Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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.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".
Originally Posted by Viking:
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Viking:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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. 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".
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:
Originally Posted by :
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
Excellent post, PBI. Beautifully argued. 
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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.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.
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....?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I'm not suggesting you think we should start making "brain hats" but you have to acknowledge the massive danger this sort of technology has.
But the technology is already known and also the basic concept. What is researched here is what a certain brain center does and what happens if it's damaged.I'm not suggesting you think we should start making "brain hats" but you have to acknowledge the massive danger this sort of technology has.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You can't equate passive observation with intervention.
Volonteers that are exposed to a temporary condition, compared to observing someone with a permanent condition, who cannot give their permission?You can't equate passive observation with intervention.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Much more concrete than that, there's no need invoke an "angry God".
Hey, I like my excuse of making a SMAC referense. Much more concrete than that, there's no need invoke an "angry God".
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Some technology isn't worth having, nuclear being one, and the overall benefits outweigh the costs. Nuclear technology very nearly destroyed us all, still threatens us, and the power plants serve as a sop to prevent the development of truly useful renewable energy.
Hardly. The power plants would've been replaced by (most likely) coal at the time they were built and should they start build more nuclear power plants nowaday, it would not be enough anyway, so truly useful renewable energy is still needed to be developed. Besides the current holy grail of energy, fusion power is based on nuclear power. And without nuclear energy, the apex of energy development would be solar, forever. So for example, we can scrap ever reaching efficient space travel, even within the solar system. Some technology isn't worth having, nuclear being one, and the overall benefits outweigh the costs. Nuclear technology very nearly destroyed us all, still threatens us, and the power plants serve as a sop to prevent the development of truly useful renewable energy.
PBI do you know what would happen if such a micro black hole meet an electron? Since the hole is much smaller than the electron, I'm curious if it's even possible for the hole to absorb mass.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
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.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....?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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? 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.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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.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.
Originally Posted by Chaotix:
Oh, great...
This seems like the first steps towards actual mind control. If we can now control how people judge morality... what else can we control? This kind of stuff could be dangerous if it goes into further development and then falls into the wrong hands...
no. thats not at all true. please sir, you will be in great hands, let us study your brain and we will prove to you it is not wrong.Oh, great...
This seems like the first steps towards actual mind control. If we can now control how people judge morality... what else can we control? This kind of stuff could be dangerous if it goes into further development and then falls into the wrong hands...
Originally Posted by Ironside:
PBI do you know what would happen if such a micro black hole meet an electron? Since the hole is much smaller than the electron, I'm curious if it's even possible for the hole to absorb mass.
As far as I know, it's possible - bear in mind an electron is both a point particle and quantum mechanical in nature, so it can tunnel into all sorts of unexpected places. I really couldn't comment on how likely it is - classically, it should be absurdly unlikely due to the tiny size of the event horizon, but the problem is inherently a quantum one and requires a quantum mechanical description of black holes, which is not my field of expertise.PBI do you know what would happen if such a micro black hole meet an electron? Since the hole is much smaller than the electron, I'm curious if it's even possible for the hole to absorb mass.
For me, the issue really boils down to the observation that despite cosmic ray collisions equivalent to those in the LHC having happened in huge numbers every day for billions of years, there is still a conspicuous amount of non-black hole matter in the universe.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
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.
This seems to me like the Pascal's Wager line of reasoning - that if the consequences of a line of action would be "infinitely" bad, then we should never do it no matter how unlikely they are.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.
Aside from the fact that this reasoning would prohibit us from doing anything, ever, this also neglects the possible negative consequences of not acting. One could make the case that technological stagnation would doom us all just as completely as the earth collapsing into a black hole would, just more slowly.
I'm also not sure I would agree that the destruction of the human race can automatically be judged infinitely bad, rather than just extremely, but still finitely, bad.
Originally Posted by :
When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size.
It seems to me a big leap to suggest that the fact we haven't seen any other life-supporting planets yet implies there aren't any to find, considering both the limits of our observational techniques, and the droves of exoplanets we discover every time someone refines those techniques. Of course, I have no problem with the idea that research funding councils shouldn't draw much of a distinction between a Universe-destroying disaster and one which will "only" destroy the Earth.When we consider that this is the only planet we know supports life then the magnitude becomes Universe-size.
Originally Posted by Ironside:
So what's the pratical calculated benefits of being on the moon?
Testing of technologies we can use to get out of the solar system and thence save our species. Also, better missiles to blow up the Ruskies. ;-)So what's the pratical calculated benefits of being on the moon?
Originally Posted by PBI:
This seems to me like the Pascal's Wager line of reasoning - that if the consequences of a line of action would be "infinitely" bad, then we should never do it no matter how unlikely they are.
As a Christian I never understood Pascal's Wager, but I think I see your point. My problem, however, is this: Who decides to take that Wager for everyone, rather than just themselves. As an historian I can tell you with cast iron certainty that the past is littered with scientists, philosophers, etc. who claimed they knew what they were doing. I don't trust experts when the fate of the planet may be at stake. I'm not saying no to the LHC, but I still think the way the project has been handled is hubristic.This seems to me like the Pascal's Wager line of reasoning - that if the consequences of a line of action would be "infinitely" bad, then we should never do it no matter how unlikely they are.
This is a problem I have with much of mdern Science, "because we want to know" is not a valid moral argument for doing something, and I believe Science should be as governed by moral philosophy as any other endeavor, if not more so.
Originally Posted by :
It seems to me a big leap to suggest that the fact we haven't seen any other life-supporting planets yet implies there aren't any to find, considering both the limits of our observational techniques, and the droves of exoplanets we discover every time someone refines those techniques. Of course, I have no problem with the idea that research funding councils shouldn't draw much of a distinction between a Universe-destroying disaster and one which will "only" destroy the Earth.
It is also a big leap to assume there are other inhabited planets when the only evidence we have is our own little rock. I suspect there are other planets that are inhabited, but I'm not placing any bets on it.It seems to me a big leap to suggest that the fact we haven't seen any other life-supporting planets yet implies there aren't any to find, considering both the limits of our observational techniques, and the droves of exoplanets we discover every time someone refines those techniques. Of course, I have no problem with the idea that research funding councils shouldn't draw much of a distinction between a Universe-destroying disaster and one which will "only" destroy the Earth.
Originally Posted by PBI:
One could make the case that technological stagnation would doom us all just as completely as the earth collapsing into a black hole would, just more slowly.
The Earth is doomed already because the sun only has a finite life span, and we will in theory need to get off this planet one day. Who knows, perhaps a result or two from the LHC may either directly or indirectly help us in that process....?One could make the case that technological stagnation would doom us all just as completely as the earth collapsing into a black hole would, just more slowly.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I don't trust experts when the fate of the planet may be at stake.
IT ISN'T!!!I don't trust experts when the fate of the planet may be at stake.
You may have had a point if it was. But what the LHC is doing isn't any more dangerous than starting your car.
There are a lot of dangerous stuff in the world; the LHC isn't one of them.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO