Safety of the LHC - Revision history

Vigen at 07:48, 26 May 2026

2026-05-26T07:48:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 26 May 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	LSAG reaffirms and extends the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern. Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies. The LSAG report has been reviewed and endorsed by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee, a group of external scientists that advises CERN’s governing body, its Council.		LSAG reaffirms and extends the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern. Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies. The LSAG report has been reviewed and endorsed by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee, a group of external scientists that advises CERN’s governing body, its Council.

	''The following summarises the main arguments given in the'' LSAG report''.<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Ellis \|first=John R. \|last2=Giudice \|first2=Gian \|last3=Mangano \|first3=Michelangelo L. \|last4=Tkachev \|first4=Igor \|last5=Wiedemann \|first5=Urs \|date=2008 \|title=Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions \|url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/1111112 \|journal=J. Phys. G \|volume=35 \|issue=11 \|pages=115004 \|doi=10.1088/0954-3899/35/11/115004}}</ref> Anyone interested in more details is encouraged to consult it directly, and the technical scientific papers to which it refers.''		'''''The following summarises the main arguments given in the'' LSAG report''.<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Ellis \|first=John R. \|last2=Giudice \|first2=Gian \|last3=Mangano \|first3=Michelangelo L. \|last4=Tkachev \|first4=Igor \|last5=Wiedemann \|first5=Urs \|date=2008 \|title=Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions \|url=https://cds.cern.ch/record/1111112 \|journal=J. Phys. G \|volume=35 \|issue=11 \|pages=115004 \|doi=10.1088/0954-3899/35/11/115004}}</ref> Anyone interested in more details is encouraged to consult it directly, and the technical scientific papers to which it refers.'''''

	== Cosmic rays ==		== Cosmic rays ==
Line 74:		Line 74:
	== Further reading ==		== Further reading ==

	* Summary of the LSAG report~~. Translations~~ are available in the following languages : [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205325/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-fr.pdf fr], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205329/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-de.pdf de], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205332/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-el.pdf el], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205335/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-es.pdf es], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205339/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-it.pdf it], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205343/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-jp.pdf jp], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205347/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-no.pdf no], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205351/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-pl.pdf pl], and [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205355/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-ru.pdf ru].		* Summary of the LSAG report, translations are available in the following languages : [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205325/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-fr.pdf fr], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205329/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-de.pdf de], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205332/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-el.pdf el], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205335/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-es.pdf es], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205339/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-it.pdf it], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205343/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-jp.pdf jp], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205347/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-no.pdf no], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205351/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-pl.pdf pl], and [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205355/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-ru.pdf ru].
	* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].		* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].
	* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].		* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].
	* Wikipedia: [[Wikipedia:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments\|Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments]]		* Wikipedia: [[Wikipedia:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments\|Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments]].

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />
	[[Category:LHC]]		[[Category:LHC]]

Vigen at 07:46, 26 May 2026

2026-05-26T07:46:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:46, 26 May 2026
Line 74:		Line 74:
	== Further reading ==		== Further reading ==

	* Summary of the LSAG report. Translations are available in the following languages : fr de el es it jp no pl ru.		* Summary of the LSAG report. Translations are available in the following languages : [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205325/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-fr.pdf fr], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205329/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-de.pdf de], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205332/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-el.pdf el], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205335/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-es.pdf es], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205339/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-it.pdf it], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205343/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-jp.pdf jp], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205347/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-no.pdf no], [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205351/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-pl.pdf pl], and [https://web.archive.org/web/20190324205355/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/LSAGSummaryReport2008-ru.pdf ru].
	* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].		* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].
	* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].		* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].

Vigen at 17:33, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T17:33:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 22 May 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> has been peer-reviewed by anonymous experts in astrophysics and particle physics and published in the professional scientific journal ''[[wikipedia:Physical Review#Journals\|Physical Review D]]''. The American Physical Society chose to highlight this as one of the most significant papers it has published recently, commissioning a commentary<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Peskin \|first=Michael \|date=2008-08-18 \|title=The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? \|url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|journal=Physics \|language=en \|volume=1 \|doi=10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|issn=1943-2879}}</ref> by Prof. Peskin from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory in which he endorses its conclusions. The Executive Committee of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society has issued a statement endorsing the LSAG report.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Statement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider \|url=http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081001161427/http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-date=2008-10-01 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.aps.org}}</ref>		The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> has been peer-reviewed by anonymous experts in astrophysics and particle physics and published in the professional scientific journal ''[[wikipedia:Physical Review#Journals\|Physical Review D]]''. The American Physical Society chose to highlight this as one of the most significant papers it has published recently, commissioning a commentary<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Peskin \|first=Michael \|date=2008-08-18 \|title=The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? \|url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|journal=Physics \|language=en \|volume=1 \|doi=10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|issn=1943-2879}}</ref> by Prof. Peskin from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory in which he endorses its conclusions. The Executive Committee of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society has issued a statement endorsing the LSAG report.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Statement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider \|url=http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081001161427/http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-date=2008-10-01 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.aps.org}}</ref>

	The LSAG report has been published by the UK Institute of Physics in its publication Journal of Physics G.<ref name=":1" /> The conclusions of the LSAG report were endorsed in a press release that announced this publication.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Physics \|first=Institute of \|title=LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded \|url=https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20160403154528/https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-date=2016-04-03 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.iop.org \|language=en-GB}}</ref>		The LSAG report has been published by the UK Institute of Physics in its publication ''Journal of Physics G''.<ref name=":1" /> The conclusions of the LSAG report were endorsed in a press release that announced this publication.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Physics \|first=Institute of \|title=LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded \|url=https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20160403154528/https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-date=2016-04-03 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.iop.org \|language=en-GB}}</ref>

	The conclusions of LSAG have also been endorsed by the Particle and Nuclear Physics Section (KET) of the German Physical Society.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Experten bestätigen: Der LHC ist sicher KET veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zu Schwarzen Löchern am LHC \|url=http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140422201438/http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-date=2014-04-22 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.ketweb.de \|language=DE}}</ref> A translation into German of the complete LSAG report may be found on the KET website.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bewertung der Sicherheit von Teilchenkollisionen am LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212105929/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-12 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=DE}}</ref> (A translation into French of the complete LSAG report is also available.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Rapport sur la sûreté des collisions au LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241213000602/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-13 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=FR}}</ref>)		The conclusions of LSAG have also been endorsed by the Particle and Nuclear Physics Section (KET) of the German Physical Society.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Experten bestätigen: Der LHC ist sicher KET veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zu Schwarzen Löchern am LHC \|url=http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140422201438/http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-date=2014-04-22 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.ketweb.de \|language=DE}}</ref> A translation into German of the complete LSAG report may be found on the KET website.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bewertung der Sicherheit von Teilchenkollisionen am LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212105929/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-12 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=DE}}</ref> (A translation into French of the complete LSAG report is also available.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Rapport sur la sûreté des collisions au LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241213000602/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-13 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=FR}}</ref>)

Vigen at 17:31, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T17:31:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 22 May 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	{{blockquote		{{blockquote
	\|text=''The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis.''		\|text=''The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis.''
	\|author=[[wikipedia:Sheldon Glashow\|Sheldon Glashow]] (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston U.), [[wikipedia:Frank Wilczek\|Frank Wilczek]] (Nobel Laureate in Physics, MIT), and [[wikipedia:Richard Wilson\|Richard Wilson]] (Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard U.)		\|author=[[wikipedia:Sheldon Glashow\|Sheldon Glashow]] (Nobel Laureate in Physics, Boston U.), [[wikipedia:Frank Wilczek\|Frank Wilczek]] (Nobel Laureate in Physics, MIT), and [[wikipedia:Richard Wilson (physicist)\|Richard Wilson]] (Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics, Harvard U.)
	}}		}}

Vigen at 17:25, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T17:25:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 22 May 2026
Line 72:		Line 72:
	A hypothetical scenario for possibly dangerous metastable black holes has recently been proposed by Dr. Plaga.<ref>{{Citation \|last=Plaga \|first=R. \|title=On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders \|date=2009-08-09 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.1415 \|id=arXiv:0808.1415}}</ref> The conclusions of this work have been shown to be inconsistent in a second paper by Giddings and Mangano,<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giddings \|first=Steven B. \|title=Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes \|date=2008-08-29 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.4087 \|id=arXiv:0808.4087 \|last2=Mangano \|first2=Michelangelo L.}}</ref> where it is also stated that the safety of this class of metastable black hole scenarios is already established by their original work.<ref name=":0" />		A hypothetical scenario for possibly dangerous metastable black holes has recently been proposed by Dr. Plaga.<ref>{{Citation \|last=Plaga \|first=R. \|title=On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders \|date=2009-08-09 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.1415 \|id=arXiv:0808.1415}}</ref> The conclusions of this work have been shown to be inconsistent in a second paper by Giddings and Mangano,<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giddings \|first=Steven B. \|title=Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes \|date=2008-08-29 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.4087 \|id=arXiv:0808.4087 \|last2=Mangano \|first2=Michelangelo L.}}</ref> where it is also stated that the safety of this class of metastable black hole scenarios is already established by their original work.<ref name=":0" />

	== ~~Additional sources~~ ==		== Further reading ==

	* Summary of the LSAG report. Translations are available in the following languages : fr de el es it jp no pl ru.		* Summary of the LSAG report. Translations are available in the following languages : fr de el es it jp no pl ru.
	* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].		* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].
	* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].		* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].
			* Wikipedia: [[Wikipedia:Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments\|Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments]]

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />
			[[Category:LHC]]

Vigen at 15:34, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T15:34:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 22 May 2026
Line 61:		Line 61:
	\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}		\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}

	Professor Roessler (who has a medical degree and was formerly a chaos theorist in Tuebingen) also raised doubts on the existence of Hawking radiation. His ideas have been refuted by Profs. Nicolai (Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics - Albert-Einstein-Institut - in Potsdam) and Giulini, whose report<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=Zu den Ausführungen O.E. Rösslers \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19660591 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=de \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19660591 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref> (English translation, and further statements<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=On the arguments of O.E. Rössler \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19661044 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=en \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19661044 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref>) point to his failure to understand general relativity and the Schwarzschild metric, and his reliance on an alternative theory of gravity that was disproven in 1915. Their verdict:		Professor Roessler (who has a medical degree and was formerly a chaos theorist in Tuebingen) also raised doubts on the existence of Hawking radiation. His ideas have been refuted by Profs. Nicolai (Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics - Albert-Einstein-Institut - in Potsdam) and Giulini, whose report<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=Zu den Ausführungen O.E. Rösslers \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19660591 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=de \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19660591 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref> (English translation,<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Comments from Prof. Dr. Hermann Nicolai, Director, Max Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut) Potsdam, Germany on speculations raised by Professor Otto Roessler about the production of black holes at the LHC \|url=http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190811132334/http://environmental-impact.web.cern.ch/environmental-impact/Objects/LHCSafety/NicolaiComment-en.pdf \|archive-date=2019-08-11 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=environmental-impact.web.cern.ch}}</ref> and further statements<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=On the arguments of O.E. Rössler \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19661044 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=en \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19661044 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref>) point to his failure to understand general relativity and the Schwarzschild metric, and his reliance on an alternative theory of gravity that was disproven in 1915. Their verdict:
	{{blockquote		{{blockquote
	\|text=		\|text=

Vigen at 14:53, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T14:53:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 22 May 2026
Line 71:		Line 71:

	A hypothetical scenario for possibly dangerous metastable black holes has recently been proposed by Dr. Plaga.<ref>{{Citation \|last=Plaga \|first=R. \|title=On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders \|date=2009-08-09 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.1415 \|id=arXiv:0808.1415}}</ref> The conclusions of this work have been shown to be inconsistent in a second paper by Giddings and Mangano,<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giddings \|first=Steven B. \|title=Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes \|date=2008-08-29 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.4087 \|id=arXiv:0808.4087 \|last2=Mangano \|first2=Michelangelo L.}}</ref> where it is also stated that the safety of this class of metastable black hole scenarios is already established by their original work.<ref name=":0" />		A hypothetical scenario for possibly dangerous metastable black holes has recently been proposed by Dr. Plaga.<ref>{{Citation \|last=Plaga \|first=R. \|title=On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders \|date=2009-08-09 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.1415 \|id=arXiv:0808.1415}}</ref> The conclusions of this work have been shown to be inconsistent in a second paper by Giddings and Mangano,<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giddings \|first=Steven B. \|title=Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes \|date=2008-08-29 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.4087 \|id=arXiv:0808.4087 \|last2=Mangano \|first2=Michelangelo L.}}</ref> where it is also stated that the safety of this class of metastable black hole scenarios is already established by their original work.<ref name=":0" />

			== Additional sources ==

			* Summary of the LSAG report. Translations are available in the following languages : fr de el es it jp no pl ru.
			* Specialist report published in Europe (2003): [http://dx.doi.org/10.5170/CERN-2003-001 Study of potentially dangerous events during heavy-ion collisions at the LHC : report of the LHC safety study group].
			* [https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 Specialist report published in the United States (1999): Review of speculative "disaster scenarios" at RHIC].

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />

Vigen at 14:42, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T14:42:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 22 May 2026
Line 57:		Line 57:
	The overwhelming majority of physicists agree that microscopic black holes would be unstable, as predicted by basic principles of quantum mechanics. As discussed in the LSAG report,<ref name=":1" /> if microscopic black holes can be produced by the collisions of quarks and/or gluons inside protons, they must also be able to decay back into quarks and/or gluons. Moreover, quantum mechanics predicts specifically that they should decay via Hawking radiation.		The overwhelming majority of physicists agree that microscopic black holes would be unstable, as predicted by basic principles of quantum mechanics. As discussed in the LSAG report,<ref name=":1" /> if microscopic black holes can be produced by the collisions of quarks and/or gluons inside protons, they must also be able to decay back into quarks and/or gluons. Moreover, quantum mechanics predicts specifically that they should decay via Hawking radiation.

	Nevertheless, a few papers have suggested that microscopic black holes might be stable. The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> and the LSAG report<ref name=":1" /> analyzed very conservatively the hypothetical case of stable microscopic black holes and concluded that even in this case there would be no conceivable danger. Another analysis with similar conclusions has been documented by Dr. Koch, Prof. Bleicher and Prof. Stoecker of Frankfurt University and GSI, Darmstadt,~~<ref name="CosmicLog-August 19, 2008"/> and these questions were explored in the media, on the Internet and at times through the courts.~~<ref>{{Cite ~~web~~ \|last=Koch \|first=Benjamin \|last2=Bleicher \|first2=Marcus \|last3=Stoecker \|first3=Horst \|date=~~2008-07~~-22 \|title=Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC \|url=~~https~~://arxiv.org/abs/0807.~~3349v2~~ \|~~access-date~~=~~2026-05-22~~ \|~~website~~=~~arXiv.org~~ \|~~language~~=en}}</ref> who conclude:		Nevertheless, a few papers have suggested that microscopic black holes might be stable. The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> and the LSAG report<ref name=":1" /> analyzed very conservatively the hypothetical case of stable microscopic black holes and concluded that even in this case there would be no conceivable danger. Another analysis with similar conclusions has been documented by Dr. Koch, Prof. Bleicher and Prof. Stoecker of Frankfurt University and GSI, Darmstadt,<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Koch \|first=Benjamin \|last2=Bleicher \|first2=Marcus \|last3=Stoecker \|first3=Horst \|date=2009-02 \|title=Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3349 \|journal=Physics Letters B \|volume=672 \|issue=1 \|pages=71–76 \|doi=10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.003}}</ref> who conclude:
	{{blockquote		{{blockquote
	\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}		\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}

	Professor Roessler (who has a medical degree and was formerly a chaos theorist in Tuebingen) also raised doubts on the existence of Hawking radiation. His ideas have been refuted by Profs. Nicolai (Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics - Albert-Einstein-Institut - in Potsdam) and Giulini, whose report<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=Zu den Ausführungen O.E. Rösslers \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19660591 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=de \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19660591 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref> (English translation, and further statements) point to his failure to understand general relativity and the Schwarzschild metric, and his reliance on an alternative theory of gravity that was disproven in 1915. Their verdict:		Professor Roessler (who has a medical degree and was formerly a chaos theorist in Tuebingen) also raised doubts on the existence of Hawking radiation. His ideas have been refuted by Profs. Nicolai (Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics - Albert-Einstein-Institut - in Potsdam) and Giulini, whose report<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=Zu den Ausführungen O.E. Rösslers \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19660591 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=de \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19660591 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref> (English translation, and further statements<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=On the arguments of O.E. Rössler \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19661044 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=en \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19661044 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref>) point to his failure to understand general relativity and the Schwarzschild metric, and his reliance on an alternative theory of gravity that was disproven in 1915. Their verdict:
			{{blockquote
			\|text=
			"[Roessler's] argument is not valid; the argument is not self-consistent."}}
			The paper of Prof. Roessler has also been criticised by Prof. Bruhn<ref>{{Cite report \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.20345328 \|title=Commentary on two papers by O.E. Roessler on black holes \|last=Bruhn \|first=Gerhard W. \|date=2008-08-07 \|publisher=Zenodo \|doi=10.5281/zenodo.20345328 \|language=en}}</ref> of the Darmstadt University of Technology, who concludes that:
			{{blockquote
			\|text=
			"Roessler's misinterpretation of the Schwarzschild metric [renders] his further considerations ... null and void. These are not papers that could be taken into account when problems of black holes are discussed."}}

			A hypothetical scenario for possibly dangerous metastable black holes has recently been proposed by Dr. Plaga.<ref>{{Citation \|last=Plaga \|first=R. \|title=On the potential catastrophic risk from metastable quantum-black holes produced at particle colliders \|date=2009-08-09 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1415 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.1415 \|id=arXiv:0808.1415}}</ref> The conclusions of this work have been shown to be inconsistent in a second paper by Giddings and Mangano,<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giddings \|first=Steven B. \|title=Comments on claimed risk from metastable black holes \|date=2008-08-29 \|url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.4087 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=arXiv \|doi=10.48550/arXiv.0808.4087 \|id=arXiv:0808.4087 \|last2=Mangano \|first2=Michelangelo L.}}</ref> where it is also stated that the safety of this class of metastable black hole scenarios is already established by their original work.<ref name=":0" />
	== References ==		== References ==
	<references />		<references />

Vigen at 09:56, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T09:56:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:56, 22 May 2026
Line 60:		Line 60:
	{{blockquote		{{blockquote
	\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}		\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}

			Professor Roessler (who has a medical degree and was formerly a chaos theorist in Tuebingen) also raised doubts on the existence of Hawking radiation. His ideas have been refuted by Profs. Nicolai (Director at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics - Albert-Einstein-Institut - in Potsdam) and Giulini, whose report<ref>{{Citation \|last=Giulini \|first=Domenico \|title=Zu den Ausführungen O.E. Rösslers \|date=2008-07-30 \|url=https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.19660591 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|publisher=Zenodo \|language=de \|doi=10.5281/ZENODO.19660591 \|last2=Nicolai \|first2=Hermann}}</ref> (English translation, and further statements) point to his failure to understand general relativity and the Schwarzschild metric, and his reliance on an alternative theory of gravity that was disproven in 1915. Their verdict:

Vigen at 09:49, 22 May 2026

2026-05-22T09:49:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:49, 22 May 2026
Line 48:		Line 48:

	The LSAG report has been published by the UK Institute of Physics in its publication Journal of Physics G.<ref name=":1" /> The conclusions of the LSAG report were endorsed in a press release that announced this publication.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Physics \|first=Institute of \|title=LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded \|url=https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20160403154528/https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-date=2016-04-03 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.iop.org \|language=en-GB}}</ref>		The LSAG report has been published by the UK Institute of Physics in its publication Journal of Physics G.<ref name=":1" /> The conclusions of the LSAG report were endorsed in a press release that announced this publication.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Physics \|first=Institute of \|title=LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded \|url=https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20160403154528/https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-date=2016-04-03 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.iop.org \|language=en-GB}}</ref>

			The conclusions of LSAG have also been endorsed by the Particle and Nuclear Physics Section (KET) of the German Physical Society.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Experten bestätigen: Der LHC ist sicher KET veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zu Schwarzen Löchern am LHC \|url=http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140422201438/http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-date=2014-04-22 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.ketweb.de \|language=DE}}</ref> A translation into German of the complete LSAG report may be found on the KET website.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bewertung der Sicherheit von Teilchenkollisionen am LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212105929/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-12 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=DE}}</ref> (A translation into French of the complete LSAG report is also available.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Rapport sur la sûreté des collisions au LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241213000602/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-13 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=FR}}</ref>)

			Thus, the conclusion that LHC collisions are completely safe has been endorsed by the three respected professional societies of physicists that have reviewed it, which rank among the most highly respected professional societies in the world.

			World-renowned experts in astrophysics, cosmology, general relativity, mathematics, particle physics and risk analysis, including several Nobel Laureates in Physics, have also expressed clear individual opinions that LHC collisions are not dangerous, as you can read on the right.

			The overwhelming majority of physicists agree that microscopic black holes would be unstable, as predicted by basic principles of quantum mechanics. As discussed in the LSAG report,<ref name=":1" /> if microscopic black holes can be produced by the collisions of quarks and/or gluons inside protons, they must also be able to decay back into quarks and/or gluons. Moreover, quantum mechanics predicts specifically that they should decay via Hawking radiation.

			Nevertheless, a few papers have suggested that microscopic black holes might be stable. The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> and the LSAG report<ref name=":1" /> analyzed very conservatively the hypothetical case of stable microscopic black holes and concluded that even in this case there would be no conceivable danger. Another analysis with similar conclusions has been documented by Dr. Koch, Prof. Bleicher and Prof. Stoecker of Frankfurt University and GSI, Darmstadt,<ref name="CosmicLog-August 19, 2008"/> and these questions were explored in the media, on the Internet and at times through the courts.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Koch \|first=Benjamin \|last2=Bleicher \|first2=Marcus \|last3=Stoecker \|first3=Horst \|date=2008-07-22 \|title=Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC \|url=https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3349v2 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=arXiv.org \|language=en}}</ref> who conclude:
			{{blockquote
			\|text="''We discussed the logically possible black hole evolution paths. Then we discussed every single outcome of those paths and showed that none of the physically sensible paths can lead to a black hole disaster at the LHC.''"}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 22 May 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> has been peer-reviewed by anonymous experts in astrophysics and particle physics and published in the professional scientific journal ''[[wikipedia:Physical Review#Journals\|Physical Review D]]''. The American Physical Society chose to highlight this as one of the most significant papers it has published recently, commissioning a commentary<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Peskin \|first=Michael \|date=2008-08-18 \|title=The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? \|url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|journal=Physics \|language=en \|volume=1 \|doi=10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|issn=1943-2879}}</ref> by Prof. Peskin from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory in which he endorses its conclusions. The Executive Committee of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society has issued a statement endorsing the LSAG report.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Statement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider \|url=http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081001161427/http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-date=2008-10-01 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.aps.org}}</ref>		The paper by Giddings and Mangano<ref name=":0" /> has been peer-reviewed by anonymous experts in astrophysics and particle physics and published in the professional scientific journal ''[[wikipedia:Physical Review#Journals\|Physical Review D]]''. The American Physical Society chose to highlight this as one of the most significant papers it has published recently, commissioning a commentary<ref>{{Cite journal \|last=Peskin \|first=Michael \|date=2008-08-18 \|title=The end of the world at the Large Hadron Collider? \|url=https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|journal=Physics \|language=en \|volume=1 \|doi=10.1103/Physics.1.14 \|issn=1943-2879}}</ref> by Prof. Peskin from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Laboratory in which he endorses its conclusions. The Executive Committee of the Division of Particles and Fields of the American Physical Society has issued a statement endorsing the LSAG report.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Statement by the Executive Committee of the DPF on the Safety of Collisions at the Large Hadron Collider \|url=http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20081001161427/http://www.aps.org/units/dpf/governance/reports/upload/lhc_saftey_statement.pdf \|archive-date=2008-10-01 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.aps.org}}</ref>

	The LSAG report has been published by the UK Institute of Physics in its publication Journal of Physics G.<ref name=":1" /> The conclusions of the LSAG report were endorsed in a press release that announced this publication.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Physics \|first=Institute of \|title=LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded \|url=https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20160403154528/https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-date=2016-04-03 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.iop.org \|language=en-GB}}</ref>		The LSAG report has been published by the UK Institute of Physics in its publication ''Journal of Physics G''.<ref name=":1" /> The conclusions of the LSAG report were endorsed in a press release that announced this publication.<ref>{{Cite web \|last=Physics \|first=Institute of \|title=LHC switch-on fears are completely unfounded \|url=https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20160403154528/https://www.iop.org/news/archive/page_64087.html \|archive-date=2016-04-03 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.iop.org \|language=en-GB}}</ref>

	The conclusions of LSAG have also been endorsed by the Particle and Nuclear Physics Section (KET) of the German Physical Society.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Experten bestätigen: Der LHC ist sicher KET veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zu Schwarzen Löchern am LHC \|url=http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140422201438/http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-date=2014-04-22 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.ketweb.de \|language=DE}}</ref> A translation into German of the complete LSAG report may be found on the KET website.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bewertung der Sicherheit von Teilchenkollisionen am LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212105929/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-12 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=DE}}</ref> (A translation into French of the complete LSAG report is also available.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Rapport sur la sûreté des collisions au LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241213000602/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-13 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=FR}}</ref>)		The conclusions of LSAG have also been endorsed by the Particle and Nuclear Physics Section (KET) of the German Physical Society.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Experten bestätigen: Der LHC ist sicher KET veröffentlicht Stellungnahme zu Schwarzen Löchern am LHC \|url=http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20140422201438/http://www.ketweb.de/oeffentlichkeitsarbeit/e204014/20080801_PM_Der_LHC_ist_sicher.pdf \|archive-date=2014-04-22 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=www.ketweb.de \|language=DE}}</ref> A translation into German of the complete LSAG report may be found on the KET website.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Bewertung der Sicherheit von Teilchenkollisionen am LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241212105929/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-German.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-12 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=DE}}</ref> (A translation into French of the complete LSAG report is also available.<ref>{{Cite web \|title=Rapport sur la sûreté des collisions au LHC \|url=https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241213000602/https://lsag.web.cern.ch/LSAG-Report-French.pdf \|archive-date=2024-12-13 \|access-date=2026-05-22 \|website=lsag.web.cern.ch \|language=FR}}</ref>)