What's the worst case, but still realistic, scenario for

It breaks and costs us a lot of money. There's no even small-scale existential risk.

Future particle accelerators of much higher power really might carry some massive, global or cosmic level risks. The LHC is nowhere near that though.

>>8286239
Worst: it gets shut down because stupidity.

>>8286247
I see.

Thanks for answering my question!

File: 1463547907090.png (301KB, 784x656px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 784x656px

quick plug for the bit King Current Year did back when he and the daily show were still pretty good.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/hzqmb9/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-large-hadron-collider

The guy he interviews actually uses the "50% chance because it will or it won't" meme.

The physicist in it also answers you OP

>>8286239
>that shitty cable management

Should've hired a professional PC builder t b h.

>>8286247
*cough-MAX-IV-cough*

>>8286314
They didn't even put any RGB LED strips or GAYMING components on it. Weak.

>>8286239
What are you hinting at? Did I miss something new or is this still about the black hole bullshit?

>>8286377
They weren't worried about black holes. They were worried about this:
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/will_the_lhc_destroy_earth

This scares me more than anything:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science

>>8286390
Fucking phone
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8857154/Worlds-most-powerful-laser-to-tear-apart-the-vacuum-of-space.html

>>8286390
>>8286392
lol

>>8286239

Worst case scenario: it shuts down because a wild animal got electrocuted somewhere on the site.

File: 1398111885105.jpg (60KB, 460x477px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 460x477px

>accelerating a bunch of particles close to light speed under the ground
>dangerous

File: 1438117086759.jpg (60KB, 509x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 509x720px

>>8286390
>This scares me more than anything:


>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science

>>8286390
Strangelet production is the real fear, that is true. It's less likely for the LHC than it was for the RHIC though, and still doesn't avoid the simple objection that right now we're not producing higher energy collisions than what already happens in our atmosphere, meaning the increase in risk is nonexistent.

>>8286450
Yea, that's right.

I was a freshman in college when this all came about and that was my argument from the start. It was still a concern to the point that several faculty involved with the project explained to the uninformed why it was stupid to worry.

>>8286247
>>8286248
>>8286406
Or, it keeps running and doesn't find anything new, which may not actually be that unlikely at this point.
We could use some new particles to explain certain things like DM.

File: 1428618544943.jpg (28KB, 335x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 335x333px

>>8286483
>We could use some new particles to explain certain things like DM
Only 5 am, already dumbest post of the day

>>8286492
>see DM
>probably not a SM particle
>postulate new particle with the right properties
>never find the thing
how's that not an issue again?

nvm me just testing
[math]div{B}=0[/math]
[math]divD=\rho[/math]
[math]rotE=-frac{\partial D}{\partial t}[/math]
[math]rotH=j+frac{\partial H}{\partial t}[/math]
[math]\overrightarrow{E} /overrightarrow{E}[/math]