the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Yale University Press

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Securities
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Recent Comments

Another Physicst Lawyer on . . . and I feel fine

Keri Brooks on . . . and I feel fine

PhysicsLaw on . . . and I feel fine

reader on . . . and I feel fine

John Armstrong on . . . and I feel fine

Archives

May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005

 

« Does the Eighth Amendment Turn on the Size of Your R-Squared? | Main | Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2008) »

April 16, 2008

. . . and I feel fine

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

explosion.JPG How should the law deal with the end of the world?

A set of recent NYT articles discusses a lawsuit filed to stop the (possible) end of the world. Apparently, there is a very, very remote chance that the newest particle accelerator will create

a tiny black hole, which could eat the Earth. Or it could spit out something called a “strangelet” that would convert our planet to a shrunken dense dead lump of something called “strange matter.”

Yikes! And so there is a lawsuit seeking to enjoin use of the accelerator, at least until an environmental impact study (!) is completed. And with that, the fate of the universe suddenly rests in the hands of lawyers and judges. It sounds like a bad script that tries to marry Armageddon with Law and Order:

"Will beautiful attorney Lisa and her trusty paralegal sidekick Jake get the papers filed in time? Will cranky judge Hornblatt grant the TRO that saves the world? Find out next Friday, right after the series premiere of Survivor: Law School Edition."

And how exactly does the law analyze these sorts of claims, anyway? It strikes me that law is not particularly well-equipped to handle claims of infinite destruction. For instance:

-When can a party get a TRO to prevent an act that would cause the end of the universe?

Well, they've got to show irreparable harm. Presumably, the end of the universe is always irreparable harm.

-When does a company have to disclose the possibility of the end of the universe in its filings?

Well, if it's future or speculative information, we apply Basic v. Levinson's probability/magnitude test. The probability may be small, even infinitessimal. But the magnitude of the potential harm? Infinite. I guess you always disclose it.

(10-K's everywhere will now include the line, "There is a very, very, very small chance that something the Board does will inadvertently cause the end of the universe.")

-And how would a court apply the Hand formula, for instance, in assessing whether a party should have taken better precautions to prevent the universe from being destroyed?

Burden = Probability x Loss.

P may be low, but L is really, really high. Does this mean that parties always have a burden to take reasonable steps to prevent the end of the universe?

Probably.

But then, law typically gives damages, which are backward-looking. And if the universe has been destroyed . . . well, good luck finding a court in which to bring your claim.

Plus, all your evidence is probably destroyed.

(Image source: Wikicommons)

Posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger at April 16, 2008 12:22 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/3527.

Comments

P may be low, but L is really, really high.

This is the problem that innumeracy raises. P is not just "low". If we're putting L at "really, really high" then P would be really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really low (modulo a few "really"s). It's winning the powerball every day for a month low. It's just not going to happen.

Posted by: John Armstrong at April 16, 2008 06:22 PM


No standing - injury is not particularized.

Posted by: reader at April 17, 2008 01:04 PM


As a Physicist-soon-to-be-lawyer, I'd toss out these claims. Unfortunately, under Quantum Theory, just about anything is possible. The earth could appear next to the sun and get destroyed, although there is a near infinitesmal chance of this occuring (you'd have to see perhaps a googleplex of universes for the entire length of their existence to see a single planet tunneling through that much space).
Anyway, I
1. doubt that a strangelet will be created,
2. even if it is created, it will exist for so short a period of time it will be unable to interact with any particles, let alone enough particles to turn the earth into strange matter,
3. the "black hole" is not black, as its gravitational field is not strong enough to pull in a single Hydrogen atom, and hence you end up with a lot of "bent space-time" in a tiny space, which ends up not making that much of a difference - if it can't interact with normal matter, eg, pull things into it via its gravitational field, it can't expand. Further, going "into it" won't stop you from leaving as a normal black hole, because there isn't this massive amount of gravitational force pulling you towards it. A more accurate description would be the creation of a naked singularity for a very very brief period of time, which might allow us, one day, to make wormholes/time machines.
4. Particle accelerators are a WASTE OF MONEY! At some point, those crazies making computer processors will figure out that they need to use a beam of protons/other particles to cut their silicon/other semi-conducting substrate, so that private industry will start building particle accelerators.
5. This post makes no sense, as I haven't slept in days

Posted by: PhysicsLaw at April 19, 2008 08:56 PM


Something about the incongruity of talking about the total destruction of the universe in such a calm, rational manner struck me as humorous. Thanks for this thought-provoking laugh! I especially liked your comment about the evidence being destroyed.

Posted by: Keri Brooks at April 20, 2008 12:10 AM


One proposal (don't remember whose) to avoid the problem of trying to resolve infinite harm vs. infinitesimal likelihood of harm is to treat likelihoods of catastrophic events over which we have no control as a baseline.

In other words, we compute some odds of "foreseeable" catastrophic events (say, a meteor impacting the Earth, which can be estimated somewhat easily) to establish a baseline probability, p. Then, if a potentially catastrophic man-made event is expected to occur with probability less than or equal to p, then that risk is treated as insignificant.

Posted by: Another Physicst Lawyer at April 21, 2008 04:09 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

William Birdthistle
Elaine Chiu
David Fontana
James Grimmelmann
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
William McGeveran
Michael O'Shea






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member