The Black Hole Case: Is it Moot?

Early this morning (U.S. Central Time) the Large Hadron Collider, a gargantuan particle accelerator in Europe, succeeded for the first time in colliding protons at the record-setting energy level of 7 TeV, announced on Twitter. I've studied the LHC from a legal angle, and today's news puts a few questions in order:

Whew, we're still here. So we're safe, right?

The fact that the Earth is still here today, unfortunately, does not dispel any allegation of danger. The disaster scenario contemplates that if a dangerous black hole were generated, and if it stayed Earth-bound, the little black hole could, and probably would, be dormant for a long time before sucking in the planet. Why? The black hole would be so small, it would zip along completely missing the quarks and electrons that make up what appears to us as solid matter. And its gravity would be too weak to pull in anything to eat. To grow, it would have to run into another particle head on - something that would happen rarely. So if the LHC did make a black hole today, it might have gone right through you while you've been reading this. Depending on assumptions, such a black hole could take years, even decades, even millennia, before it grew big enough to be a threat. 

Well, okay. How anxious are you?

I'm not anxious about it at all. And I don't think you should be either. It seems to me that if there is a risk, then that risk is very, very small. It's not the kind of thing worth losing sleep over. But whether it's worth suing over is a different matter entirely.

Is a lawsuit against CERN moot at this point?

That depends on the physics. Now, I can't resolve these issues - I'm a law professor not a physicist - but I can identify two lines of inquiry here. 

First, the collisions now underway at CERN are at half power. The LHC was designed to collide protons at an energy of 14 TeV. Because of various technical problems, CERN is currently operating the machine at 7 TeV right now (3.5 per beam). But they will ramp up to 14 TeV in the future. So if there remains a question as to whether the LHC could produce something dangerous at 14 TeV that it wouldn't at 7 TeV, then a lawsuit is not moot.

Second, there is a possible question as to how rare an event black hole formation might be. You can collide two protons together and get one set of particles one time, and then get a different set of particles the next time. Most collisions are, apparently, rather boring in terms of what they produce. That is why experimental physicists want to have lots and lots of collisions each day and then run their machines for many years on end. Rare events and super-exotic particles may only come along one in a very great while. So depending on the probability of any given collision generating a black hole, there is a question as to whether continuing to run the machine for longer results in added risk.

Do you think the LHC should be stopped?

I'm neither in favor of operating the LHC nor shutting it down. The position I've taken is that if someone does want to shut it down, they should get their day in court, and the litigation should be taken seriously. Witnesses should be examined, documents looked at, etc. I believe in judicial process. There are many questions as to how a court could meaningfully tackle such a lawsuit. To explore those fascinating questions, I wrote a law review article, here. 

Comments

[Kaiser Wahab]

I had forgotten about this case as being properly filed under loony. However, your premise is a very fair legal question in a very fun "fantastic science" context. Coincidentally, I have an indie film client working on a doc on location who has been aching for the on switch moment to finally arrive.

[rpenner]

At 9am on June 17, 2010 the hearing was held in the 9th circuit appeal of the dismissal of the Hawaiian anti-LHC lawsuit.

The plaintiffs continue to think they have physics and the law on their side. But making light of the lead judge's lifetime of federal service, one that virtually began with Pearl Harbor, is no way to go about it.

Synopsis, Audio, Transcript, and links to text of September 2008 dismissal available, starting at: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2566267#post2566267

[rpenner]

The September 2008 dismissal of the US-based anti-LHC lawsuit, based on the District court's decision that the US Federal court had no jurisdiction because the US Government's funding of parts of the LHC did not amount to turning CERN construction and operation into a '“major Federal action” within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c)', was appealed. On August 24, 2010, the appeal was decided by a three-judge panel and unanimously affirmed on the grounds that the plaintiffs did not meet any of the three legs of standing to sue in Federal court: '(1) an “injury in fact,” (2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of” that is not attributable to “the independent action of some third party not before the court,” and (3) a likelihood that a favorable decision will redress the injury' and, importantly, because 'CERN has never been properly served, and is not a party to this case' there was no one involved in the case who had a finger on the on/off button. This echoes the early questions of the District court concerning proper channels, a statement from the Swiss mission to the US, and concerns of Wagner's own process server.

Ultimately, the courts (like science) are evidence-based, and as the judges wrote: 'Speculative fear of future harm does not constitute an injury in fact sufficient to confer standing.' Which is what we have been telling Wagner (more or less) since before he filed.

The decision in text with a link to the PDF with nearby transcripts and audio of the appellate hearing and 2008 decision: http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2609237#post2609237

-rpenner