Morality altered by brain stimulation

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"S IT SAFE?
Hawking says,
" What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs."
"there might be primordial black holes with a very much smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irregularities in the very early stages of the universe. Such black holes would have a much higher temperature and would be emitting radiation at a much greater rate."
Why does this not apply to the LHC?
How do you *know* it is safe?
Two main reasons:
1. Theory - Hawking himself recognized that black holes radiate. Given the energy available in the LHC, if a black hole was created it would necessarily be a very small one - a micro black hole - the energy available in the collision of two LHC protons is not a lot on a cosmological scale. The black hole would evaporate almost immediately into a shower of particles.
2. Cosmic rays - Extremely high energy particles (orders of magnitude above the LHC) coming from outer space are incident on upper atmosphere where they collide with the nuclei of gas molecules. We see the showers resulting from these collisions at sea level. This is appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be."

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

[Beskar]

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

I am guessing you don't drive, fly in a plane, or use any cooking application too either. Those have a very significant higher chance of killing you.

[Viking]

2. Cosmic rays - Extremely high energy particles (orders of magnitude above the LHC) coming from outer space are incident on upper atmosphere where they collide with the nuclei of gas molecules. We see the showers resulting from these collisions at sea level. This is appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be."

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

It appears to be safe to take trains that to go faster than 100 km/h without getting turned into a frog. The guarantee you seek is in principle impossible to give.

[HoreTore]

It appears to be safe to take trains that to go faster than 100 km/h without getting turned into a frog. The guarantee you seek is in principle impossible to give.

[Beskar]

It appears to be safe to take trains that to go faster than 100 km/h without getting turned into a frog. The guarantee you seek is in principle impossible to give.

Depends if you are on the channel tunnel or not.

[PBI]

Doesn't look like "zero" chance to me, bolded the last bit for you. Like I said, I want a copper-bottomed garantee, not, "almost certainly".

Copper bottomed guarantees don't exist in science (nor as far as I'm concerned in any other sphere of human knowledge). Any scientific result is only ever a statistical best fit, with an associated level of uncertainty. It is unfortunate that due to the generally extremely low levels of such uncertainties which make it into most visible applications of science that this fact has been largely forgotten among the public, and thus people talk about a thing being "scientifically proven" as though that means it is proven conclusively beyond all doubt.

In any scientific experiment, we can never be better than "almost certain" that it will not destroy the Universe. The best we can do is to examine whether it has been done before; in the case of the LHC, we can observe that the type of collisions planned in the detector are equivalent in energy and particle type to those that occur between cosmic rays and the atmosphere. We can then consider the typical cosmic ray flux in our area of space (a lot), the total effective surface area of the atmosphere (big) and how long these collisions have been going on for (a long time) to conclude that if collisions at these energies do produce anything nasty, it is vanishingly unlikely.

Ultimately though, there are no guarantees. The question is whether the risk of experiments with unknown physics having nasty consequences outweighs the negative consequences (and there will surely be negative consequences) of suppressing all future research. After all the LHC is not the only experiment being run to look for previously unknown physics - by definition the only experiments which can find new physics are those where we are not sure beforehand what the results will be. Has our society reached such a level of technology that it is possible for us to stagnate indefinitely, and simply sustain our current standard of living on what technology we currently have? And if so, is the status quo really so fantastic that no attempt to improve it would ever be worth the risk?

And as others have observed, it has often been the case that research performed purely to advance human knowledge has led to applications that would likely not have come about otherwise. The most obvious example I can think of is electricity: Were the pioneers of electromagnetism supposed to have been able to foresee all of its future applications before they started mucking around with magnets and bits of wire? If we are interested only in the potential applications of science, then past experience suggests that at least some effort should be put into trying to make inferences about the underlying principles of science rather than only going after the obvious applications of what we already know.

As to the question of the results - the LHC has only been performing actual experiments to look for new physics since the end of March:

Geneva, 30 March 2010. Beams collided at 7 TeV in the LHC at 13:06 CEST, marking the start of the LHC research programme.
...
CERN will run the LHC for 18-24 months with the objective of delivering enough data to the experiments to make significant advances across a wide range of physics channels. As soon as they have "re-discovered" the known Standard Model particles, a necessary precursor to looking for new physics, the LHC experiments will start the systematic search for the Higgs boson.

One could legitimately argue about whether the results, if they are close to our expectations, will be worth the massive expense. I for one heartily wish whoever was responsible could have refrained from attaching the ridiculously overblown and controversy-seeking title "the God Particle" to what is actually just a fairly mundane test of the Standard Model - the view among many of my colleagues seems to be that simply finding the Higgs boson in the expected energy range, and nothing else, would be a pretty disappointing outcome. It is certainly premature to state however that the machine has achieved nothing - the experiment hasn't been done yet.

As for the original subject of the thread, I personally think that having a "brain hat" which would let me control the exact state of my own mind, rather than having it dictated to me by external factors and my own body chemistry, would be awesome. I think it would be at least worth considering whether the benefits might outweigh the obvious risk of someone else getting their hands on the controls.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ok, so we have, "no garrantees", I do, in fact, understand this scientific principle; not least because "Science" pilfered it from philosophy.

You are all, however, ignoring my basic point. When deciding upon a course of action one must consider: risk (likelyhood), those at risk (value and number) and the actual risk of harm (magnitude).

Now, the LHC scores low on the first one but scores 100% on two and three, i.e. total anihilation of everything, including the planet. When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size. Factor in the massive economic cost, the billions that could have been spent (for example) on hospitals, or maleria drugs, oreducation in Africa and weigh it against the only argument in favour, a purely academic benefit, you really have to wonder if the monstrosity was anything like a good idea.

With the "brain hat" the numbers are high across the board, and any SciFi author can tell you it will be abused.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Excellent post, PBI. Beautifully argued.

[HoreTore]

Ok, so we have, "no garrantees", I do, in fact, understand this scientific principle; not least because "Science" pilfered it from philosophy.

You are all, however, ignoring my basic point. When deciding upon a course of action one must consider: risk (likelyhood), those at risk (value and number) and the actual risk of harm (magnitude).

Now, the LHC scores low on the first one but scores 100% on two and three, i.e. total anihilation of everything, including the planet. When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size. Factor in the massive economic cost, the billions that could have been spent (for example) on hospitals, or maleria drugs, oreducation in Africa and weigh it against the only argument in favour, a purely academic benefit, you really have to wonder if the monstrosity was anything like a good idea.

With the "brain hat" the numbers are high across the board, and any SciFi author can tell you it will be abused.

We're as sure that LHC won't blow up the planet as I am that starting my car today won't blow it up either.

I can't say for sure that starting my car today won't blow up the planet, but I'm going to do it anyway.

EDIT: Also, a "purely academic benefit"? WHAT? You don't think that advanced knowledge of physics will impact on our lives? In the age of nano-technology...? Seriously....?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

EDIT: Also, a "purely academic benefit"? WHAT? You don't think that advanced knowledge of physics will impact on our lives? In the age of nano-technology...? Seriously....?

Don't get your knickers in a twist, the forseeable benefit is purely academic. However there may be unforseen practical benefits, but we can't calculate for them and they therefore aren't a valid argument for the LHC.

[Ironside]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, the forseeable benefit is purely academic. However there may be unforseen practical benefits, but we can't calculate for them and they therefore aren't a valid argument for the LHC.

So what's the pratical calculated benefits of being on the moon?

[HoreTore]

Don't get your knickers in a twist, the forseeable benefit is purely academic. However there may be unforseen practical benefits, but we can't calculate for them and they therefore aren't a valid argument for the LHC.

Rubbish.