Black Hand Of Dr CERN".

The other day I had an email from an angry reader. He accused me of maligning the good name of scientists in my cultural history of superweapons. Scientists were not “doomsday men” and the phrase “an organization of dangerous lunatics” should not be applied to the secret laboratories where scientists developed superweapons. As someone who had worked in the nuclear industry, he wanted to make it plain to me that it was only thanks to such “lunatics” and their many scientific discoveries that I could enjoy a comfortable and healthy life, free from the fear of Nazism and Communism.

I must admit I was slightly taken aback by the heartfelt anger of his email. It was clear there was not going to be a meeting of minds. But in the end we did have an amicable and interesting exchange of emails.

I explained that the title of my book, Doomsday Men, was borrowed from JB Priestley’s 1938 novel of the same name, about how an atomic doomsday device is created at a secret laboratory in the Mojave Desert. My correspondent found the title provocative and even cheap. I hoped

other readers would see the irony, and, as my book is about how film and fiction prefigures our obsession with superweapons, insisted it was appropriate to use a title that wouldn’t have been out of place in the pulps.

Indeed, the whole point of the book was not to blame scientists for weapons of mass destruction, but to show how humankind’s most terrible yet ingenious inventions were inspired by a desperate dream, one that was shared by a whole culture, including writers like Jack London and HG Wells, a dream of peace and scientific utopia. In a sense, we are all doomsday men. After all, it was Wells who coined the phrase “atomic bomb” before even World War I. And it was also Wells who in 1933 described scientists developing weapons of mass destruction in a secret laboratory as “an organization of dangerous lunatics”.

The great scientific romancer HG Wells could hardly be described as hostile to science or scientists. It was his anger at the misuse of science to create weapons of mass destruction that led him to condemn such scientists. I share that anger and it prompted me to explore the cultural reasons why people from all walks of life came to think that superweapons were a solution to human problems.

Readers of Wells’s fiction were familiar with mad scientists – Griffin or Moreau, for example – as well as those who hoped to improve the world, men like Holsten and Karenin in The World Set Free (1914). In the early years of the twentieth century, popular culture turned scientists into saviours who freed the world from war with awesome superweapons. But the experience of gas warfare, then biological weapons, and finally the atomic bomb gradually changed public perceptions. As fears grew about superweapons, their creators who had transformed the laws of nature into instruments of total destruction were increasingly depicted as mad scientists. Those who had been raised up to be gods, were later cast down as devils – or at least as acolytes of that master of megadeath, Dr Strangelove.

In the atomic age, as the public learned to live with first the A-bomb, then the H-bomb, and finally the world-destroying cobalt or C-bomb, scientists were stereotyped as mad, bad and dangerous (to borrow Christopher Frayling’s phrase). “What you are doing is mad, it is diabolic,” says the scientist’s assistant in Ernest B. Schoedsack’s movie Dr Cyclops (1940): “You are tampering with powers reserved to God.” In the classic science fiction film The Thing (1951), based on John W.
Campbell’s story about alien invasion, the sinister scientist Dr Carrington is prepared to sacrifice human lives in the cause of science: “Knowledge is more important than life... We’ve only one excuse for existing: to think, to find out, to learn…It doesn’t matter what happens to us.”

Such scientists would be the end of us all, people feared. “What hope can there be for mankind…when there are such men as Felix Hoenikker to give such playthings as ice-nine to such short-sighted children as almost all men and women are?” asked Kurt Vonnegut in the brilliant Cat’s Cradle (1963). As far as film and fiction were concerned, scientists were not just Strangelovian doomsday men. Their whole outlook on life was positively warped. “If the murders of twelve innocent people can help save one human life it will have been worth it”, reasons Doctor Necessiter in The Man With Two Brains (1983).

But these are, of course, mere fictions. As physicist Sidney Perkowitz points out in his enjoyable survey of Hollywood Science (2007), although they may on occasion appear somewhat arrogant, most scientists are not megalomaniacs: “few scientists have a burning desire to rule the world; typically, they don’t even enjoy managing people and research budgets”. He does, however, concede that one stereotype may have a basis in truth – the image of scientists as being sartorially challenged: “The rumpled look is a badge of authority; to scientists, the ‘suits’, formally dressed bureaucrats, are members of a despised race.” (I’m aware this may be a controversial view. In the interest of balance, I urge readers to also consult the excellent Geek Chic, ed by Sherrie A. Inness, especially chapter 2, "Lab Coats and Lipstick", by L.
Jowett.)

But Freeman Dyson suggests truth may be every bit as strange as fiction. The physicist, who worked on weapons projects as well as the Project Orion atomic spaceship in the 1950s, thinks there’s more than a grain of truth in the Strangelove stereotype. "The mad scientist is not just a figure of speech," says Dyson, "there really are such people, and they love to play around with crazy schemes. Some of them may even be dangerous, so one is not altogether wrong in being scared of such people."

Recently, I was powerfully reminded of Dyson’s comment while reviewing the reissue of Dan O’Neill’s classic nuclear history The Firecracker Boys (1994). In 1958, physicist Edward Teller, the self-styled father of the H-bomb, turned up in Juneau, Alaska, and held an impromptu news conference. He was there to unveil Project Chariot, a plan to create a deep-water harbour at Cape Thompson in northwest Alaska using thermonuclear bombs. Seventy million cubic yards of earth would be shifted instantly using nuclear explosions equivalent to 2.4 million tons of TNT. That’s 40% of all the explosive energy expended in World War II. Some firecracker.

Locals said they didn’t need a harbour. They also raised understandable concerns about radioactivity. After all, the year before, Nevil Shute had published On the Beach, one of the best-selling of all nuclear fictions (four million copies by 1980), in which the world dies a lingering death caused by fallout from a nuclear war fought with cobalt bombs. Teller was unfazed by the criticisms. That year he had defended atmospheric nuclear tests, claiming such fallout was no more dangerous than “being an ounce overweight”. He tried to reassure the Alaskans: “We have learned to use these powers with safety”. He even promised them a harbour in the shape of a polar bear.

Teller and his fellow scientists at the Livermore Laboratory in California were on a mission to redeem the nuclear bomb. They wanted to overcome the public’s irrational “phobic” reactions to nuclear weapons. “Geographical engineering” was the answer, said Teller: “We will change the earth’s surface to suit us.” The Faustian hubris of the man appeared to know no bounds. Dubbed in the press “Mr H-Bomb”, Teller even admitted to a “temptation to shoot at the moon” with nukes. You need a new Suez Canal? Blast it out with my thermonuclear bombs. Or how about turning the Mediterranean into a freshwater lake to irrigate the Sahara? All you need to do
is to close the Straits of Gibraltar by detonating a few H-bombs (clean ones, of course, absolutely guaranteed). No problem. We can do it – trust me, I’m a physicist.

Dan O’Neill interviewed Teller. Or at least he tried to. As soon as he started asking questions, Teller “cursed loudly and with great facility” and tore up the release form he had just signed to allow O’Neill to use the interview. Despite Teller’s hissy fit, O’Neill’s remarkable book shows how government agencies lied to local people, attempted to bribe scientists with promises of research funding, and manipulated the Alaskan media, which demonstrated “more sycophancy than scrutiny”. But a grass-roots movement of local Alaskans – Eskimo whale hunters, bush pilots, church ladies, and log-cabin conservationists – joined forces with a few principled scientists to successfully oppose America’s nuclear establishment, and in so doing sowed the seeds of modern environmentalism.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Teller devotes a mere page to this episode in his 2001 Memoirs. Les Viereck, a “soft-spoken and shy” biologist, whose research helped expose the real cost of Teller’s plans, lost his university position because of his opposition to Project Chariot. In a letter, he told his employer: “A scientist’s allegiance is first to truth and personal integrity and only secondarily to an organized group such as a university, a company, or a government.” Now there’s a scientist you could be proud of. HG Wells would have turned him into a heroic character, the kind of scientist who might really save the world.

But perhaps that’s where the problem lies. As the Marquise von O tells the Russian Count at the end of Kleist’s great novella, “she would not have seen a devil in him then if she had not seen an angel in him at their first meeting”. We burden scientists with such impossibly high expectations: they’re going to discover a source of unlimited energy, invent a weapon that will make war impossible, and along the way find a cure for cancer. But when the philosopher’s stone turns into a Pandora’s box, we turn our saviours into Strangeloves. Despite their miraculous discoveries, scientists are only human. We shouldn’t forget that.

O’Neill is rightly scathing about Teller’s role in Project Chariot: it seems Teller and his colleagues were more interested in improving the public image of nuclear weapons than in the lives of Alaskans. A Los Alamos colleague of Teller accused the brilliant scientist of becoming corrupted by his "obsession for power". According to Emilio Segrè, Teller was "dominated by irresistible passions" that threatened his "rational intellect". Another colleague said simply, "Teller has a messianic complex".

Thankfully, for every Teller there is a Les Viereck. If you don’t believe me, then read Mind, Life, and Universe (2007), a wonderfully inspiring collection of interviews with scientists about their lives and work, edited by Lynn Margulis and Eduardo Punset.

But despite this, sometimes a dark suspicion creeps up on me, a nagging fear that somewhere out there a Dr Hoenikker is hard at work, intoxicated by his own genius and the desire for ultimate knowledge. Like Teller, this phantom Strangelove has forgotten Joseph Rotblat’s wise words: “a scientist is a human being first, and a scientist second”. All I can do at such moments is console myself by reciting the well-known Bokononist Calypso:

“Someday, someday, this crazy world will have to end,
And our God will take things back that He to us did lend.
And if, on that sad day, you want to scold our God,
Why go right ahead and scold Him. He’ll just smile and nod.”

--Copyright (c) 2008 PD Smith /All Rights Reserved

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Politics And Science At The LHC

In the days before Madison Avenue, public relations and spin doctors, Science was free to speak for itself. Like any other activity it was criticized and judged on its activites and results by media and the people. If the public had questions, the scientists answered them. Political games were for government and business. Now big science instituitions and labs with their own bewildering bureaucracies, have developed an interface to present an ideal world of science through their press offices and lobbyists. They sell science like GM sells cars. Somehow the media seems not to have noticed the difference, taking spin doctors' science press kits and sound bite analysis at face value.

Camera shy bumbling scientists with thick accents who were honest about what they were doing, if you could follow the science and what they said, have now been pushed behind closed doors while the media gurus have taken over. At CERN they go a step further and stage media science events, like the big ballyhoo September 10th to show off the Large Hadron Collider during a preliminary start-up test. A modest start-up showcase for an extremely powerful atom-smasher that smashes nothing that day is played out as a big success and a victory for LHC safety. No more doomsday. Doomsayers all wrong, CERN always right. Then three big things go wrong which are skillfully downplayed. While the little ball of protons zips around, the CMS computer system is being hacked by the Greek Team and that for 2 days at the home of the World Wide Web? A 30 tonne surface transformer blows 36 hours later during a thunderstorm. Then a massive failure occurs in the cryogenic cooling system which cripples an eighth of the 17 mile collider ring. Very little information released, but a lot of reassurances on "teething troubles" at the giant baby collider.

It can get worse. The latest surprise from CERN is a new paper published which finally comes to grips with part of the problem with the helium used in their massive near absolute zero cooling system. The CERN paper dismisses every safety concern with helium without considering all of them in "There is no explosion risk associated with superfluid Helium in the LHC cooling system", September 23, 2008, by Malcolm Fairbairn and Bob McElrath of the CERN theory group.

Its focus is helium-4 bosenovas at the LHC and cold fusion during these events.

The short answer is, "We conclude that that there is no physics whatsoever which suggests that Helium could undergo any kind of unforseen catastrophic explosion."

Sounds like these guys were in a hurry, but right behind the Eight Ball. "that that" is fast fast, potential there for a new type of doublespeak. Of course there was an explosive release of one to two tonnes of superfluid helium last time, but that was different. Not a real explosion, more like your radiator exploding, not your gas tank. But the paranormal mindbender winner is, as KFC at the physics arXiv blog said of CERN's conclusions, "That's comforting and impressive. Ruling out forseen catastrophies is certainly useful but the ability to rule out unforeseen ones is truly amazing."

It's a welcome response from CERN even if it is only partial. I first raised the issue myself in ScienticBlogging, July 2nd, 2008, in "Superfluids, BECs And Bosenovas: The Ultimate Experiment" reprinted here on The Science of Conundrums. When CERN didn't bother answering, I contacted their LSAG people via email twice, August 25th and 29th, but included other helium risks like the production of helium-3 via LHC energies ionizing helium-4, where helium-3 bosenovas obviously should also be considered. I received no reply and CERN's paper doesn't address helium-3 bosenovas either. I also wrote about nuclear events in helium, certainly a potential danger in helium-3 and even possible plasma and fusion reactions of helium-3 at the LHC. Again no answer from CERN. Only this sweeping rebuttal: "There is no physics whatsoever which suggests that Helium could undergo any kind of unforseen catastrophic explosion" Is this science or speculation and politics? Don't worry from CERN, but this time not from the CERN PR department, but their CERN theory group.

If this sounds a spectacular failure in addressing safety issues honestly, well what other explanation is there? All they had to say was Helium-4 Bosenovas are Bunk, and Cold Fusion of Helium-4 Stinks. Of course we hope other physicists will examine CERN's 6 page paper and let everyone know if CERN's arguments are sound. Even if they are on Helium-4, one mosquito does not a summer make. Though there have been plenty of light speed protons in another CERN public relations context, masquerading as mosquitos.

If the politics of safety can override safety concerns, like chicks sprawled on red sports cars, are there other similar sales jobs on safety approximating the scientific? Where is the CERN Model hiding out? Look no further than the pharmacuetical industry. When people die, safe products are recalled. Tons of safety reports and tankers on a magazine sunset, and then a giant oil tanker spills and kills birds and animals and fish by the thousands. With 6 months of downtime at the LHC thanks to accidents can happen, they've got plenty of time for gearing up for a new sales campaign, CERN TV commmercials. We're still waiting breathlessly for "Spin the Collider and Win" or "My Best Friend is a Collider / When he gets warm I get hot / Gimme gimme gimme more / My collider / Bang, bang, bang / Big Bang. Be there! Beat Doomsday! Make it happen. Geneva is to die for. Hunker in our bunker or dance the night away. Win a trip for two at participating Dunkin Donuts, your Collider Central. Free Collider Keychain in every limited time only Giant Collider Donut. Careful when you munch. Be safe, dunk first."

Nowadays politics is part of big science. Recently a Climate scientist at MIT, Richard S Lindzen wrote a paper, "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?" Although the author states that the focus of his paper is on climate science, "some of the problems pertain to science more generally."

Lindzen notes "the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs." The LHC Machine is certainly part of this change from earlier Einsteinian physics to let's see what happens when we simulate the Big Bang.

". . . an emphasis on large programs that never end." Fifty years of CERN and now on a budget of $1 billion a year with a $10 billion broken collider that might never work right.

". . . the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of 'carrots and sticks' where by reputations are made and broken." CERN in a nutshell.

". . . the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research." New Physics sought.

". . . scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of." Safety or the appearance of safety? Critics are doomsayers who just don't understand.

Well this still works for CERN because it is an enormous organization that has a small powerful directorate and a Director General with Presidential Powers, 'carrots and sticks'. So big and influential in physics that those within and those outside are wary of demurring on anything. Even 20 EU governments that support CERN financially applaud rather than criticize, but then they're not scientists, or cost accountants, and just as misinformed as anyone else. If there are any diplomatic groans, it's probably because the big collider party this October 21st has been called off. In the interests of vitual safety, no doubt here a Virual Inauguration would be safer for Heads of State. Cheaper too, a few souvinir hardhats FedEx'd. Click for Bollinger and caviar now.

No doubt CERN will spring for the real thing. These guys pay their bills. It's prestige that still counts. With participation in other nuclear labs in Europe and friendly relations with many others worldwide, CERN amounts to something like the Church of the Middle Ages. Not based in Geneva for nothing. In 1955 the Swiss Government gave CERN carte blanche to operate in Switzerland as part of the deal to locate its operations in Switzerland. The list of concessions and priviledges CERN enjoys gives it the power of a city state (currently 2,600 staff, plus some 7,931 scientists and engineers, in Wikipedia) or in modern terms, that accorded to a foreign government's embassy and its diplomats. When CERN expanded into France in 1973, the French government was more circumspect but awarded CERN similar if more limited powers. Neither country though has jurisdiction over CERN, its property, its personnel or its activities. Though the French have reserved some rights including the right to intervene if there is a threat to France. If CERN blows up Geneva, Switzerland will have to sue Fermilab. An obvious mistake to put an organization above the law, like we didn't know the gun was loaded. Anyone in Switzerland or CERN care to bet that the obvious mistakes are the most statistically significant?

Surely if there were doubts within CERN as to problems or even the advisability of the Large Hadron Collider in the first place, we would hear about it? Not much has slipped through the cracks in the CERN PR department except their tactics. One source is CERN archives. Some CERN people have found themselves embassassed in hindsight when their candid comments were recorded in CERN videos, transcripts and documents.

One insider has recently commented, not realizing there was some unwritten code of silence. A CERN physicist, Tommaso Dorigo who works at the LHC CMS experiment, wrote in his blog, A Quantum Diaries Survivor, "In fact CERN appears a bit up-tight about the latest events in sector 34 of the LHC tunnel. He goes on to say ". . . since my blog is targeted as a possible source of leaks. . . And if I play fair, maybe I am allowed to survive here, and maybe one day I will stop being threatened every other day, in the name of protecting internal information of the experiments I am a part of."

Dorigo concludes, "Of course, I still assert my complete disagreement at a way to conduct scientific experiments paid with your tax money which resembles the management of the Pentagon rather than an agorà of education, research and scientific communication."

--Alan Gillis


References

Fairbairn, Malcolm and McElrath, Bob. "There is no explosion risk associated with superfluid Helium in the LHC cooling system", September 23, 2008, arxiv,
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.4004v1.pdf

KFC. "Forget black holes, could the LHC trigger a "Bose supernova"?, September 29, 2008, the physics arxiv blog, http://arxivblog.com/?p=645

Gillis, Alan. "Superfluids, BECs And Bosenovas: The Ultimate Experiment At The LHC", July 12, 2008, The Science of Conundrums, http://bigsciencenews.blogspot.com/2008/07/superfluids-becs-and-bosenovas-ultimate.html

Gillis, Alan. "The Almost Thermonuclear LHC", March 17, 2008, The Science of Conundrums, http://bigsciencenews.blogspot.com/2008/03/almost-thermonuclear-lhc.html

Lindzen, Richard S. "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?", September 27, 2008, arxiv, http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

Dorigo, Tommaso. "An agorà of education and scientific communication", September 23, 2008, A Quantum Diaries Survivor, http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/an-agora-of-education-and-scientific-communication/

CERN / Switzerland. "Agreement between the Swiss Federal Council and the European Organization for Nuclear Research . . .", June 11, 1955, CERN Legal Services, http://documents.cern.ch/archive/electronic/other/legal/articles/LSL00000012.pdf

CERN / France. "Agreement between the Government of the French Republic and the European Organization for Nuclear Research . . .", August 30, 1973, CERN Legal Services, http://documents.cern.ch/archive/electronic/other/legal/articles/LSL00000010.pdf