In the following key arguments against the comparison of cosmic rays with collider particles are collected. The cited arguments can be found and studied further in this expert’s astrophysical review about search for Lorentz invariance violation:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3713

The comparison of the LHC collisions with cosmic ray events is problematic according to my enquiries because

  • - The composition of cosmic rays even at our time is not entirely clear: “[…], but many aspects of the energy dependent composition are controversial” and “the identification is not easy at all, and in practice the criteria are not always consistent". Also ultra high energy cosmic rays are rare events:"Note that the flux above 1012 eV is around 10 primary particles per minute and m², but above 1018.5 eV it drops to O(1) particle/(km² year) […], so the search for UHECR takes patience". The reason for construction of colliders is the imprecise configuration in observing natural cosmic rays. Only limited insight into the physics of cosmic rays is possible up to now - experiments for further clarification are currently prepared!


  • - The boost (the momentum / the velocity) of the products in a cosmic collision might be higher in the rest frame of the earth than the minimum momentum of the collider products (whatever heavy products). This results in other cross sections of these products with the matter of earth (or the atmosphere or moon) and other subsequent reactions due to the different energies. Not only are the products important but also their momentum when further reactions have to be considered. I do not cite here the literature because this correlation is canon in particle physics.


  • - The conditions in the collider (collision in the vacuum near to a solid) are different from the environment in the atmosphere (collision in gas) or on the moon (collision in a solid). Respective implications (reactions, life times, …) have to be analyzed in detail.


  • - To be able to compare the reactions a Lorentz transformation has to be applied: In the LHC two protons with equal velocities shall collide head on in the lab - in the cosmic case an extremely fast proton is assumed to meet a resting proton (relative to the earth). Up to now no violation of this transformation is known and precise laboratory experiments for small energies (gamma at 105) are available. However, at extremely high energies (1017 eV of LHC after transformation or more) experimental evidence is rare (Auger, HiRes, neutrinos) and neither fully exact nor unambiguous: “This observation [AGASA] disagrees, however, with the data of the HiRes (High Resolution Fly’s Eye) observatory". Lorentz invariance violation in this context is discussed in the literature: “On the other hand, the sizable number of super-GZK cosmic rays asks for an explanation and keeps the door open for speculations” and “This is a very active field of research with exciting open questions. We may expect enlightening new data in the near future. They could lead to new insight in outstanding issues like LIV — or to new puzzles and perhaps to evidence for new physics.” More than 100 physical parameters subjected to the transformation are discussed: “Kostelecky ́et al. have identified more than 100 LIV parameters in this way, including CPT breaking terms". Not all are checked by the cutoff seen in Auger but could play a role in LHC experiments.


  • - Known physics might change drastically at energy densities making micro black holes possible as academically discussed in the meantime [Plaga http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 ]. W. Bietenholz: “Based on the uncertainty relations (3.14), the identification of a as the Planck length now leads to a consistent picture of the space-time uncertainty range as the event horizon of a mini black hole [142]. In fact, a (hypothetical) measurement of a length of O(LPlanck) requires (according to the Heisenberg uncertainty) an enormous energy density, which gives rise to such an event horizon — the notion of detectable events then requires inequalities (3.14) to hold with a ∼ LPlanck. This Gedankenexperiment suggests that points should indeed be washed out over a range of O(LPlanck ). If several directions are involved, as in relation (3.14), this is practically equivalent to non-commutativity. […] Thus we have the case of an “active LIV”” Within this context comparison of the LHC collisions with cosmic ray events are additionally extremely questionable.


Concluding these arguments against operation and the calculations and considerations of even possibly dangerous scenarios of other academic colleagues are absolutely sufficient to enforce an independent, careful, public revision of the experiment and its discussed dangers before new experiments of any kind! The academic opinion clearly is not unambiguous as it would have to be the case amongst others for admissible operation.

2010-02-02 | achtphasen | 08:19:45 | Email | 3 comments




 

Comment from: Rudolf Uebbing [Visitor]
Nicht ausreichend tiefgehende Bewertungen A, B, C, D und E (sh. u.) zu den grundsätzlichen Fragen der LHC-Sicherheit

(A)
Obig im Achtphasen-Artikel beschriebene Fragestellungen zur Brauchbarkeit eines LHC-Sicherheitsargumentes, welches empirisch auf der Kosmischen Strahlung beruht,

(B)
wurden bereits in 2007 von CMS-Experten nur beiläufig gestreift. Wie von am CMS-Experiment (CMS-Collaboration, LHC/CERN) beteiligten Forscher seinerzeit geschrieben wurde, sind am LHC künstliche Ereignisse zu erwarten, die “jenseits des Bereiches der Kosmischen Strahlung liegen” (“beyond the reach of cosmic rays”).


Der Fall des LHCs wurde zwischenzeitlich in der Zeitschrift "Science and Engineering Ethics" mit einer Artikeleinreichung v. 28.02.2009 erörtert, ohne dass die Autoren (Anton Petrenko u. Dan McArthur*)) Kenntnis haben konnten, von

(C)
der im Sommer 2009 erneuerten Kritik eines deutschen Astrophysikers und

(D)
auch nicht von der Analyse eines australischen Sicherheitsforschers, der aus seiner Fachsicht in den CERN-Sicherheitsuntersuchungen grundsätzliche Mängel aufdeckte (z.B. den Vorgang des LSAG-Reportes aus dem Blickwinkel der Sicherheitsforschung als "nicht auf dem Stand der Zeit" beschrieb).

Die Spezialisten *) des Vorsichtigkeitsprinzipes resumieren. "...In fact, the cited study essentially notes that each time a cosmic ray strikes the upper atmosphere the predictions of the harm scenarios associated with the LHC are falsified. ..."

Nun, Petrenko und MacArthur konnten ggf. (A), (B), (C) und (D) nicht ausreichend bedenken.

Somit gewinnt ihre Formulierung "However in the LHC case, it is easy to see how failure to falsify a harm scenario might well imply a moratorium." aus ihrer Sicht unerwartet, aber neu an Bedeutung.

(E)
Zusätzlich wären im Rahmen einer angemessenen LHC-Sicherheitsdiskussion bestimmte Beobachtungen aus der Physik und aus der Astronomie zu berücksichtigen, die als nicht geklärt, teilweise als rätselhaft angesehen werden müssen, wobei geprüft werden muss, inwieweit diese Beobachtungen ggf. eine Rückwirkung auf die Sicherheitsargumentation haben können.

Für hochrangige wissenschaftliche Papiere, die von CERN herrühren oder auf die sich CERN beruft, und welche als Resultat ein nullwertiges Risiko beschreiben, sind die Auslassungen, die ggf. in einer Nichtdiskussion oder in einer nicht ausreichend tiefgehenden Bewertung von (A), (B), (C), (D) und (E) liegen, schon äusserst bemerkenswert.

Nun, nicht ohne Grund wurden fünf Klagen angestrengt, von denen m.W. zurzeit drei offen sind (EGMR, UN-Menschenrechtskommittee, Bundesverfassungsgericht Deutschland).

R.U.
PermalinkPermalink 2010-02-04 | 16:01
Comment from: Alf Pretzell [Visitor]
... please be aware:

The mentioned review by Dr. Bietenholz summarizes current research and opinion concerning LIV and cosmic rays - it is not intended to assess the LHC and other colliders. However, my argumentation can be based to a large extent on this review.
PermalinkPermalink 2010-02-07 | 18:40
Comment from: Eric Penrose [Member] Email
as I understand the article cited doens't question the basis idea of lorentz invariance, but introduces a further factor that seemingly could apply in the context of LHC black hole emergence, but only if TeV gravity theories apply.

I don't understand how that paper on the one hand refers to the black hole issue as having relevance to their alteration of LIV, whilst neglecting to consider the implications of TEv gravity theories for their theory: so they claim their theory leads to clear differences only at higher energies than existing colliders.

This looks like another wasted oppurtunity- now those authors are supposed to be persuaded by others that this potential area for danger needs to be considered. Now that they missed it, wHat chance of that is there?

Eric
PermalinkPermalink 2010-02-08 | 19:37

This post has 1 feedback awaiting moderation...

*
* your email address will not be displayed
  your URL will be displayed