1) Anything that could happen in the collider would have happened many, many times in the early universe, when matter was dense and hot.

2) Some cosmic rays are much more energetic than the collider can manage, so the universe is still running natural experiments at the same and higher energies.

If anything universe-destroying was within our capabilities, the universe would have destroyed itself long ago.

Query–Are the chances of these jokers winning an injunction (or anything in their lawsuit)greater than, less than or equal to the probability of the LHC producing a stew of stable, negatively charged strangelets, magnetic monopoles, and/or runaway black holes that will consume existence as we know it? What happens if someone at the US Attorney’s office drops the Summons and Complaint behind the water cooler and the government fails to answer? Will the court issue a default judgment under these circumstances?

Ted: Brookhaven’s relativistic heavy ion collider (RHIC)is not a “smaller” partical accelerator; it is different. It is smaller in terms of the ring diameter (2.4 vs. 17 miles)and total energy, but it accelerates larger particles, and has a different purpose. Gold ions are much larger than protons. (Apples and oranges).

Brookhaven already commissioned a report to address Mr. Wagner’s nonsense. http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf. See p. 19 and endnote 27.

Also, Dr. Arkani-Hamed spells minuscule correctly (as I learned it), but you chose the more hip spelling (miniscule). “Miniscule” seems to be the latest fad in spelling.
http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/spell/mini.html

VMS: The pro se is an attorney.

Separately, why some scientists shouldn’t talk to some reporters:

Dr. Arkani-Hamed said concerning worries about the death of the Earth or universe, “Neither has any merit.” He pointed out that because of the dice-throwing nature of quantum physics, there was some probability of almost anything happening. There is some minuscule probability, he said, “the Large Hadron Collider might make dragons that might eat us up.”

Left out: Arkani-Hamed was talking about a possibility so small that the experiment could be run a million times a second between now and a billion years from now, and still not generate “dragons that might eat us up”. Unfortunately, the English language word “miniscule” doesn’t quite capture that quantum mathematical concept. It would be better if scientists discussing absurd possibilities used actually absurd (and equally unlikely) possibilities like “a Welsh-speaking replica of Frank Sinatra in a blue tuxedo.”

The case fails on jurisdiction, standing, as well as substantively.

The plaintiffs are seeking a TRO, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction. Their lawsuit does not allege jurisdiction of the federal court, although diversity jurisdiction may be implied from the pleadings.

http://www.wiki1.net/groups/uploads/LargeHadronCollider/SanchoComplaint.doc

They may have a problem with likelihood of success on the merits. Their expert in all likelihood will be Dauberted out if it gets that far.

http://www.wiki1.net/groups/uploads/LargeHadronCollider/SanchoJamesBlodgett1.doc

This does not appear to be an “overlawyered” case since the plaintiffs are proceedign pro se.

IANAL, but isn’t “personal jurisdiction” an issue?