I gotta say, the more I read about the LHC, the more ill-advised it seems.
If I understand correctly, it's expected to make tiny blackholes a few microns in diameter. Other possibilities are that it might (instead of, or in addition to, the blackholes) create strange matter, transformative strangelets, causality loops, traversable wormholes, monopoles, dark matter, dark energy, and that slow-motion plasma (that the RHIC unexpectedly created) that no one has adequately explained (last I heard, anyway).These are no cause for alarm. In the case of the micro-blackholes (the thing that sounds the most alarming to a layperson), as they'll exist for just a couple seconds and only obliterate things within a micron of distance from them. So we are told.
Of course, we "know" they'll only exist for a few seconds because we theorize that they'll release Hawking Radiation and fade away. We suspect this happens all the time out in the universe, but we've never been able to observe it. Hawking radiation is theoretical, and more than likely unobservable.
The closest thing to a proof we have of this is just Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. If black holes don't release particles, then we'd be able to know the location and vector of a particle - it's in that tiny little black hole over there, sitting in the center with zero kinetic vector relative to the frame of reference of the earth. That just couldn't be the case, because we all know Heisenberg was right - it's one of the lynchpins upon which our current model of the universe rests.
Yet here's Hawking saying that the Higgs Boson, the other thing the LHC is expected to generate, probably won't show up. If it doesn't, it would mean that our current model of the universe is flawed. And that's Hawking's best guess - he expects we'll be surprised and learn that we've got some major flaws in our theories.
The same theories that assure us that micro blackholes, strangelets, monopoles, and causality loops won't actually do horrendous damage to the world this October. These men of science are taking an awful lot on faith - which seems kinda counter-intuitive to me, considering how many of them are atheists.
See where I'm going with this? I'm not saying "we're all gonna die". There's only a 1 in 50,000,000 chance of that. Considering that the odds of you dying in a lightning strike is 1 in 79,746 there's really nothing to worry about.
I'm just saying that this is a risk along the lines of that which Oppenheimer, etc, took back during WW2. There was some concern that The Bomb would ignite the atmosphere and roast us all, or that the blast would exceed power calculations and split the earth. But, you see, taking that risk was deemed justified. One word why: Nazis. The Germans were working on the bomb, and things would not have been pretty if they'd gotten it first. Splitting the earth in half or burning off the ionosphere is favorable to Hitler having nukes. Sure, in retrospect, the Nazi's weren't that close, and the bomb wasn't needed. But you can certainly justify risking the destruction of the earth in the 1940's mindset, or even the 1950's and 60's anti-communist mindset.
But let's be real. There ain't no chance that The Terrorists are going to invent micro-blackholes before the western world does. There's no chance that a guy in a cave is going to build a time-machine out of a rocket launcher and a dialysis machine. There's no chance that al-Quaeda is going to ram some hijacked planes into a sub-atomic particle, generating a strange-quark reaction that will turn the planet into a neutron star. So why the fuck are we trying to do this before they do?
The only black hole you'll ever find terrorists in is Gitmo.
The LHC is no doubt going to teach our species some things about subatomic physics. But it would be very dubious to suggest that those insights will solve global warming (or bring about world peace, reveal McCain to be the Antichrist, or even get us flying cars) in our lifetime. The only way it will benefit us in the short term is if it proves our models of the universe to be patently flawed - but if that's the case, then the very assurances that it's safe to do are cast in doubt.
So, if the practical benefits are not going to be realized in our lifetime anyway, why do we need to build it on earth in our lifetime? If we put that money and energy into getting off this rock, we'd have the ability to build our grandchildren a collider in deep space. They could assemble it outside the earth orbit, and have far less to worry about. Mars could have it's atmosphere burned off 30 years from now, and it wouldn't be all that great a loss to you or me.
I know, I know, I'm probably over-reacting. It's just a one in 50-million chance of anything going dangerously wrong. Gotta say, though, that if you gave me a button that had a one in 50-million chance of killing thousands, a one in 500-million chance of blowing up the planet, and an even smaller chance of that button ever producing a tangible benefit that will affect my life personally, I wouldn't push it.'Cause you know the second you're done pushing it, Rod Serling is going to show up and give that button to some guy you've never even met before...
19 comments:
I read a sf novel in which the LHC gave off a certain kind of radiation that made us visible to certain multi-dimensional beings, of whom there were two factions. One group, a civilized, Star Trek Federation kind of entity, wanted to help us. The others were inter-dimensional ants, excited by the prospect of all the yummy raw materials on our planet.
It involved time travel, the LHC, texas, and stuff, but I cannot for the life of me remember its name.
I do remember it was written by a scientist.
What if the button were big and red and shiny? Would you push it then?
You're right, we shouldn't do it if we do not see any tangible benefits in our lifetime. For that matter, we shouldn't worry about recycling, the environment, or oil conservation. Medical research? Who needs it. Sure, the research of 50 years ago is what helped cure a family member of mine's cancer last year, but really who cares since the research probably didn't help any of the researchers in their own lifetime?
I'm frankly amazed that this particular post came from you, RB. If we don't pursue science for science's sake, if we only care about the bottom line of what is tangible now, then we're no better than the corporations you rail against.
Sorry, Siderisanon, but I'm afraid you completely missed the point.
The majority of cancer research has ZERO chance of blowing up the planet. That's my point.
When the first internal combustion engine was built, the inventor knew there was a chance he was going to blow himself up. But he decided he'd take that risk, since it was his life to risk. There was no chance of him screwing up and ending all life on the planet.
(Ironically, what with pollution and global warming, it turns out maybe that invention will end up doing so, but I'm sure he wasn't even remotely aware of that risk when building the first car.)
So yes, I'm against anything that has a random chance of ending life as we know it before anyone could respond. That means I'd never go to work for the LHC, nor willingly and intentionally donate money towards it.
I'd also never work in the field of genetically engineering viral weaponry, either. Nor do I think anyone should be doing so. But again, I can conceivably buy the argument that terrorist's might make weaponized anthrax, so we need to do the research to combat it.
But like I said, terrorists aren't gonna be making micro blackholes. Since it's not a pressing urgency, there's no justification to doing it here on earth, especially directly beneath populated areas. Build a deep space station, and do it there.
Oh, and another point...
Cancer research has the immediate goal of saving lives and reducing suffering. That somewhat mitigates it's risks, even if it's going to take generations to cure it.
Just the same, if a proposed line of cancer research had a measured and acknowledged chance of wiping out humanity in a weekend like in I Am Legend, I'd be against it. My reaction during the opening scenes of that film were quite visceral. What good does it do us to save a million lives if a week later it kills a billion people?
Speaking as a cancer survivor, I'd have rather have died than be responsible for the extinction of the human race.
We do this because we have to do this. There are questions unanswered and we have before us a way to find some answers. As the old saying goes, curiosity killed the cat, satisfaction brought him back. This was no doubt an allusion to Schrödinger's later postulation which in turn became a bedrock of the Coopenhagen interpretation of quantum theory thus necessitating both states existing until observed.
Besides, ignorance is a cancer and the LHC brings us one step closer to the cure.
That's an awesome and enjoyable bullshit reply, Jake. You rock!
It's no bullshit. I believe this with the fervor of a nun on heat.
Certain kinds of research that go into curing disease have a tiny chance to accidentally release plague into the world. Curing diseases with antibiotics and antivirals runs the risk of creating a super bug that cannot be stopped. Does this mean we stop curing disease?
As to blowing up the world, I'd like you to cite a non-inflated, rational article that has some sort of actual scientific evidence that this supercollider will somehow blow up the world. Sounds more like Luddite propaganda to me... or maybe just Republicans.
Keep in mind that this isn't the first supercollider to be built and run, yet we're still here.
As to blowing up the world, I'd like you to cite a non-inflated, rational article that has some sort of actual scientific evidence that this supercollider will somehow blow up the world.
I found one yesterday. Wish I'd included a link. I'll see if I can go find it again.
Found it:
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon6.htm
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider
Scientists to have voiced concerns about the LHC include Martin Rees, Walter L Wagner, Otto Rossler, and Ranier Plaga.
Other scientists have disputed their claims, of course, and it's certainly possible all 4 of the above are in error.
Keep in mind that this isn't the first supercollider to be built and run, yet we're still here.
Above ground nuclear testing has yet to destroy the world, but that's not an argument to start doing it again. We're safer without it.
Certain kinds of research that go into curing disease have a tiny chance to accidentally release plague into the world. Curing diseases with antibiotics and antivirals runs the risk of creating a super bug that cannot be stopped. Does this mean we stop curing disease?
No, we shouldn't stop curing diseases. But we should be careful how we administer antibiotics, and where we put anti-germ chemicals lest we breed a super bug.
I'm not against anti-germ technology across the board, because it has the immediate benefit of saving lives and making for a better world. The benefits to us and future generations absolutely justify the risk.
I think it's a short-sighted mistake to make antibacterial kleenex, for example, as that's just breeding a super-bug. The only reason I haven't blogged about that crap is 'cause I didn't have a blog when those first came out.
The benefits of the LHC have yet to be explained to me in a way that I feel justifies the risk. All I've read is that it will clarify our understanding of theoretical astrophysics. If it were going to reduce suffering, initiate peace, or cure disease, I'd say it was well worth a 1 in 50 million risk of destroying the world.
So, now I present you with a challenge. Please educate me. In what ways will the LHC concretely help humanity. If it's going to deflect asteroids, invent the warp-drive, or create a break through in supercomputing speeds, I'd like to know. Last I'd heard, it was just satisfying astronomical curiousity. Give me a practical application of the LHC, and I'll be swayed.
I posit that anything worth doing involves risk. The greater the potential risk, the greater the potential reward. Just ask career robbers. While the potential for risk is miniscule, the potential size of the calamity is vast (from our mere earthly perspective) and the potential reward is astronomical. The calculations have been made, risks assessed and accounted for, variables checked, double checked, etc. A career bank robber would jump at these odds. The payout versus risk is just too damn good. Like taking candy from a baby.
In addition I would like to point out a popular theory that states intelligent life forms will inevitably self destruct out of their own curiosity or competitive nature. This is often cited when trying to explain why we have not had alien contact. We don't know if this is true, but if it is so the fact that I am writing this and you are reading this is proof that we are still idiots.
Will we be commanded by reactionary fear labeled as caution and reside in ignorance, or follow the pursuit of inquiry to possible answers and/or doom? DOOM!
RB:
First, I have never claimed that the LHC will create concrete results. I believe it is pursuit of knowledge for knowledge's sake alone.
As for your citings, I guess I should have made it more clear when I was asking you to cite some actual research on the subject. I was thinking something valid, like a peer reviewed journal or writings by an accredited, respected, and validated scientist.
Looking around the site for your "www.risk-evaluation-forum.org" does not seem to have any actual scientific research backing it up. In checking what appears to be their reference page, they cite two CERN safety study reports which state there is no danger. (Yet the web site appears to be going the completely opposite way in their views.) They also cite their song, which I find a hilarious item. If I have missed some valid scientific data they are using to support their claim, please point it out.
As for citing Wikipedia ... while Wikipedia can be a source of "common man" information on subjects, trusting it's contents as facts is about as safe as trusting what's written on the bathroom wall. It's great for gaming research, but it is not a real source of validated info. People can and do post false information, whether intentionally or not.
Please understand, I am not trying to say that your view or your concerns are not valid. Not in the least. I am criticizing the source material you cited as being inadequate to prove your point.
Can you show me any actual valid scientific research where someone claims there is a real danger? We're talking science, not politics, so it should be based on facts, not gossip.
I was listening to a call-in show on NPR this morning on my way back from a job site. I think a lot of the fear of this stems from the fact that scientists do not use the word "impossible". One of the physicists they had on said she'd only go so far as to say "ridiculously improbable". She also noted that the energy levels created in the particle accelerator are nothing compared to the high energy particles that have been bombarding the Moon for billions of years and it hasn't succumbed to a black hole yet.
So, now I present you with a challenge. Please educate me. In what ways will the LHC concretely help humanity. If it's going to deflect asteroids, invent the warp-drive, or create a break through in supercomputing speeds, I'd like to know. Last I'd heard, it was just satisfying astronomical curiousity. Give me a practical application of the LHC, and I'll be swayed.
Damn it! I had a super response to that and it seemed to just disappear into a spontaneous black hole or something. I'll try to recreate that which was lost.
If you have Lincoln Logs you can build things out of Lincoln Logs. If you have a fundamental understanding of what goes into Lincoln Logs, where the wood comes from, how it goes from seed to sapling to tree to timber to lumber, how it can be used to make things, how it can be altered and how it can not be altered, you can make the best damn Lincoln Logs ever!
Sub-atomic particles are the Lincoln Logs of the Universe. The LHC will give us a better understanding of these fundamental building blocks. That affects how we approach everything.
Jake's Lincoln Logs comment is a great analogy. Absolutely true that understanding these things gives us a much better chance of improving our lot somewhere down the road. On that level, the LHC sounds awesome.
Just the same, if Lincoln Logs had a chance, no matter how slim, of blowing up the world, I'm not sure I'd buy them for my kid.
This thread makes me want to look back and find out what the highest number of comments we've ever had on a post was. I know there was some religious debate back in Nov or Dec that was up there with this.
Man, I love this blog.
As I said, if it were up to me, I'd never turn the LHC on. I also would have built it in far orbit, where the potential effects on earth are minimal.
But it's not up to me, and never will be. If I'd wanted to be involved in those kinds of decisions, I'd have majored in Science and minored in philosophy. Instead, I majored in fine arts, and dropped out.
For the same reason (or type of reason), I didn't get a job in the military. I'm well aware that I'm not the sort of person who should be determining when to take risks that could result in large-scale casualties. I'd always choose the cautious "safe" route. If someone died on my watch, I'd quite possibly never forgive myself.
I'm a paranoid pacifist. It's who I am, and I'm happy with that. You folks are more willing to take risks than I am. I'm okay with that, too.
Thank you for your participation in the thought experiment. I learned a little about myself, and a lot about you.
Post a Comment