The Old Maxim

Written by: Lag

The Old Maxim The Old Maxim The old maxim “Leave it to the experts” is familiar because it’s usually good advice. We wouldn’t let anyone but highly trained doctors perform surgery on us. But sometimes even the most elite of experts must be called into question when they get carried away. Let’s say, a group of world-class physicists wanted to use a machine that would unlock the secrets of the universe, but it was also capable of destroying the planet. Some might think it’s time to take those experts down a few notches, right?

As crazy as the proposition sounds, it’s happening right now. The European Organization for Nuclear Research (known by its French initials as CERN), is planning to switch on the world’s largest and most advanced particle collider in August. The several-million pound machine, located underground outside Geneva, is known as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), and it is expected to collide atoms at nearly the speed of light to recreate miniature versions of the Big Bang, shedding light on the creation and structure of our universe.

Pretty cool stuff, but yet, while the LHC’s theoretical capabilities stand to advance the field of physics exponentially, skeptics say that it also has the power to produce a black hole that could swallow the planet. Or, in lieu of a black hole, it could generate “strangelets,” theoretical, subatomic particles so dangerously energetic that they could turn the Earth into a hot, dense, dead lump instantaneously.

Of course, the physicists at the helm of the project are among the most prominent geniuses in the world, and they are convinced nothing terrible will happen. Project leader Lyn Evans said, “Obviously, the world will not end when the LHC switches on.” And yet, given that a particle smasher of this magnitude has never been used before, the safety of this machine doesn’t seem very “obvious” to the rest of us. As of now, there is no way to prove with certainty that black holes and strangelets won’t be produced, get out of control, and consume the planet.

With this logic in mind, Walter L. Wagner and Luis Sancho of Hawaii filed suit in April at the U.S. District Court in Honolulu to block the start-up of the new collider until CERN produces a comprehensive safety report. CERN’s report, released on June 20, did not alleviate their fears. Wagner claims that the report “has several major flaws,” and refused to withdraw his lawsuit. Last week, Justice Department lawyers representing the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation filed a motion to dismiss the case, signaling an agreement amongst the world’s scientific elite that the risks are worth the reward.

But what exactly is the reward? Understanding the processes inside the LHC requires an intimate knowledge of quantum and particle physics, with at least a smattering of comprehension of string theory, all of which are fields only understood by the most genius of geniuses. But, suffice it to say, if this thing works, the results would be, well—really cool. But just because the results of the experiment might be really cool doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to do it. One might call attention to the fact that one of the first “really cool” reactions of modern physics turned into the Atom Bomb. Or, that in every sci-fi movie, human experimentation goes terribly wrong when it gets too ambitious. Granted, sci-fi movies are fiction, but the book-turned-movie “I, Robot” is being chillingly reflected now in South Korea, where the government will put a robot that looks like a 20-something Korean woman in every home in the country by 2020.

With all the books, movies and unanswered questions about what artificial intelligence is capable of, one can’t help but think that some things might be better left alone. The LHC, a machine with a circumference of 17 miles that is capable of generating energies more powerful than the sun seems to fall well within that category.

Does the world as a whole need to understand the secrets of the universe before we know if it’s safe to unlock them? The experts assure us that the chances of strangelets or black holes destroying life as we know it are about one in 50 million. That number sounds safe, but the odds are about equivalent to the odds of winning some lotteries—and somebody always ends up winning the lottery.

Given the risk of annihilation by forces we hardly understand and cannot control, is it really a good idea to let the experts tell us what’s best this time? The physicists point out that other particle colliders have hugely advanced the field of physics in recent decades with no unexpected negative effects, but John Johnson Jr. of the LA Times made a good point when he said that scientists came up with them using the logic of “9-year-old boys with a new toy: ‘Let’s smash it and see what happens.’” Even if they’re well-educated 9-year-olds, should they be allowed to play with toys so powerful?

Tags: Environment, Society, Technology | Jul 2, 2008 |

20 Comments, Comment or Ping

"A Mom"

We as a nation allow these men/boys to play around with our live in the name of progress. On the other hand our curiosity with the universe is something we should explore in order to have a better understanding of what we are dealing with, to make things better. Some human minds are always wondering. What else is there? Sometimes what we discover can inevitability destroy us. Maybe something are better left alone.

[Reply]
Alwayswrite

Knowledge is a scary thing. The more you know, the more control you have over your surroundings. Understanding leads to power. And power, so many times throughout history, has been used for bad purposes.

I’m really excited, in any event, that there are people in the world who are thinking on such a high level. The human mind is amazing. Hopefully, though, the scientists are really honest with their report, honest to themselves and the Department of Energy. We have seen first hand what misinformation produces.

We just have to be careful and precarious.

Good post.

[Reply]
"A Mom" reply on July 2, 2008 12:47 pm:
I totally agree. The problem it honesty or what they want us to think.

I truly believe there are people living on other planets. We can’t be the only ones here. I think our explorations have proved that to some instinct, but are they telling the truth to us. That has yet to be seen. Lots of misinformation out there.

[Reply]
TROUBLMan reply on July 2, 2008 1:21 pm:
Knowledge is not scary. Capitalistic people with knowledge and who don’t give a damn are scary. Knowledge only can’t harm us. Its only when people who use knowledge to maximize their own selfish gains that it harms us.

The human mind is amazing!

[Reply]
alwayswrite reply on July 3, 2008 1:19 pm:
At first I was going to disagree with Knowledge not being scary, but you make a good point.

[Reply]
TROUBLMan

I’m the type who says let them explore. If the mind has the power why should we deny it from exercising its strength. At the same time, we have to make sure we manage the utility of our creations, directing their focus toward positive change. The Atom bomb is an example where we go wrong. Yes it help end a war, but at what cost? Now every country “needs” nuclear weapons. Still, some of the technologies developed to make the bomb have been used for positive technological advancement, which we always need to make our goal.

[Reply]
Frocket

Rather sensationalist putting an image of a mushroom cloud next to an article about the LHD, wouldn’t you say?

By the way, Walter L. Wagner, the primary plaintiff in this lawsuit, also spearheaded the effort to file suit against the RHIC for the same reasons. The Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider has been in operation since 2000 and not only have there been no black holes or strangelets, most of the people on the planet probably don’t even know it exists. But guess what? Even before that he was involved in holding up the CASSINI and ULYSSES probe missions in the nineties, – nearly doubling their cost – and for what reason? To keep space free of nuclear danger! (Did anybody tell him that the sun is a continuously combusting H-Bomb?) Also, Wagner is a lawyer himself, if that can really be any surprise.

Sure, the LHC will be capable of much more powerful collisions than current accelerators, but with over two thousand physicists committed to the project, the way-out worries of the SEVEN plaintiffs in this suit are of no great concern, and rightfully so.

Anything is possible. It’s possible that the LHC will produce a baby black hole that persists beyond a fraction of an instant. It’s possible that the Daleks will come and exterminate the human race. It’s even possible that god exists. But if we let the slimmest of possibilities stop us from doing everything we can to advance our understanding and development, we may as well have stayed in the Dark Ages.

And strangely enough, the root word of my primary email address is actually strangelet. =)

[Reply]
TROUBLMan reply on July 3, 2008 6:17 pm:
The image may be sensational, but it gets people who really don’t tune in to science to read the article. Mainly, it’s a reference to the power of nuclear technology.

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 3, 2008 7:33 pm:
Except that it’s those types of images that keep Americans from embracing nuclear power and freeing themselves from foreign oil, no matter the gobs of data that prove its overall, long-term safety record.
For a publication that seems to want change and progress, I can’t think of a worse shot in the foot.

Besides, the LHC isn’t any kind of ‘nuclear’ device that’s going to result in a mushroom cloud.

[Reply]
TROUBLMan reply on July 4, 2008 12:39 am:
People have to read the article before they can read your comment. It’s art and it present an aspect of the nuclear conversation. Our audience is smart enough to weigh the art against the article. Trust me.

[Reply]
Lag

Touche, Frocket. You’re right about the possibilities - if a black hole DOES emerge (and the scientists say that it would be a “pretty spectacular result” if it did) chances are it wouldn’t last. Let’s hope this all goes well. The results could be awesome.

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 3, 2008 1:03 am:
The results will be awesome, (either way). =)

Nice article.

[Reply]
JTankers

if all of the following are miscalculated, then there will be no recovery:

Micro black holes are created or not.
Micro black holes evaporate or not.
Micro black holes grow slowly or not. Neutron stars prove safety or not.

Unfortunately none of the assumptions above have been confirmed, and all are plausible and credibly disputed.

We don’t have a back up Earth.

Learn more at:

LHCFacts.org
LHCDefense.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 3, 2008 12:54 am:
Ok, I’m not hardcore or anything, so if you want to be concerned, please feel free. I only say these things because I find the subject interesting.

Nothing in the wikipedia article you directed me to supports your sentiment. It says that every independent safety study has concluded the LHC poses no legitimate danger. Did you read it? Or did you just see the flag at the top and assume it was all wrong and some more Walter Wagners need to edit it?

As for LHCFacts/Defense.orgs, they are both just some guy with a WordPress Blog. The only ‘credible’ sources mentioned are the plaintiffs involved in the suit. Walter L. Wagner gets ‘physicist’ behind his name in every detracting article, when he is not quite. He discovered a novel particle in his early career, quit science in favor of law school, then got back into science in the field of nuclear medicine. Not physics.

Your opening is correct. If a series of very unlikely events occurs, and then results in a theoretically possible outcome, then the results would be catastrophic.

Here’s hoping!

[Reply]
SB

I know I’m a little late but I’m glad I read this article it blew me away.

I love cool scientific stuff as much as the next person but I’m not understanding the importance of the LHC.

I believe that humans are arrogant and narcissistic creatures. This LHC effort is a prime example of it too. We’d rather put the earth at risk to give ourselves a pat on the back for duplicating something than taking ownership of the problems we’ve created by other technological achievements.

Yeah scientists are saying reassuring words but since its such a serious matter(our beloved earth is on the line) let us tread lightly into these unknown waters.

Yes a phenomenal idea in theory. If they are successful I would be amazed and pay my respect BUT safety should never be trumped by achievement

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 6, 2008 1:52 pm:
Except Earth isn’t “on the line.” It is EXTREMELY unlikely that the LHC will have any catastrophic results. Safety isn’t being trumped by anything. Multiple independent safety studies and line checks have been conducted throughout the course of its design and construction.

The Earth is far more ‘on the line’ in matters receiving far less media attention. Eliminating nuclear arms, dirty energy, deforestation, and economic war are all more pressing than stopping the LHC.

The only remotely valid argument against the LHC would be the resources allocated to the project versus resources allocated elsewhere.

The importance of the LHC is that it can help us sort out the Grand Unified Theory of physics. Basically, it can answer questions we have about antimatter, dark matter, and dark energy. It may show us whether theoretical gravitons are actually indicators of additional dimensions. It may explain why gravity is SO much weaker than the other fundamental forces of the universe. Cracking these problems can lead to unprecedented advancement in matter manipulation and space travel, among other things.

I’m happy to see that most people are somewhat interested in the subject, but it worries me that so many people are concerned about the ’safety of the Earth’. It highlights a troubling lack of understanding of science in the majority of Americans.

[Reply]
Lag

Frocket -

I agree with you that the amount of resources being allocated to the LHC is troubling; when the world is in the midst of energy and food crises, it might be best to sort them out first using the greatest minds in science, then move on to advanced physics.

You mention that “the Earth is far more ‘on the line’ in matters receiving far less media attention. Eliminating nuclear arms, dirty energy, deforestation, and economic war are all more pressing than stopping the LHC.” Perhaps it’s best to focus these minds so brilliant they can promise (without scientific certainty) that we’ll be safe on these more pressing problems before turning that switch on?

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 7, 2008 4:45 pm:
Well, physicists aren’t exactly the ones to solve those problems. Physicists have already given us what we need to solve dirty energy, and the rest is up to the people, politicians, and corporations.

As interested as I am in the LHC, the massive resource allocation is troubling. The high end of the estimated cost of the project though is only about ten billion. Much of that is budgeted to scientific research anyway. It’s not as though the money would be spent on feeding the hungry if it weren’t being spent on the LHC.

Congress, for example, has requested more monies be budgeted to food aid, (granted, only in the hundreds of millions per year, although the LHC’s billions have been over the course of thirteen), and Bush refuses. The US also has outrageous biofuel measures in place that divert loads of corn into fuel production rather than food. That is the PEOPLE’S fault. It seems to me like a bunch of new-age crazies putting old oil in their trucks think this is a good idea, and allow it to pass. Food to fuel is grossly damaging to an already bad food situation.

Deforestation has loads of scientists hard at work in Africa. A large problem here is sheer manpower in teaching rural farmers best practices, and making sure the methods stay in place.

Economic war is largely in the hands of politicians and corporations, not physicists. If only academic economists were allowed to have a greater hand in helping representatives shape economic policies worldwide.

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 7, 2008 5:01 pm:
And to clarify, deforestation due to industrial causes is something that has to be stopped by the people. The African desertification situation is a bit different.

Consumers need to just STOP giving their money to corporations that aren’t budgeting on their own futures. What I mean by that is for the time being, industrial deforestation is simply necessary, to a degree. Companies engaging in logging/clearing ought to be investing significant sums into research and development regarding sustainability. If they aren’t, then they simply aren’t ensuring their own future as a business, much less the health of the environment.

[Reply]
Frocket reply on July 7, 2008 5:12 pm:
Geez. I keep realizing that I’m sounding confusing. Take paper, for example. If I am The New York Times, I need LOADS of paper. Most major news outlets also have online versions, and paper sales are dropping substantially. That’s cool. Same goes for wood products, etc. If, however, I am the SUPPLIER of raw paper or wood materials, I should be concerned with sustainability.

Same goes for energy. If I am Wal-Mart, I should be concerned with investing huge sums of money into energy research and updates. If I am Wal-Mart, I am a massive consumer of energy, and cleaner, affordable energy will contribute to the growth and longevity of my company.

The science budgets of countries, (in the form of grants), shouldn’t have to be solely responsible. Large corporations should be footing the majority of these bills.

[Reply]

TROUBL

The Old Maxim

20 Comments, Comment or Ping

Reply to “The Old Maxim”

SEE ALSO

April 11, 2008

April 24, 2008

November 27, 2007

April 29, 2008

June 26, 2008