![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Michael83 on September 6, 2007, at 19:03:22
***possible triggers for the paranoid***
---Avoid if fearful the world may end---My two majors fears this year have been a large science experiment in Switzerland and the disappearance of the bees. I've been obsessing over them, consumed with fear. Now two new breakthroughs.
1. This article came out for the bees today.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/06/bee.disorder/index.htmlThey said they found part of the reason why they're dying. ANd more importantly, bees in Australia are NOT dying and are immune to this disease. (This gives scientists something to study to find a way to immunize our bees.)
2. Large Hadron Collider, Switzerland. Scientists are taking atoms, accelerating them at the 99.5% the speed of light in opposite directions and crashing them together with literally the force of a freight train, with that force confined the size of an atom (mind boggling, I know). It's been done before, many times, but they keep doing it bigger and bigger.
But I read an article on MSNBC that explained in detail more of why this experiment is safe. An MIT physics professor said, “There is a series of unlikelihoods that you’d have to string together like a Rube Goldberg invention,”
This is Rube Goldberg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg
He is basically saying you'd have to be very very creative in order to string together such a scenario. Taking and picking unrelated/unlikely/impossible events to form a disaster situation.
He also said that if something strange popped out of this machine, it would be safe. IN short, without going into detail, there seems to be safe guard after safe guard with what already is very very unlikely to happen. Risk has been described as "infinitely small."
I'm still slightly worried, but the burden of constant worry has been slowly lifting. I've been feeling much much better. I think everything is going to be ok.
Posted by Phillipa on September 6, 2007, at 21:44:12
In reply to I have good news...and some more good news., posted by Michael83 on September 6, 2007, at 19:03:22
Michael that's wonderful that you have found some answers and that they are giving you some relief of worries. Phillipa
Posted by caraher on September 7, 2007, at 19:00:57
In reply to I have good news...and some more good news., posted by Michael83 on September 6, 2007, at 19:03:22
Donning my physicist hat...
> 2. Large Hadron Collider, Switzerland. Scientists are taking atoms, accelerating them at the 99.5% the speed of light in opposite directions and crashing them together with literally the force of a freight train, with that force confined the size of an atom (mind boggling, I know). It's been done before, many times, but they keep doing it bigger and bigger.
Two nit picks... first, they're going faster than 99.5% of the speed of light. The LHC web site says the value is 99.9997828% of the speed of light. It takes a lot of energy to inch your way higher in speed as you approach the speed of light - those three extra nines are hard to buy! It's a nit-pick in terms of speed, but a huge deal in terms of energy (which is the important parameter).
Second... "literally the force of a freight train" doesn't make a lot sense to me. I'm guessing that you heard an expression like that from someone who took the momentum transfer involved and divided by the duration of the proton-proton collisions. But force is not a very useful concept in understanding these kinds of events. And it's a very misleading way to talk about the energies and momenta involved.
It's like in my field, where laser scientists talk about short pulses with peak powers comparable to the entire electrical generating capacity of the US. The total energy in a given pulse is quite modest in absolute terms, maybe comparable to the energy it takes to keep a light bulb on for a few seconds. It's just that the energy is delivered over such a tiny period of time that when you divide the energy by the time you get a huge number.
The kinetic energy of each proton at LHC is 7 TeV, which works out to one microjoule. Now that's a lot of energy for one particle as tiny as a proton... but for comparison, if I walk with a speed of 1 m/s (just over 2 MPH, a very casual stroll) my kinetic energy would be 50 joules - greater by a factor of 50 million!
Still, there are LOTS of protons in the ring! According to the wikipedia article on LHC, the energy in the circulating protons is 725 MJ. Now that I look up typical freight train masses, a small freight train traveling at a typical top speed has about that amount of kinetic energy. So mystery (for me) solved; that's probably what they meant. That energy is not all in a single particle or released in one collision; rather, it's spread throughout the collider.
Posted by Michael83 on September 7, 2007, at 20:02:19
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news., posted by caraher on September 7, 2007, at 19:00:57
>>>>>That energy is not all in a single particle or released in one collision; rather, it's spread throughout the collider.
I have a reading addiction, but I try not to read much about this machine because it causes me anxiety. Additionally I'm more into history/literature/business/philosophy not science.
But I guess that makes it sound less frightening knowing it's not on one particle. The "train" description is just what I heard in an article I read. But you know journalists, they don't know what they're talking about and often get things messed up. Thanks for the corrections though. You must know a lot.
Scientists will probably learn a lot from this machine, but I doubt they'll learn how it will give any real benefit to anyone, that's my only problem.
Posted by Michael83 on September 8, 2007, at 17:46:49
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news. » Michael83, posted by Phillipa on September 6, 2007, at 21:44:12
Thanks Phillipa. It feels good to relieve anxiety.
Posted by sam123 on September 9, 2007, at 13:06:33
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news. » caraher, posted by Michael83 on September 7, 2007, at 20:02:19
>
> Scientists will probably learn a lot from this machine, but I doubt they'll learn how it will give any real benefit to anyone, that's my only problem.The entire universe is built on subatomic particles and quantum mechanics is trying to make sense of the laws the govern this level.
It is the root to our physical universe.
Understanding our physical universe has yielded
huge benefits.
Posted by Michael83 on September 9, 2007, at 19:23:32
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news., posted by sam123 on September 9, 2007, at 13:06:33
>>>Understanding our physical universe has yielded
huge benefits.Yes, that in general, is true. But I doubt they will learn anything from this machine that will provide real world benefits. That's just my opinion.
And if they did, the risk this machine creates is far greater than the benefits it will provide.
Posted by sam123 on September 10, 2007, at 8:57:01
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news., posted by Michael83 on September 9, 2007, at 19:23:32
>
> Yes, that in general, is true. But I doubt they will learn anything from this machine that will provide real world benefits.Well the machine has implications at my job. Pure science, given enough time, becomes practile science. Avoid CERN and LANL sites.
Posted by caraher on September 10, 2007, at 19:05:39
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news., posted by Michael83 on September 9, 2007, at 19:23:32
> And if they did, the risk this machine creates is far greater than the benefits it will provide.
To know this you would need an accurate assessment of the risk (as well as the payoff in knowledge). I think you've been led to believe it is far, far greater than the true risk.
You might worry more about, say, driving a car. In that instance the immediate, personal risk due to collision is vastly greater and well-known, not to mention the well-understood environmental risks.
Posted by Michael83 on September 10, 2007, at 21:43:47
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news., posted by caraher on September 10, 2007, at 19:05:39
I believe the risk a machine that has been described as having the potential of "destroying the entire universe" to not be scalable (even if that risk has been described as literally "infinitely small") Given the enormous potential consequences, no matter the statistically likelihood (even if it's extremely low), any risk is an immediate forfeit of the reward.
I'm not basing it on my own personal fear. I'm basing it on the fact that this machine carries the "ultimate risk." That is a single exception that negates all reward, no matter how great, in my opinion.
It's not even closely comparable to say a nuclear bomb or a terrorist attack. If an event such as that were to occur, we can rebuilt. The human race will go on. This is not comparable. There is nothing above this in terms of consequences. It's an exception.
Posted by Michael83 on September 10, 2007, at 22:02:01
In reply to Re: I have good news...and some more good news., posted by caraher on September 10, 2007, at 19:05:39
I believe very strongly that we're just entering a time in history and in the development of science where we've crossed a point where our scientific knowledge will begin to severely endanger us.
In the past, we moved forward into science at full speed. We were just begging to learn the mysteries of this Earth and this universe. Newton's studies did not endanger us. We were virgins to science. But you see, science and nature is much like historians exploring an old abandon house. At first it looks interesting. You run in, exploring the first thing you see, learning about the people who lived there. But after a while, you're on the second floor, you've seen a bit, and you need to begin to watch your step. Some of the rooms may not be sturdy or suitable for humans. There comes to a point, when you open one of those doors, look inside the room, examine the dangers and say, "I don't think we should go in here, it could be dangerous."
I think it started with the nuclear bomb when we started creating things out of science that endangered us. Nearly 50 years ago we (humans) created this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoQsZa8F1c
(That was 6,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.)If they had that 50 years ago, WHAT IN THE HELL are they going to have 50 years from now?
The machine this thread was created about has said to have the potential to do anything from "create strange matter that could deform all other matter on Earth," "create black holes that would suck the entire Earth in in seconds," or "open a doorway to a new dimension."
It's time for the science community to begin to respect science and it's power. When they go into the Amazon jungle, the explorers always say to "hold back and respect nature" because it's vastness and power can be harmful to someone who foolishly dives into it. The same needs to be done with science. Science gets no respect and it's going to bite back very hard one day if we continue to believe we can just rush in and conquer every aspect of it.
Posted by caraher on September 12, 2007, at 22:40:23
In reply to I also want to add to this, caraher... (important), posted by Michael83 on September 10, 2007, at 22:02:01
I appreciate the logic of the argument that if you multiply an infinitely awful outcome by an appreciable probability it's hard to for any expected good to outweigh the risk of harm.
But I also believe there are some things that carry essentially zero risk, and this is among them. Here's why I don't worry. First, there are natural high-energy gamma rays and other phenomena that are more energetic than any accelerated particle man can create. Human powers are feeble compared with what's out in nature elsewhere in the universe. If there were any genuine danger of concentrating that much energy in a tiny volume of space destroying the universe, some natural process very likely would have done that already.
A variation on the "it probably would have happened already" theme depends on what you think of Drake's Law, basically a formula for guessing how many alien civilizations might be in a galaxy. The number you come up with varies with the guesses you make for things like how common habitable planets are, etc. but generally suggests that the universe is such a big place that Earth is very unlikely to be the only home to civilizations. If you accept that we are not alone, I'd expect that some would be more adventurous scientifically and some less. By now, someone "out there" has probably tried these kinds of experiments, and it seems like we're still here!
My own view is that doomsday scenarios based on accelerator physics are wildly speculative. There are far more serious scientific and technological risks to worry about. When experiments start probing the universe on the so-called Planck scale, that's when I'd start taking seriously any theories of an accelerator-induced doomsday.
Posted by Michael83 on September 18, 2007, at 0:54:36
In reply to Re: I also want to add to this, caraher... (import, posted by caraher on September 12, 2007, at 22:40:23
It makes me feel better that you're confident CERN will be safe.
>>>>When experiments start probing the universe on the so-called Planck scale, that's when I'd start taking seriously any theories of an accelerator-induced doomsday.
Referring back to my historical home analogy, I hope we don't decide to enter that room and respect it's power and mystery. The blind ambition of the scientists who are addicted to diving head first into these abstract and socially irrelevant issues is freighting.
These scientists need to learn some respect for the universe and rethink the purpose and relevance of these experiments. I know that much is true.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.