EpiStack

H-11 - The actionable LHC catastrophe probability is dominated by the chance the safety argument itself is flawed

1 min read

Properties9
type
hypothesis
id
H-11
state
active
question
How much residual catastrophe probability survives the published LHC safety arguments, and what does the safety conclusion hinge on?
statement
For the LHC safety case, the probability that the argument itself is flawed is plausibly at least 1e-4 and more likely above 1e-3 (based on the historical error rate of expert arguments), so the all-things-considered probability of catastrophe P(X) is dominated by the argument-failure term P(X|¬A)P(¬A) and sits orders of magnitude above stated conditional estimates such as 1e-9 - i.e. the safety conclusion hinges on the soundness of the argument, which internal rigor alone cannot certify.
cluster
HC-14 - Locus of the residual LHC catastrophe probability
source
S-44 - Ord, Hillerbrand and Sandberg, Probing the Improbable
locator
§4.3 (esp. the P(¬A) ≥ 1e-4 discussion around eq. 5) and §5
quote
It would thus be very bold to suppose that the argument for the safety of the LHC was much lower than 10-3, but for the sake of argument, let us grant that it is as low as 10-4

The authors stress they can find no plausible combination of P(¬A), P(X|¬A) and an acceptable expected-death limit that clears their bound without substantive further argument; they explicitly remain open to additional independent arguments and verification lowering P(¬A). The figures used are illustrative, not calibrated.

Graph View

Show model graphinteractive Bayesian view — separate from the graph above
added after the FLF submission deadline

Backlinks