For Those Who Are Concerned
Posted by Seth Zenz on 10 Sep 2008 at 04:37 pm
If you need current, up-to-the-minute information on whether the LHC is indeed as safe as the physics community says it is, consider consulting this website:
http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com
(If you are seriously worried, you might prefer this one: http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html It explains in detail all the reasons why we’re sure there’s no danger at all.)
playin god?
The emperor has no clothes.
I just want to thank you for scaring the crap out of my 14 year old daughter. We had to assure her that the world wasnt going to end last night. Thank you indeed. I dont know what’s going to happen and what isnt, I’m not a physicist or a scientist. I am a mom who spent last night with a distraught 14 yr old. I cannot beleive that you can justify possibly wiping away a planet so you can decide if the Big Bang Theory really happened. Read your bible. It tells you what happened. May God forgive you. Oh when my daughter can’t sleep tonight who in Switzerland should I have her call to assure her she’ll be alive in the morning or next week?
While the conservatives (a.k.a our current government) are busy fighting over whether we’re following “God’s plan” and figuring out how to pay for a war, the rest of the world is out discovering the secrets of the universe.
I haven’t heard one politician mention the great people involved in this project and the collaboration taking place between nations. Does anyone have a giant crowbar available to remove head from ass?
If that $8 Billion dollars were spent on greater projects on relevant other issues rather than Obsessive Compulsive Disorders of our scientists…I wonder.
I should agree with Jonathan Swift that our researchers are going to the extent of extracting sunlight from water-melon.
And if they want to produce the ‘particles of god’ out of this Holy Mess they got to think of driving the ‘particles’ far greater than the speed of light. For that our scientist dudes need to ‘meditate’ rather than driving innocents crazy i think.
After all what is an ape to a man and a man to a superman scientist dudes? And what we are going to get if we know how the universe is formed? to be like the fools think what we know.
i am not against the scientific research however all the experiments dealing with these atoms and such stuff brought forth so much of miseries/apprehensions/uncertainties to us.
I am not worried. God will end it when its time. Good luck on your search!
Bo Diddly
I would like details about the process and dangers.
thanks
Hi jnewcomb. I linked exactly those details in my parenthetical note of the main post. Go ahead and click!
Sabu, there is no religious or philosophical program for the Large Hadron Collider; physicists don’t like calling the Higgs boson the “God particle” because it doesn’t describe what it is or why we’re interested in it. We’re simply trying to improve our understanding of how the universe behaves physically, and what it’s made of.
And yes, it’s expensive, but one never knows what benefits we might get from what we learn down the road. Cancer treatment, industrial magnets, and computer technology have all grown out of work in particle physics — your life is being improved by our research more than you think!
I like the web site that only thing is that everyone that worked on any of your safety has ties to CREN or the lhc. If we could get a review from some one other then one of your own guys that may help people
Hi xcrazy22, that’s a good point. In fact, the LHC Safety Assessment Group report has been peer-reviewed and published in a journal:
Ellis J, Giudice G, Mangano ML, Tkachev I, Wiedemann U (LHC Safety Assessment Group) (5 September 2008). “Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions”. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics. 35, 115004 (18pp). doi:10.1088/0954-3899/35/11/115004
That means it has, in fact, been externally reviewed.
hi just like to say congratulations on building the LHC, and good luck. I was on the bus from college and some little children were crapping themselves over the experiment, i repeated constantly, they are scienists they know what they are doing, and do you think they would risk the whloe of humanity for a experiment, and besides do you knwo if they succeed how much more we can learn abotu the big bang theory. But i should have realised they wouldn’t understand because they were only 7 years of age. But i want to say good luck awesome people and continue the awesome work xx love faith xx
While I think research is great, it has aided in many health issues, I also think people should have had more input into whether this “machine” should have been built or fired up. I am a simple housewife, not a scientist or even a college graduate but I do know HOW this planet came in exhistance. I read my Bible and it tells me God created this world. It expains to me that he carefully and with great Love created it. That is all I need know. In six days he created it. It has taken you all years to create a machine to show you what He did in a week. As for those who worry of black holes. God will return before He sees this world destroyed again. Read your Bible. He will destroy this old world by fire and in his time, not ours. Whether He uses the LHC to do his work is not ours to know, only His, but if you are a believer, you will not be here to see destruction unfold anyway.
I do feel the news media are to blame for a lot of the fear. At least in the UK, the media are dominated by arts graduates. But accurate information has to be written by people who understand their material. E.g. they mention black holes but not the fact that they’d need to start off as heavy as Everest to grow, and they don’t mention cosmic rays… I strongly believe that any science reporter should be required to have a science qualification…
… But maybe there’s also some blame to be attached to the science community. As I see it, the problem is that the doomsday scenarios seem so fatuous to those in the know about the science that they don’t take the fears seriously enough. There’s a need for clear, informative and more publicly visible explanations of the safety aspects, I think. By informative I mean presenting actual arguments in a simple way …
… not simply saying “everyone’s looked at it and it’s OK”. I know this is available, but I don’t really see it in the media, where it needs to be.
[Please feel free to join these into one message and delete this bit - I'm posting from a phone that only lets me send 450 characters at a time.]
(Hey man, I found that link first….)
Has it occured to any of you that maybe we are not meant to know all? Especially when we are doing experiments where we don’t have a firm understanding of what will happen.
It seems to me that the whole experiment is being based on the Big Bang Theory… Theory would be the keyword there. How can there be a firm understanding on what will happen when the collisions begin if it’s being based on a theory, an assumption.
Bottom line, we don’t know how everything was created and most likely it was meant to be that way. It should stay that way. Is it not enough that we have life and be happy with that?
I would say stop but I know it would be useless. This is going to happen one way or another.
We won’t know everything – for a start, what does physics say about subjective consciousness, or about how the measurable abstractions studied by science relate to What Is There? For myself, I believe we exist in the image of God, which includes creativity and intelligence, and that it’s an insult to God not to use those to understand creation as fully as possible. We are meant to be God’s children, not his ignorant slaves.
I fear these religious zealots far more than any “Big Bang Machine”. Man 1, God 0.
I now see that its a good thing the this work is taking place in Europe instead of Texas.
Americans really are more ignorant that I first gave them credit for.
I await the new physics discoveries that are to come in the following years. Great work guys.
I pray for Thomas Goddard. God has all the points. I feel sorry for you when the world does end. Where will you be? Blown uo by The Big Bang Machine? I wonder why it’s called the Big Bang Machine? It’s going to create a big bang!
I can’t understand why scientists are so ignorant? They don’t need to do all these experiments to find the “God Particle”. All they have to do is read the Bible. It tells all right there in the most accurate history book ever written(proven by the scientists themselves by carbon dating). Or do we really know the age of carbon? Scientists that believe The Big Bang Theory, have done research to prove their theorys and ended up proving themselves wrond. They won’t admit their wrong so they conduct more experiments to try to prove their theory. They will keep doing this until they eventually destroy the world as we know it. Then they won’t have to admit being wrong because none of us will be here to questian them.
No, actually it’s God 1, fundamentalists zero. God is in truth, including the truth the physicists are trying to find out, not in ignorance.
Tim: I agree completely that mistakes have been made in how we presented the work of the LHC. But you should also realize that we don’t have control over how the media portrays what we do–and from what I’ve seen, even when we post links to explanations in plain sight, the most stridently concerned people often don’t bother to read them.
Ken: Oops, so you did, sorry I missed it. It got to me from a colleague via Facebook.
Mike: Why on earth would we do an experiment if we already had “a firm understanding” of what was going to happen? We do experiments to learn new things. You’re right, of course, that one can be happy without learning new things–but personally, I think antibiotics, airplanes, and the power grid are pretty cool, and I’m glad that scientists invented them.
Ron: I don’t think the commenters here are a representative sample of Americans (or any other nationality).
what are the chances of me dying? percent wise.
I think the “presentation mistakes” are very understandable – I’ve been amazed how many people have had a sort of Frankenstein phobia about the machine, and you wouldn’t be expecting it either. And the media are frustrating. Anyway I’m trying to do my bit for sanity by summarising your safety explanations on my blog, for the handful of visitors I get. (Not yet posted, but if you like I’ll let you know when it is so you can check its accuracy).
Gee Kathy, There’s no need to call Switzerland, why don’t you have your daughter just read the bible when she’s distraught? It has all the answers.
Not going to lie, I am worried about this experiment.
Don’t get me wrong, religious bigots and fundamentalists scare me for the world’s sake. I do not condone the abandonment of science for religion, but I do think that some ground is just too dangerous to tread and mankind should consider taking a step back, or at the very least delay this project until we are absolutely sure we aren’t looking at a big mass suicide.
My first question: What is the nature of the cosmic ray interactions CERN makes mention of, the ones that seem to be CERN’s basis for the LHC’s safety? Is there anyone who can direct me to this information? How are the cosmic ray interactions different from what the LHC will create?
My second question: Far be it from me to rain on the dreams of many a scientist, but what happens when the collisions are over? Assuming we still have a planet, how can this knowledge be applied to the immediate day and age? Will the Higgs boson eliminate a need for fossil fuel? Is it going to solve famine? I’m not sure if this is any more than science for science’s sake.
My third question: What is the mathematical probability of a black hole forming, at whatever size? Can someone explain to me how theoretical Hawking Radiation will do away with them once formed?
I look forward to a prompt response.
Thank you!
Stuart Thomas,
MN
(P.S. To the fundamentalists, I am a Christian who believes in Science. Please do not damage our credibility by dismissing these scientists to “read their Bible”. It is rude, condescending and it doesn’t logically answer any of the necessary questions regarding the Large Hadron Collider’s safety.)
Kenda: Your chance of dying due to the LHC is zero.
Tim J: Sure, I’d be happy to take a look.
And now on to Stuart Thomas’s questions:
1. They’re cosmic ray particles, a large fraction of which are protons, hitting the protons and neutrons in the gas of the atmosphere. The only important difference between such collisions is that (1) some of the cosmic collisions are higher-energy, and (2) the collisions at the LHC are centered in the “lab frame” on earth, rather than having one particle be stationary and the other moving at high speed. Difference #2 doesn’t effect the physics according to Special Relativity, which is a very well-tested theory.
2. Our major goal at the LHC experiments is to understand the universe better, not to produce anything with immediate practical application. But a lot of pure science has eventually let to very important practical results–the example I like to give is with electricity and magnetism, which certainly didn’t seem practical when scientists started playing with them, but now affect every aspect of your daily life.
3. We don’t know. Either the universe has extra dimensions that are large enough that they can form, or it doesn’t–I don’t know how to assign a “probability” to that, but it is only one hypothesis among many, and I think that most physicists would be pretty surprised if it were true. Hawking Radiation is complicated, but Wikipedia seems to have a pretty good article.
You can learn more about all of this from clicking on the CERN safety page, which I already linked from this entry.
I can see another difference from cosmic rays: they don’t arrive en masse, concentrated in a narrow beam. Is this remotely significant (many collisions happening close together)? I’m assuming the distances between collisions are still WAY too big for any effect whatever and that you’d need nucleus-sized distances (eg by firing heavier nuclei at each other), but I can imagine it worrying some people, so it seems worth asking. (Plus I’m curious.)
Comment for Stuart: I think science for science’s sake, like art and music and great cathedrals, is part of our role in the world and is good in itself. In studying the creation we meet the Creator and share in his joy at its goodness and fruitfulness. WE “behold that it is good”, as per the refrain in Genesis 1 (a beautiful chapter whose message is destroyed by literal reading.)
Hi Tim. That’s a very good question, and it ought to have occurred to me to mention it. The reason I forgot is that, as it turns out, it isn’t even remotely significant. The reason is that, to get collisions that produce new, exciting high-energy objects, you need to bring the protons very close together indeed–close enough for their constituent quarks to interact. The way we achieve that is by having the protons moving toward each other with a lot of momentum. So, fine, we collide two protons–but there’s no way to get a third in, because any potential third proton is moving along with one of the others, and doesn’t have enough momentum relative to it to get close enough.
And presumably the interesting high-energy products from one collision are then too far apart AND short-lived to have any hope of hitting neighbouring ones… and if they hit nearby protons that would just be like hitting hydrogen atoms in the atmosphere anyway, so we’re back to cosmic rays again. Thanks for taking the time to answer this stuff, BTW.
@ Seth: my summary is now posted at http://is.gd/2xss Thanks for agreeing to have a look. I think I’ve been accurate but with so much misinformation around I really don’t want to add to it!
Hi Tim. I read through the entry, and the science looks good to me. Thanks for your efforts!
Creig and Tim: I’m just excited that we finally get to meet Elvis and Santa. Heck, maybe we’ll see Big Bird too.
wow. I think it is a bit callus on your part to downplay the concerns of the public. This entire endeavor is based on theory and some of the theories directly contradict known published theories. I understand that there have been years of research and all but really, you know yourself that no one knows exactly what is going to happen once the LHC is at full power, and i think that the general public has a right to be concerned. Also there has not been an effort to explain what this project is and why it is so important. that is not to say that i am against it i just feel there should have been more of an effort taken.and a better attitude about the concerns.
Please note also. i am a christian but i do not believe that god wrote out every single step of creation in a few paragraphs lets be real. this is not really about trying to “be god” if you are against science why do you have a computer? you cant tow the line. understanding all aspects of energy is conducive to our survival we may need to leave this planet someday and these experiments may figure out something that can help that process.
Congrats to LHC for having a successful first beam! I am excited for the first collision to occur.
I trust you guys (all physicists and other scientists and engineers who work in LHC and CERN)! You will bring another technological and scientific revolution in our lives. After-all it was CERN who gave birth to the internet.
I hate it when media is messing up the science and screwing up the minds of the people. I hope everyone will stop calling Higgs Boson as the “god particle.” And I also hope that humanity will recognize the value of this collaboration, just like ISS.
I don’t see anyone playing down public concern – just being taken by surprise by it. After all, the LHC isn’t doing anything new – simply making what’s been happening around us for billions of years available on demand for proper study. The physicists have known this but the public haven’t. If the media had simply explained that the LHC is effectively a device for studying artificial cosmic rays, say, there needn’t have been any panic.
For me I guess, the public must be blamed also. I am just worried that our society, or shall I say the understanding of the public, has never grown eversince the industrial revolution. I am just hoping that by now, most of the human beings, know how to distinguish science from science fiction, objective from subjective perceptions and judgement, as well as free themselves from any religious frills. We worry so much, but we have not further our science and technology that much. Religious and political bodies are true hindrances to what we are really capable of in terms of development. Our science has suffered so much because of this and it has been delayed for decades.
I am just hoping, as I quote, Bohr, they should stop telling God what to do.
Thomas – it’s OK to be an atheist. And I agree with you about being afraid of religious zealots. But atheism too is a faith – a coherent theory of experience to which you entrust your daily life – just as much as belief in God. Why is science possible? The answer to that has to lie outside of science, and will always be a step of faith, either in God or in some underlying philosophy. A closed system can’t explain its own existence.
@Kyee I wholeheartedly agree, actually. (BTW I’m in the UK, where the religious situation is very different from the US.)
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Image:Motivational-gravity.jpg
Is it just not like the media to take anthing that just might be good for this world and turn it into the mos horrific event that has ever taken place. Now for a good note, congratulations and I hope the proceeding expirements go well.
Seth – thanks for checking I’d not misrepresented any of the science in my write-up. Much appreciated as although I did a science degree, it was some years ago and now I’m really just a scientifically literate member of the public. I’ll include an acknowledgement when I can – I’m posting this from my phone and the blog post is too long to edit that way.
Atheists and fundamentalists – thanks for trying to change my world-view but you’ll need to show that you’ve grasped what it is first. Thomas – you seem to have missed the fact that I began by supporting your original comment. I said that even from a religious POV, opposing science was wrong. And I need to say that most atheist arguments against religion are as naive theologically as creationist ones against science are scientifically.
A big well done to all who have worked and are working on the LHC. And to all those complaining about the price, look up just how much a current stealth bomber costs. What is the biggest threat and the least importance to the world? A couple of those or the LHC?
Keep up the good work guys and exciting times ahead.
I strongly urge people who have concerns about science and scientific methods to read a great book by Robert L. Park ‘Voodoo Science’. It really discusses all the problems the media brings on by falsely interpreting science, as well as the scientists’ lack of interest in bringing down the false statements that people who obviously have no knowledge of science make. Also, all those concerned about billions of dollars spent on this project, should instead think how many of those projects could have been funded instead of spending it on the war in Iraq.
Hi, Our Global Science Community has greater issues to think of where we are facing survival combat on Planet Earth. Issues like Global Warming, Rising Sea level, tremendous meltdown at Antartica & Arctic Pole, Starvation, Vegetation & Plantation, Drinking Water, Rain, Air polutation, Medical.
Numerous countries of the World are facing some or the other issues which are mentioned above beside these Terrorisom is no.1 concern, when terrorist when gets hold of Biological weapons or know-how.
Ethopia, south american countries & African countries are at major concern.
“First we need to deal with present and more prior issues rather then worring about PAST or FUTURE”.
“How can Distressed people have a pleasurable tomorrow?”
Time, money & energy which are spent for Science Community can bring revolution, if it would diverted towards concerned fields.
“Good luck and think over it”
Hi Hermant. Basic science is pretty cheap in the grand scheme of things, and it does help us solve fundamental problems. Yesterday’s materials research is today’s solar panels to help solve the energy crisis. Yesterday’s particle physics research is today’s detectors to keep our ports safe from nuclear smuggling. Yesterday’s gene sequencing and accelerator research are today’s and tomorrow’s cancer treatments. Ignoring basic research in favor of solving immediate problems may mean we end up in even more trouble in the future!
It’s also worth mentioning that you shouldn’t assume the “Global Science Community” is an entity that can simply be reallocated to work on whatever problems you think are best. I’m a particle physicist; I like my job, just as (I hope) you like yours, so you can’t wave a magic wand and turn me into a climatologist. I and many of my colleagues are making the best contributions we can, doing what we enjoy and what we’re good at.
I hope they find a new dimension, this one is boring. We need a better one and stuff.
Maybe it’s also worth mentioning that without quantum physics there’d be no modern electronics (maybe the Bell telephone but nothing involving even valves, let alone transistors). And that Boolean algebra was just a mathematical curiosity for about a century, after which it suddenly became fundamental for computers and digital electronics… we simply don’t know the uses of basic research until much later, but that doesn’t stop it being useful.
Irena – do you have more details of the book? It sounds worth a read.
I appreciate all of the effort of everyone who is genuinely curious about understanding the universe.
The curiosity of critical thinkers keeps bigotry in check.
I am happy that the greatest minds of our time don’t feel the need to “bring down false statements that people who obviously have no knowledge of science make.”
I’m confident that (like most modern scientific paradigms) “good science” will eventually be accepted as false claims are discarded.
I don’t think I need examples, but here’s a few just for fun:
1.The idea that the earth is round.
2.Bacteria causing illness.
3.The sun is the center of our solar system.
Great job to everyone working on the LHC!!!
Aaron: maybe a digression but it’s interesting why the earth-centred system persisted.
The “fixed stars” were on the outermost sphere of the system. Clearly, if the earth went round the sun, we’d see the constellations change size in the sky as we moved towards and away from them. But they didn’t.
Placing the sun at the centre simplified the system but required a vastly bigger universe than anyone had ever imagined possible…
… Also I assume there was the problem of explaining why things fall to earth rather than to the centre of the system. It took Newton to answer that one.
To people used to that system, the sizes needed to make the sun-centred one work must have seemed preposterous and couldn’t yet be measured anyway. So in that context, keeping the earth-centred system with its inconvenient complications looked entirely logical.
Fascinating
[...] a difference? After all, we’ve got lots of collisions happening close together… Well I asked someone at the LHC about this and it turns out that the collisions are still WAY too far apart to [...]