kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (02/05/86)
The current issue of Smithsonian has a guest column on modern-day worries by Richard Wolkomir. The author picks up a nasty new macroworry: ...physicists Piet Hut and Martin J. Rees, of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, have dreamed up a beauty. They have a notion that new particle accelerators may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! Such a macroworry is exquisite. While we stand by, physicists are planning giant accelerators. A scientist in a white smock will soon throw that switch. And for thousands of people the last thought before the cosmos winks out, is sure to be, "Darn, why didn't I start a petition?" Anybody heard about this theory? It all sounds a bit preposterous, but then much of modern physics is weird, as one poster recently observed. Do I have time to have a little fun in life before we blow it? --Barry Kort
jbuck@epimass.UUCP (02/06/86)
In article <572@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: >The current issue of Smithsonian has a guest column on modern-day worries >by Richard Wolkomir. The author picks up a nasty new macroworry: > > ...physicists Piet Hut and Martin J. Rees, of the Institute > for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, have dreamed > up a beauty. They have a notion that new particle accelerators > may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a > chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! The problem with this is that cosmic rays, which are largely subatomic particles accelerated to high energies, strike the atmosphere every day, and a significant number have higher energy than have ever been produced in any man-made accelerator. If you look at the inflationary theory, a modification of the big bang theory, there are some weird things there though, like the possibility of space-time itself undergoing a phase change at high energies. I think though, that if this were a real possibility, the cosmic rays (or intelligent beings on another planet) would have wiped us out by now. -- - Joe Buck - ihnp4!pesnta!epimass!jbuck or ihnp4!pesnta!epicen!jbuck
mrl@oddjob.UUCP (Scott R. Anderson) (02/06/86)
In article <572@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: > ...physicists Piet Hut and Martin J. Rees, of the Institute > for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, have dreamed > up a beauty. They have a notion that new particle accelerators > may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a > chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! >Anybody heard about this theory? The idea is based on the parallels that exist between cosmology/particle physics and condensed matter physics. The universe has gone through several phase transitions as it has cooled from the big bang, each transition resulting in a modification of physical laws, e.g. the separation of electromagnetism from the weak nuclear force. Just as in systems such as super-cooled liquids, though, the universe may not yet be in its lowest-energy state, but rather in a metastable state, separated from a preferred but different set of physical laws by a small energy barrier. All it would take to jump the barriers is a nucleating center, which might be provided by high energy collisions in an accelerator. The universe wouldn't exactly vaporize, but I doubt if anyone would survive the transition. I haven't seen Hut and Rees' paper, but I suspect that this is strictly speculation, based on the above-mentioned analogy. >Do I have time to have a little fun in life before we blow it? You'd be better off worrying about how Reagan and Gorbachev are going to blow it :-). -- Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos!sra
kendalla@orca.UUCP (Kendall Auel) (02/07/86)
In article <572@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: > They have a notion that new particle accelerators > may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a > chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! When the first nuclear bomb was exploded by the Manhattan project, there was a pool started to predict the force of the explosion. One scientist predicted that most of New Mexico would be wiped off the face of the Earth. Another scientist predicted that the reaction could not be halted, and would eventually consume the entire planet, perhaps continuing to destroy the entire Universe!!!!!! It's true, I heard it on public T.V. Kendall Auel
langer@lasspvax.UUCP (Stephen Langer) (02/07/86)
In article <572@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: >The current issue of Smithsonian has a guest column on modern-day worries >by Richard Wolkomir. The author picks up a nasty new macroworry: > > They have a notion that new particle accelerators > may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a > chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! > ....And for thousands > of people the last thought before the cosmos winks out, is > sure to be, "Darn, why didn't I start a petition?" > I've heard of a theory that the universe is really in a metastable state and that some low temp experiment might someday reach a temperature low enough to initiate the phase transition to the universe's true ground state. Fortunately, you don't have to worry about anything -- the phase boundary will propagate at the speed of light so you won't see it coming. :-) -- 0)) ((0 0 __ <|..|> :0_ _0: \/ / \ | / ~~~| |~ | | Steve Langer / \ Physics Department, Clark Hall / \ Cornell University \ \ Ithaca, NY 14853 _\ \_, {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,vax135}!cornell!lasspvax!langer
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/08/86)
In article <572@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: >The current issue of Smithsonian has a guest column on modern-day worries >by Richard Wolkomir. The author picks up a nasty new macroworry: > > ...physicists Piet Hut and Martin J. Rees, of the Institute > for Advanced Studies in Princeton, New Jersey, have dreamed > up a beauty. They have a notion that new particle accelerators > may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a > chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! Ever see "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? Truly a wonderful film. > Such a macroworry is exquisite. While we stand by, > physicists are planning giant accelerators. A scientist in > a white smock will soon throw that switch. And for thousands > of people the last thought before the cosmos winks out, is > sure to be, "Darn, why didn't I start a petition?" > >Anybody heard about this theory? It all sounds a bit preposterous, >but then much of modern physics is weird, as one poster recently >observed. Do I have time to have a little fun in life before we >blow it? I saw a paper in a conference on inflationary big bang theories discussing the question of whether the universe might still be in a metastable state. Their conclusion was that it was possible, and that the expected quantum jump out of the well would be the end of the universe as we know it. The affect would start at random somewhere, and propagate at the speed of light everywhere else. If you insist on worrying about life, the universe, and everything, you as might as well worry big. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (02/08/86)
|In article <572@hounx.UUCP> kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) writes: || They have a notion that new particle accelerators || may create subatomic collisions intense enough to trigger a || chain reaction and thus vaporize the entire Universe! | |When the first nuclear bomb was exploded by the Manhattan project, there was |a pool started to predict the force of the explosion. One scientist predicted |that most of New Mexico would be wiped off the face of the Earth. | |Another scientist predicted that the reaction could not be halted, and would |eventually consume the entire planet, perhaps continuing to destroy the |entire Universe!!!!!! Isn't it funny? When molecular biologists started working with recombinant DNA, there were actually bozos who thought it was dangerous!!!!! :-( We must be careful with technologies that are not well understood. Molecular biologists worked with extreme care and precautions until it was found that recombinant DNA from non-pathogenic organisms is harmless. I wish that physicists had exercised the same caution when exploding the first fission and fusion bombs. I am not certain about the historical development, but it seems to me that *at the time* of the first atomic bomb, there was no way to exclude the possibility of starting a chain reaction in the atmosphere or ground with a reasonable degree of certainty. It does not matter whether it turned out to be 'harmless' after all, if there is the possibility that an experiment endangers the survival of our whole species, it is irresponsible and criminal to conduct it. Thomas.
lmc@cisden.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (02/09/86)
> When the first nuclear bomb was exploded by the Manhattan project, there was > a pool started to predict the force of the explosion. One scientist predicted > that most of New Mexico would be wiped off the face of the Earth. > > Another scientist predicted that the reaction could not be halted, and would > eventually consume the entire planet, perhaps continuing to destroy the > entire Universe!!!!!! > Yup, and some of them also wondered early on whether the thing would work at all; they didn't want all that expensively processed U235 spread all over New Mexico when the TNT starter went off and the rest fizzled, so they had a large (40'x10'?) steel bottle built to explode the first bomb in. That way they could scrape the U235 off the walls (well, someone could) if it didn't work. The thing weighed hundreds of tons, was built and shipped to the site, but never used. I think its in some museum in NM (maybe one built around it?) Lyle McElhaney ...!hao!cisden!lmc
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (02/11/86)
> > Isn't it funny? When molecular biologists started working with recombinant > DNA, there were actually bozos who thought it was dangerous!!!!! :-( > > We must be careful with technologies that are not well understood. > Molecular biologists worked with extreme care and precautions until > it was found that recombinant DNA from non-pathogenic organisms is > harmless. I wish that physicists had exercised the same caution > when exploding the first fission and fusion bombs. I am not certain > about the historical development, but it seems to me that *at the > time* of the first atomic bomb, there was no way to exclude the > possibility of starting a chain reaction in the atmosphere or ground > with a reasonable degree of certainty. It does not matter whether > it turned out to be 'harmless' after all, if there is the possibility > that an experiment endangers the survival of our whole species, it > is irresponsible and criminal to conduct it. > > Thomas. --- ANY new experiment POSSIBLY may endanger the survival of our species. Unless you are willing to define: 1) What is a reasonable degree of certainty? 2) Who decides what the probability for disaster of a given experiment are? By what criteria? 3) Should or should not the possible benefits of such an experiment be weighed in the balance? Who judges the benefits? such talk is meaningless. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
guy@slu70.UUCP (Guy M. Smith) (02/11/86)
In article <793@lasspvax.UUCP>, langer@lasspvax.UUCP (Stephen Langer) writes: > I've heard of a theory that the universe is really in a metastable state > and that some low temp experiment might someday reach a temperature > low enough to initiate the phase transition to the universe's > true ground state. Fortunately, you don't have to worry about anything -- > the phase boundary will propagate at the speed of light so > you won't see it coming. :-) > -- Some people would make a case that we're already so degenerate that we won't even notice:-).
breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) (02/12/86)
||Isn't it funny? When molecular biologists started working with recombinant ||DNA, there were actually bozos who thought it was dangerous!!!!! :-( || ||We must be careful with technologies that are not well understood. ||Molecular biologists worked with extreme care and precautions until ||it was found that recombinant DNA from non-pathogenic organisms is ||harmless. I wish that physicists had exercised the same caution ||when exploding the first fission and fusion bombs. I am not certain ||about the historical development, but it seems to me that *at the ||time* of the first atomic bomb, there was no way to exclude the ||possibility of starting a chain reaction in the atmosphere or ground ||with a reasonable degree of certainty. It does not matter whether ||it turned out to be 'harmless' after all, if there is the possibility ||that an experiment endangers the survival of our whole species, it ||is irresponsible and criminal to conduct it. | |ANY new experiment POSSIBLY may endanger the survival of our species. |Unless you are willing to define: | 1) What is a reasonable degree of certainty? | 2) Who decides what the probability for disaster | of a given experiment are? By what criteria? | 3) Should or should not the possible benefits of such an | experiment be weighed in the balance? Who judges the benefits? |such talk is meaningless. [Sorry for quoting the whole thing again] No, you cannot hide behind administrative mumbo-jumbo to avoid the question. This is not a question of 'who decides' or 'how can we weigh'. If YOU are a scientist and other people are uttering doubts about the safety of YOUR experiments, you MUST take them seriously. This is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as a scientist. As the self-control of molecular biologists has shown, scientists are willing to slow down their research and avoid experiments that are potentially dangerous. What worries me is that such self-control is in effect discouraged by existing funding and employment policies. If you study the Manhattan project, for example, you will find that the logistics and psychology of the project precluded this self-control of scientists. It was only after the war that many members of the scientific staff began to reflect on the implications of their project. Thomas. PS: needless to state explicitely that I believe that there is no possible benefit, political, ethical, moral, economical, that justifies an experiment that poses a threat to the survival of our species. Once there are no humans anymore, there is no-one to benefit anymore either... (but, then, there is no-one left to accuse the experimentor of mass-murder either).
rimey@ernie.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Ken &) (02/12/86)
In article <1987@orca.UUCP> kendalla@orca.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes: >When the first nuclear bomb was exploded by the Manhattan project, there was >a pool started to predict the force of the explosion. One scientist predicted >that most of New Mexico would be wiped off the face of the Earth. > >Another scientist predicted that the reaction could not be halted, and would >eventually consume the entire planet, Enrico Fermi. It was a joke. >perhaps continuing to destroy the entire Universe!!!!!! This doesn't sound right. Ken Rimey
bourland@godot.UUCP (Dan Bourland) (02/14/86)
It wasn't a joke that the atomic bomb yield was calculated. People had all sorts of guesses. It was Fermi that had a few scraps of paper in his hand for his test. As the pressure wave went by, that is a wind from the explosion, he released the scraps and did a BOTEC (Back Of The Envelope Calculation) based on the distance the scraps travelled. His calculation was pretty much on the mark (I don't remember the accuracy). Also, the fear was real, and theoretically investigated by Edward Teller, that the bomb might ignite the atmosphere. Teller's calculations showed this effect would not happen. I don't think anyone was worried about the Universe going up in smoke. Dan Bourland <decvax!mcnc!unc!godot!bourland> Radiation Oncology UNC School of Medicine Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (02/19/86)
In article <937@h-sc1.UUCP>, breuel@h-sc1.UUCP (thomas breuel) writes: > |ANY new experiment POSSIBLY may endanger the survival of our species. > |Unless you are willing to define: > | 1) What is a reasonable degree of certainty? > | 2) Who decides what the probability for disaster > | of a given experiment are? By what criteria? > | 3) Should or should not the possible benefits of such an > | experiment be weighed in the balance? Who judges the benefits? > |such talk is meaningless. ... > No, you cannot hide behind administrative mumbo-jumbo to avoid the question. > This is not a question of 'who decides' or 'how can we weigh'. If > YOU are a scientist and other people are uttering doubts about > the safety of YOUR experiments, you MUST take them seriously. > This is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY as a scientist. Umm, hows that again? I thought the first poster was making the case that there is always SOME uncertainty; and, therefor, some risk of destroying the human race, in any experiment. It is a matter of degree rather than kind. While I may hold that at some DEGREE of risk, we need restraint; I don't hold that at ANY risk we need restraint. At the same time, if ones peers are concerned, this might be a valid indicator of sufficient degree of risk... For instance (this is extreme, yes, but is intended to illustrate the idea of minescule but non zero risk): Say I planned to test a pesticide on fruit flies. The stuff is very mildly mutagenic. A virus in the fly is mutated to a lethal strain. End of human race. Does this mean no testing of pesticides? What about testing of soap? Drugs? Where to draw the line? At a REASONABLE probability. It is NOT impossible for a new virus to be created in this way. It could be created by the random action of cosmic rays, for that matter. It IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY. That is the nub. I think it is not hiding behind mumbo jumbo to address the fundamental issues. Unless you can prove that some experiment contains ABSOLUTLY NO RISK WHATSOEVER, the premise that the magnitude must be weighed is valid. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.