There is a sobering fact, well known to science but little known in public. It is a fact related to Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2, and one that is frightening in its scale.
The average 75 kg person (about 165 pounds), has lurking in his or her genes — or more specifically, in his or her atoms — an amount of energy equivalent to about 1.6 gigatons of TNT, some 28 times greater than the largest nuclear bomb ever exploded (Tsar bomba, Soviet Arctic, 1960, 57 megaton yield).
Should your nucleons suddenly ignite in 100 percent conversion of matter to energy, the resulting release of energy would be the equialvent of an asteroid several hundred meters across (about a quarter mile) colliding with the Earth at 17 km (nearly 11 miles) per second. The impact would be sufficient to completely obliterate a large metropolitan area, gouge a crater about 5 km across and 300 meters deep. (That’s about 3 miles across and 1000 feet deep). This is several times larger than the Barringer Meteor Crater in Arizona. The surface effects including an atmospheric shockwave would decimate everything for many kilometers around, and would send a blast of heat to incinerate everything in its path. The resulting earthquake would be severe over a wide area, and the dust and debris thrown up by this event would gradually encircle the Earth, possibly even triggering a kind of “nuclear winter” sufficient to cool the temperature of the planet for months or years, killing vegetation and then the animals and people who depend on them thousands of kilometers away.
Given the amount of energy that Nature has stored in the matter of your body, your detonation would change the course of history and kill millions, leaving no trace of you except in the photons of energy that escape into space and the vibrations and heat captured by the planet.
Based on the laws of quantum physics, everything here is true. You do embody the awesome force of nature. However, how likely is it that you will suddenly explode in a nuclear holocaust? Quantum physics is probably the most studied and confirmed theory of nature in history. As with everything, there are problems and things we don’t yet understand about it, but the energy stored in particles is not one of these. This has been proved far beyond doubt. Witness the nuclear bomb, for instance.
Another thing, less widely known, is that quantum physics is a statistical study, and based on its laws, we can express the probability of almost anything happening. It is not absolutely impossible for all the mass in your body to suddenly transform into nuclear energy. But on the other hand, it isn’t likely. Not likely at all. There is an equation to calculate such probabilities, but I would not be so rash as to try and apply it here. However, suffice it to say that you and your immediate descendants are more likely to win first in every single lottery and contest on the planet Earth, every day of every year for the next million years, than you are to spontaneously transform into nuclear energy. It is not exactly impossible, but it is about as close to impossible as it is possible for anyone to imagine. There are better things to worry about.
This brings me to the CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the latest “atom smasher” scheduled to open on September 10. This enormous new scientific instrument, and many associated instruments, can and will change our conception of the Universe, its inner workings and its origin. But, just as with you and your incredible store of nuclear energy, there is a chance that this collider could produce “mini” blackholes that in the bizarrest and indescribably unlikely of scenarios, could damage the Earth. And as with the chances of you suddenly detonating, the chances of any planetary harm due to the LHC, is frankly unimaginably small.
It is not so unimaginable that the LHC could produce “mini” blackholes, but these are not anything like the popular conceptions of a black hole, fueled by often highly inaccurate movies and over-anxious imaginations. The “mini” black holes that the LHC could produce — although still unlikely — would be microscopic at best, and unstable, which in this case just means that the could last only a tiny fraction of a second at most. Any that are produced — and again this is unlikely in the first place — will “evaporate” long before they would have any chance of pulling in any other matter. In any event, their mass would be far too small to produce enough gravity to pull in matter even as large as a microbe.
The real and dangerous thing about the LHC is not any imagined threat that it poses, but rather the unbridled, unschooled and utterly absurd fears promulgated by uninformed people. Of course such things have always occurred such as in the with hunts of the middle ages, but today absurdities spread with the speed of light through the Internet, and can have potentially deleterious affects on genuine and well-founded research. Too bad that human reasoning and the intelligence of the average public (which of course my dear reader, does not include you) has not kept up with the pace of technological development.
There is far, far, far more potential harm in the outcome of the current election season than there is of even the smallest hair on your head igniting in a bizarre nuclear transformation.
Keep in mind that physicists are people, too, not the “mad scientists” of moviedom. They have families. They love life as much as anyone else, and would not pursue the LHC and related technologies if they felt that there was any reasonable concern about safety. Also keep in mind that Physics is the most basic study of Nature. They are looking for truth. Yes. physicists developed the atomic and nuclear bombs, but that was under order from politicians. If you trust anyone, trust physicists, not politicians. Politicians sometime have to make the decision to go to war, and sometimes that is justified and should not be criticized (although sometimes if should be). Mark Twain once said something like “Be faithful to your country always, and to your government when it deserves it.”
In general, physics is a search for truth. The same is true for other sciences. Politics is a search for votes and power. Trust physics.
Spread the truth, and please don’t forward on emails with absurd claims, conspiracy theories or any of a host of other claims by people who know naught of which they speak.
(As clarification, the transformation of energy in a nuclear (fusion) bomb and in the Sun is not 100 conversion of all matter involved into energy. In fact it is on the order of 1 to 2 percent. The only process that we know of that reliably converts 100 percent of mass into energy is a matter-antimatter interaction — and yes, that is what they talk about in Star Trek and in fact has been demonstrated many times on a very small scale.)
Special thanks to the Dr. David Morrison and the Asteroid and Comet Impact Hazards (NASA) website.
thanks, I’ve been so excited about the HRC starting up, and have been a little worried, not about the “mini” black holes, but the fact that some how all of the negative press about this amazing machine (the biggest machine ever made by the way) could some how hinder its activation. I don’t know that much about quantum physics but what I do know is amazing, and any further understanding of it by physicists will be a million times more important to us as a species than most of the other crap that we concern our selves with on a daily basis.
Matt Andersen,
AST 1040 001 MW 10:00 am
P.S. why get me all exited about the HRC when I have an astro quiz tomorrow!!!!!
It is a sad fact that people do, indeed, fear what they do not understand. However, what most people ignore is simply that even though they don’t personally understand it, other people *do* understand or at least understand enough to conduct responsible and reasonable experiments. Physicists are certainly not going to do anything that has even a remote chance of harming the Earth. This new instrument will lead to new knowledge and a new understanding of our Universe. Man does not live by bread alone, and knowledge is important not just to advancement and progress, but to the soul itself.
remember how Oppenheimer wasn’t so sure that a critical mass wouldn’t run away with us? all those re-calculations.. LHC is the second time, but then the universe is really big, lots of chances for others to get it right
I, personally, do not fear this at all whatsoever. A ten billion dollar project that could in fact destroy the very Earth we live on. What’s so scary? So the (so far) meaningless story of life is ended, but that’s it. Life is meaningless and this will either be one of the greatest discoveries of all time and at the same time add to the “God is not real” theory or destroy us all. I’m pretty much fine with either.
So then basically we do not need to worry about anything like the blacholes etc or some of them really going to happen,, do you know the affects its going to have like is it going to create a large earthquake through out the earth or a minor??
please tell me so i can tell all my school friends not to worry,, and i am sorry but i wasnt that sure in the second paragraph, whats its trying to say about this temprature,, is that GOING TO HAPPRN!! lol or is that something that had already happened :S
please let me know and thank you (: x
Great article. Here’s the thing; no one, not you, me or even Stephen Hawking has a clue of what’s going to happen. Many people, Stephen among them, believe this machine will prove much of physics to be completely wrong, which would make your entire argument a moot point.
When the first hydrogen bombs were tested (castle bravo) the results astonished their creators… who, at the time, were the top physicists in the world. Isn’t possible the LHC experiments similarly might result in something no one predicted or even thought of?
While fear through ignorance is deplorable, so is wreckless action though over confidence or even worst, the pursuit of fame and glory.
Here’s the thing: Happiness is completely relative. The first cavemen half frozen and starving were more or less as happy as we are. Scientific “achievement” has done and will never do anything to make man’s life more meaningful. On the other hand scientific achievement has undoubtedly made it more likely that mankind will destroy itself.
The only thing those scientists are going to find 100 meters below Switzerland are more mysteries. And they are willing to risk everything (however improbable) to find them.
Mike,
In some cases, physcists are the most timid and pessimistic of scientists, but they are not reckless. I suspect that Oppie and others were surprised that it worked, not that we weren’t destroyed.
In the end what does it matter, as stated above, life realy has no meaning and whether we find new information or not we will still lead the empty mindless live’s we are already destined with.
As far as the Result’s, I hope it may give us some insight into the inner working’s of the universe and even create the super small black hole’s, atleast there would be result’s to take interest in (and on a side thought maybe even finding a new source of energy). Possibility’s are endless, were already destroying the world while we sit in place and spin the tire’s, why not do it while were trying to move ahead.
i fear it completly, if it is turned on and the scientists involved made a miscalculation on the blacholes that are going to be created, what happens when the earth gets sucked into it in 1/20th of a scond followed by our moon, the sun and all the planets in our solar system…. i dont know whta to believe. For maybe a month, there would be no sign that life was about to come to an abrupt and nasty end for us all.
i believe earthquakes would start unexpectedly, alerting geologists to something terribly and unimaginably amiss. After a few days, the seismic disturbances would reach catastrophic proportions. Cities would be levelled and swollen oceans, in a series of mega-tsunamis, would slam into the continents’ coasts.
The fact that the earthquakes were striking randomly, instead of along well-known geological fault lines, would be proof something devastating was afoot. Finally, the end would come, in a disaster of Biblical proportions.
Earth would start to crack up; molten lava would wash over the land and the seas would start to boil; mega-hurricanes and cyclones would level buildings and forests; eventually, mountains would crumble as Earth’s crust continued to disintegrate.
The fabric of the planet would start to disappear, trillions of tonnes of rock, water, air and life sucked into a whirlpool of unimaginable force.
From space, our blue-and-white home would appear to vanish down a plughole in a flash.
At least in that scenario we would have a little time, perhaps, to come to terms with the end.
But a second doomsday scenario is even more terrifying, with no warning.
In an instant - about 1/20th of a second - Earth would simply vanish from space.
Less than two seconds later, the moon would follow.
Eight minutes later, the sun would be ripped apart, followed by the rest of the planets in the solar system and onwards, a wave of destruction caused by a rent in the fabric of space itself, spreading out from our world at the speed of light.
I know that finding the truth about our creation is an interesting subject but I would like to point out that the money spent to make the “biggest machine” is not helping the people on this planet that are starving to death.
Maybe we should start investing in their survival rather than an event which happened billions of years ago.
I first learnt about the LHC a few months ago on some tv show, it was fasinating, the tuff we could find yout with it
went to school today and this kid was saying AAAH THE WORLD IS GOING TO END
turned out they were starting the lhc up today, i forgot lol
everyone was saiying they are trying to create a blac hole yadayadayada and ended up explaining to about 7 people what was actually happening, spent the rest of my class’s researching the LHC
I think its wonderful!
Kevin, as I said, if the physicists were concerned that this would so much as destroy the lab, much less drag the planet into a blackhole oblivion, they simply wouldn’t do it. They are there for a search for truth in Nature, not to destroy anyone’s physical well-being or their belief in a supreme being. It seems to me that if there is a supreme being out there looking over us, He (or She) will take care of things. But that is *my* opinion. You are entitled to your own.
Hi..wonderful to read this post. All that I was hearing was certainly a twisted truth. Media itself needs to carry out research and process information into news. They are the major source of igniting fears into the minds of common people. Rumours spread easily. People might not believe on other people but they confirm their opinions from the news channels. They are to be solely blamed for such misconceptions arising in the minds of common men. I am goinf to circulate thia post among as many ppl as I can.
To Hi, Justin, HJ and Shashi
Hi,
No earthquake, no black holes, no worries.
Justin,
Why would you believe these things? A miscalculation? Don’t you think that physcists, who as a group have been studying these concepts for 100 years, and this particular group of the world’s finest minds including some Nobel laureates, have checked and rechecked their calculations thousands of times. They know the importance of this program for science and they are keenly aware of the money involved. You may think it surprizing, but they are not worried about catastrophes because they know how things work. There simply isn’t going to be any mass destruction. Frankly the doomsday scenario you have heard is just utter garbage.
HJ,
I certainly agree that we should divert money to ending starvation. The fact is that we can do both but it is up to us to do it. So far I don’t see the politicians doing much, and it is they who control the money. Let’s elect some people who show real concern for others, not just for their own wealth and those of their friends.
Shashi,
Yes, that’s exactly the point. My concern is that the Internet is a great way to circulate ideas, but it sends out the good and the bad, and too many people are too quick to catch the false information and believe it. We all need to start using a little reason rather than mindlessly latching onto all the doomsaying we hear every day.
If my body were suddenly converted into energy would it hurt?
You might want to read this one:
http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?title=Doomsayers link Iran quake to ‘Big Bang’&articleID=141044
Linked to LHC or just some doomssayers thoughts?
Dam u all! were going to be safe! we’ve been doing this for about 35 years! its no problem! Larry, i agree with u
The modern scientific approach to unveil the hidden mysteries of our existense is in my opinion very primitive. By aggressive methods we chase the never ending final answer, wich always will be around the corner.
Anyone who believes in the possibility to expose a final truth about our being here by smashing particles together like the LHC is as far as I am concerned on the wrong track.
The only thing one gets out of such activity, besides the maybe uncertain risks of this project, is just a yet smaller fractal of a neverending puzzel.
Humanity of today in general is so singleminded focused on outward events, and our scientists so violently absorbed by their mission to expose the secret of existense, like as if life where a problem to be solved.
In my opinion we have all the information inside our selves, 15 billion years of information stored in our own beings, far beyond any verbal or intellectual conception, poised in our qiet ageless awareness.
Our being here is not a problem to be solved, but a mystery to be lived.
Hayato and Klas
Hyato, actually, the first particle accelerator was in the 1930s, so it has been 70 years or so now, and in fact Mother Nature does it on her own occasionally.
Klas,
As Alexander Pope said, “The proper study of Mankind is Man.” So then the proper study of the physical world is its physical properties. Slamming particles together is the only way we have of producing the conditions we wish to study. Theoretic studies are just that, and need to be confirmed or refuted and the only way to do it is with actual experimentation. Scientists, too, believe that the history of the Universe is locked in its parts, but we cannot unlock it and view it simply by meditating in a corner. Science demands evidence, not wishful thinking.
The modern scientific approach to unveil the hidden mysteries of our existence is rational, and beautiful, and empowering to the whole human race.
Hi,
I really don’t understand all the fuss about the LHC.
As said in this blog, I wonder if it isn’t a waste of energy, literally and metaphorically, which can be better used for other purposes.
Eddy
I am from iran. just 1 hour after expriment several earthquake occured in the south of our country… hope this is not releated to LHC
Larry and Gordon
Thanks for your balanced and respectful response to my somewhat provocative input in this discussion.
I´m in no way against the basic idea of the scientific approach to our reality,and I´m fully aware of all the benefits that this wonderful curiosity has given the modern man.
What really concerns me is the continously increasing gap between our growing outward oriented knowledge and our global lack of inner peace.
This unhappy combination is in my opinion a threat to our very survival on Earth, and it doesn´t matter how much we empower ourselves by dicovering new energy sources or new ways to feed the uncontrolled growth of humanity, the basic situation still remains: the fact that most of us live in total lack of global solidarity.
What makes my words fit into this LHC discussion is the fact that scientists today are equipped with means to carry out experiments i an area linked to the very fabric of our space-time matrix, with a very, very small, almost unexistent risk of setting off some unexpected instability reaktion through an unpredictible reaktion of so called strangelets or a matter collapse in the form of stable micro black holes.
This risk, however utterly small and maybe nonexistent, is not for the involved local scientists to decide wether to take or not, but a decision sanctioned by all of humanity.
In my opinion this lack of communication between the project scientists and the opposing scientist is a clear evidence of the abcense of global wisdom and solidarity.
Eddy, Adsara and Klas
(BTW, I sometimes mush answers together here because I cannot post but about one comment per hour for some unknown reason.)
Eddy — Certainly there are areas that need more funding and more work, but you can’t blame basic research for taking it away from them. Think of some time when basic research was lacking or non-existant. Was there no poverty then, too? Did people not die of disease and starvation — probably at a rate greater than today? The point is that money withheld from basic research does not end up in pockets of the poor, or as food for the hungry. I believe that we have resources for both, but politicians distribute it as they will, and therein lies the problem.
Adsara — No, the earthquake had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the LHC. As far as I am aware there were no collisions yesterday anyway, just circulating beams of particles. Even when the LHC is working at maximum energy, which won’t be for several years, the tiny amount of energy it produces is vary too small for even the smallest of earthquakes. Worry about something worthy of worry — not the LHC.
Klas — I think I understand your concern. People are more and more hooked into technology and to an extent that separates them from each other. In a sense it causes everyone to retreat into their own mental state — but that is not one of introspection but rather escapism.
However, I don’t know you mean by “an area linked to the very fabric of our space-time matrix” and frankly if anything we know less about that than we do about quantum physics. You cannot say that there is less danger there because we don’t really know enough to know that. I agree that there is likely no danger in it and no reason to believe that we might diocover danger, but you can’t really say that because we have less knowledge of that area (and I am referring here to real, earned knowledge through experimentation — not things we assume or are told by self-appointed experts, or “revealed” by someone not trained in the field).
I guess the point is that we need to look into both areas, and I am holding out for the possibility that we may find a connection between the particle physics and mental processes. So any kind of reasoned research is not worthless. (Although I agree that yes, there are experiments that do not contribute to basic knowledge and are a waste of time and money — but that doesn’t mean they all are.)
LS
I wonder when we will stop pestering these scientists and start putting the blame back where it belongs … on the shoulders of all the practicing witches and warlocks of the world!
Seriously, this fear of the LHC bringing about the end of existence is just the classic fear of the unknown.
As for using money to stop starvation, it has certainly been tried, but we have to do more than throw money (or food) at starving societies to solve the underlying reasons for starvation. I agree that ending human suffering is a worthwhile goal, more worthwhile than finding answers to burning questions in particle physics, but I think we can do both, and not building the LHC will not make inequity, starvation and suffering disappear from the face of the Earth.
Just my $0.02
wouldin it be funny if when they sent to proton at eatch other an they hit at the other end they decover antymater /mater boom
Gordon — thanks. I agree.
MCDelta-T — couldn’t have said it better myself.
Barry — actually, the production of antimatter is old hat and expected. You might want to read this page at CERN: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html
Larry,
I don’t see looking for black holes and the big bang as basic research in order to deal with problems like poverty, diseases and starvation. Maybe the money won’t end up in pockets of the poor or as food for the hungry but could end up in for medicines where the pharma companies don’t have interest in, because there is nothing to make money with.
Eddy
Eddy,
I didn’t say that any money used for the LHC or anything related was basic research for poverty and starvation. Basic research, property designed and executed, brings value in the form of knowledge, often new technology and products that can be used elsewhere, and even serendipitous surprises. We could survive without basic research in the same sense that we can survive on bread and potatoes, but eventually it will lead to problems. Basic research doesn’t directly lead to the solution of the worlds social and other problems, but it helps build a world where those things are more easily and readily dealt with. If there were no LHC, I highly doubt that if any of the money would have gone into the cure for diseases and poverty. At this point, you can take comfort in the fact that the money is not going into war and killing, which are the result in the final analysis, of ignorance. And the LHC is a project to improve our knowledge and our understanding of the physical world. In that sense, it is there to help remove the basis of evil, which *is* ignorance.
Larry
What I meant with “an area linked to the very fabric of our space-time matrix” is this:
As far as I know, black holes has a strange impact on its surrounding, bending both space and time.
A device like the LHC with the ability to create black holes implies that we are poking into the very “fabric” that controlles the appearence of matter.
Extremely fascinating, but shouldn´t we first of all let the protesting group of scientists led by Professor Otto Rössler have their say?
I just can´t understand why LHC don´t listen to these dignified scientists who claim that the black holes created by the LHC according to their calculations will differ to the ones created without human interaction.
Professor Rössler and his group claims that there is a high propability that the holes created by the LHC are far more stable than the LHC-team expect, and that theese black holes inherit a growth factor that is exponential rather than linear, according to their calculations.
Their reaction has nothing to do with “fear of the unknown” or ignorance, on the contrary, the ignorance are right now represented by the LHC-team.
Why not clear this questions as far as possible, bringing this big group of concerned proffessional scientists together in a meeting with the scientists from LHC, and clear the whole thing out as quick as possible. This would certainly calm down many of us.
But the LHC-team shows great arrogance, ignoring these scientists.
I´m sorry to say, but the whole thing has a bad smell.
Klas, I’m sorry that it smells bad to you. The first thing I would have to say about Otto Rossler is that to my knowledge, he is trained in medicine and biology, not physics. He bases his argument on a pioneering but long since rejected relativity concept (by Max Abraham) from the early 1900s, which has been supplanted by Einstein’s work. This is not the place to debate the specifics of Rossler’s contentions, but I hardly think that the fact that a large majority of physicists have rejected Rossler’s claims is arrogance. It seems to me purely intelligent to reject anything that is 1) based on an obsolete and discredited idea, 2) in variance with experimentation and long-refined theory, and 3) presented by an individual who is neither participating in the project, nor creditialed in the field.
The claim that physicists are trying to shut Rossler up for any reason other than the fact that he is simply and obviously on a deadend track, is frankly wrong. Physicists are not afraid of Rossler, and if he had a reasonable argument, based on confirmed principles rather on a concept discredited decades ago, they would listen. The fact that they have dismissed Rossler’s ideas is no more arrogance than a medical doctor’s rejection of a patient’s claim that he got Aids just be being in the room with an Aids patient. There is no evidence that Aids can be transmitted that way, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. A sign of intelligence is the ability to filter out those things that are not based in sound thinking and evidence in favor of other things that *are* based on sound thinking and evidence. That’s intelligence, not arrogance.
Larry
Thank you for straightening out things for me, the media so often deliberatly leaves out the essential circumstances, like in this case Rosslers academic background and the theories wich he bases his calculations on.
Is there an exact date and time set for the first “heavy” experiments with the LHC?
Klas,
By “heavy” experiments I assume you mean collisions between particles. I do not know an exact date although I have heard late October. Of course many things have to be checked and adjusted, so it could be even later. The first collisions and in fact the first couple of years of collisions will be at less than 100 percent power. The first full power experiments won’t likely come until sometime in 2010.
WHYYYYY, but this really has no benefit to society……..WOOT!!1!
Good bye everyone, btw could this disprove God?
Poe,
Why, indeed? Why have any basic research? You are correct. True basic research has no direct benefit to the economy or society, except perhaps in the jobs it generates. It isn’t intended to have direct benefit, despite that fact that most of our modern electronic society and much of our medical technology and even medical advances, not to mention agriculture, transportation and just about every other aspect of modern life, have either resulted from or have been deeply and positively affected by basic research into physics and other basic sciences. The discoveries that led to computers and cell phones, TV’s and even medical scanners that have saved countless lives, came from basic research. Without that basic research we might still be in the horse and buggy, pony express era. Some would think that pretty grand, I suppose.
Yes, you’re right that basic research has no direct benefit to society, but as I type this onto a computer and post it out via the world wide web, which was invented by a researcher at CERN, the parent body of the LHC, I doubt that you or I or most anyone would prefer a world without the benefits — indirect though they may be — of basic research.
And no, from a logical point of view, the LHC cannot “disprove” the existence of God. Nor can any science experiment — nor for that matter can any experiment or observation at all. Why, did it have you worried?
Well, when I was first introduced to the idea of this crazy experiment I must admit I was a little worried, but not anymore really, but how can it not disprove God, I mean, if indeed the big bang is real that would mean that God did not create the Universe….yes?
Poe Out
Poe,
Results of the LHC might help confirm ideas about the Big Bang, but that certainly doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist. It would call into question certain beliefs, but it could not prove that God doesn’t exist. (But to be clear, it wouldn’t do a lot to bolster belief.)
From a logical standpoint, no experiment or observation can disprove the possibility of God. Just because God doesn’t answer your prayer does not prove that He does not exist, does it? He may simply disagree with your request. What if you looked for God in church but did not see Him there? That doesn’t disprove his existence does it? Maybe it says that He wasn’t there at the time, or He choose for you not to see Him. What if you looked for God on the Moon but didn’t find him there? That doesn’t prove that He wasn’t (or isn’t there).
Imagine that you are looking for your cat who has gone outside and is hiding in a tree. You go out and call for the cat, comb the neighborhood, and even look in the tree where he is hiding, but as you look he ducks behind a large branch and you see nothing but the branch. Finally you give up and go home, frustrated and concerned. Should you then conclude that your cat has run away forever, or the he has been abducted by aliens, or that he was an illusion all along and that you never had him except as a fantasy in your mind? Would any of that be logical? I think that you should conclude that you did not find your cat, not that he doesn’t exist anymore (or ever). I think others said it first, but Carl Sagan was well-known for saying, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” He wasn’t trying to convince anyone that God exists or is even likely, but just to show that you must be careful about what you say because logically you cannot disprove the ultimate existence of anything.
To “prove” that God does not exist, from a purely logical standpoint, you would have to look everywhere in the Universe, in every possible wavelength or way of looking, including in any other dimensions of states of being that we may not yet be aware of (and may well not themselves exist) — all at the same time. If you didn’t see Him in place or anywhere or in any and all possible ways of viewing, including any spiritual dimensions of states of being we do not even know about, then you might reasonably conclude that he doesn’t exist. But even then it wouldn’t be for sure because you could not know whether God might have the power to hide himself from you no matter how hard or how far you looked. The only way to prove beyond a doubt that God does not exist — and the reason in my mind that confirmed atheists represent the epitome of arrogance — is to be in all places and know all things at all times. But if you were in all places and knew all things at all times, you would have to be omnipresent and omniscient, two attributes to God himself. So to prove that God does not exist, you would have to *be* God, and I am sure that you see the irony and impossibility in that.
The results of the LHC may well raise questions about the existence of God, and/or specific interpretations of specific passages of scripture or specific religious beliefs. But that in no way actually proves that God does not exist. If the results of the LHC confirms the idea of the Big Bang, it won’t “prove” it. The Big Bang could simply be the mechanism by which God built the Universe, and the current religious interpretation might well be wrong.
It all boils down to what and how you want to believe. If you are religious, then absolutely nothing can disprove God’s existence, even though the evidence may cast doubt on your interpretation of who He is and how He works. Scientists are taught to require evidence, and when the evidence is sufficiently strong, to accept that evidence and its most obvious and simple explanation. But in the end, that doesn’t really say anything about whether God could exist or not. At most all it does is narrow down how He must have done things.
On the other hand, most if not all scientific evidence does little to confirm the actual existence of God. It confirms the incredible size, age and majesty of the universe, but to many scientists, assuming that God made it all simply adds another step into the explanation, and the fewer the assumptions, the more likely a theory is true.
You said LHC would not be run at full power until 2010. What are you going to do with
all that matter that is in LHC when you power up. And how will you power up and down. And how will you control it while it expands the mater? People may just be less afraid if they
knew things are being done to control the environment inside the LHC while you power up to
100% power. If you are just going to move matter in that manner, with no control, well
then that should be your first priority. Because say you on 20% power and you begin to
create black holes, that matter passing by those black hole can it be drawn in. What do you do with a black hole, once it contains matter. That to me is the question that is
on people’s minds. And doing that how do you release the matter inside without and implosion, and how much matter are you creating? And for what purpose? To understand the Universe better, or control it? I think when that big bang went off in the Universe it
was a planned explosion, that everything came in the order in which it was meant too. A
if that is the case. You LHC would not be able to duplicate the beginning of the
Universe.
First off, I am not a researcher at CERN, but your use of the word “you” comes off as a pejorative and accusational. I cannot say exactly how you intended it, but your comment reads as if you are implying that the scientists at CERN are not closely considering the safety of the issue. That’s like accusing a surgeon of failing to wash his (her) hands or sterilize equipment before an open-heart operation. In the case of CERN there are enough safety checks and cautionary procedures to make NASA jealous. Granted, nothing is perfect and mistakes can happen anywhere, but the apparently common idea that the CERN scientists are like mischievous boys playing with matches in a gunpowder warehouse is ridiculous.
I’m afraid that you have a complete misconception about what goes on in the LHC. What do you think happens when you turn off a light? Do you think that the electricity has somehow collected in the bulb and will accumulate to dangerous levels? Of course not. Nor will “matter” collect like that in the LHC, and even if it did, there wouldn’t be enough to make a grain of sand, much less an Earth-devouring black hole. Like a minnow that simply cannot grow to the size of an aircraft carrier, any potential mini black holes that may be produced by the LHC cannot become large and dangerous.
The amount of matter created is exceedingly small and it dissipates in a tiny fraction of second, including any of the “mini” or “micro” black holes that *might* be created. Because the gravitational field of any of these potential mini black holes is so incredibly tiny and their time frame so short, the only thing they could possibly pull in before dissipating would be an electron or two that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.There is simply not enough matter and not enough time for anything adverse to happen. Quantum theory, which is the strangest and concurrently the most well-documented theory of all time, requires that this be so.
I’ve tried to think of a good analogy and I haven’t found a perfect one yet, but think of a large earthen dam holding back a huge lake or even a sea of muddy water. I picture the little Dutch boy and the hole in the dyke. Perhaps in our case, however, the boy uses a thin metal rod to poke a slim hole in the thick dyke. Initially water starts to through in a thin, high pressure jet. But what happens? Almost as soon as it starts the water flow drops to a dribble and then stops altogether. In this case, the mud and particles in the water, being of roughly the same dimensions as the hole, quickly plugged it, sealing it off.
Now imagine that some evil mad scientist wanted to destroy the countryside in a flood and so blasted the dyke with a small nuclear device. Bam! What water was left after the vaporization caused by the explosion would then rush out and flood the countryside, killing all in its wake!
Now the first situation with the small hole is like the potential microscopic black holes some have predicted for the LHC. They do not have enough energy to cause any harm and they are gone almost as soon as they form.
The second case is that of an astronomical black hole, such as forms when an old and massive star implodes. This appears to be the idea that many people have of the potential for the LHC. This simply will not happen.
Dr. Jeffrey Bennett, an astronomer and author in Boulder, Colorado, sent me a link to an article by Dr. Brian Greene that discusses the “The Origins of the Universe: A Crash Course“. This includes information about the LHC, and he mentions the fact, as I have done in the comments above, that Nature herself produces particles and collisions in the Earth’s own atmosphere far more energetic than any that can be produced in the LHC, and has done so for billions of years with no Earth-swallowing black holes produced.
Frankly, I think enough has been said about this. Anyone who chooses to believe that the world will be destroyed by an LHC produced black hole is likely to continue to believe it regardless of the facts. And those who understand the processes involved will understand that the only thing to fear here is misinformation, misinterpretation, misunderstanding and rumor.
Larry Sessions
TO ANYONE WHO IS WAITING FOR THE WORLD TO END VIA “MICRO BLACK HOLES” THAT MAY SOME DAY BE PRODUCED BY THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER (LHC) IN SWITZERLAND: Planetary destruction has been delayed by at least two months. Apparently a short circuit in the wiring around a segment of magnetics that controls the beam caused the magnets of overheat, triggering safety mechanisms that shut the operation down. The whole set up will have to be slowly warmed up from near absolute zero so that repairs can be made, and then slowly cooled back down before any further testing. This is expected to take at least two months.
TO ANYONE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE WORLD ENDING: This represents only an unfortunate delay. The problem has to do with the supercooled magnets that produce an intense magnetic field to guide the particle beam. At least two of the magnets in section 34 overheated and apparently melted down, releasing some of the supercold liquid helium used to cool the system. At no time did this pose any danger to humans, and the natural consequence was a shut down of the operation. Although liquid helium can be damaging in contact with skin, it is not posionous and dissipates rapidly when exposed to the normal atmosphere.
Larry S.
Larry,
My English could use a big brush up, and I it was not my intention to sound like
I was blaming you or anyone else. But just some questions. You are the the one with the
degree not me. And I only meant to understand. And maybe dislodge some wrong ideas about
the safety at issue in this blog. I am just learning, and will have questions.
Oceanwalker,
It is easy to give an impression other than what you intended, and it is easy for someone reading what you have written to misinterpret it. I’m sure I do it all the time. My attempts simply to be straightforward and honest with people may sometimes be construed as blunt or even arrogant.
Anyway, frequent use of “you” tends to imply personal responsibility in writing, because the reader cannot hear your tone of voice or inflection. Intent that might be perfectly understandable in speaking may appear as something else in writing, for the lack of visual and audible clues.
It is good that you are asking questions, but virtually all that you asked has been answered in the blog or earlier comments, and concerns about particles collecting in the instrument is simply a non-issue. Particles do not collect like a pool of water at the bottom of the collider. They dissipate or are absorbed and in any event, the actual amount is miniscule.
Anyway, I assure you that multiple safety precautions have been taken and multiple checks are taken every step of the way.
Keep asking quesions, by the way, but I think this blog has been pretty well blogged out.
so is not this fear the root of adventure, the roller coaster of life (did they muse about the titanic or atlantis) of course . it is human nature . we are the fear . whether real or imagined , natural or coerced , it is upon this great manifestation of our pysche that literally trillions of economic units has been generated in both the selling of and the wonder of…… fear (there is) in every civilization a force that tends to block betray or other wise countermand the concious intention of the collectivity that force is fear.
Could I ask here that does exceeding light speed be mentioned in Star Trek? The spaceship in Star Trek can move by exceeding light speed?
The ships in Star Trek travel at “warp” speeds which supposedly are capable of achieving many times the speed of light, without the restrictions imposed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. The exact mechanism is not described in detail, but it is generally considered that the writers intended this to be some kind of process whereby space is “warped” via Einstein’s general theory of relativity, meaning that they somehow alter space in such a way that they travel from here to there in short times that would not be possible in normal space. There actually seems to be a possibility of this happening, but it wouild require enormous energy.
Larry,
Your reply to Poe regarding proof of God’s existence has got to be the most insightful discussion on the matter I’ve ever read.
The LHC can shed light on how intricate, complex, and even strange the universe is. It has the slight potential to challenge our core understanding of physics and force a rethink of the big bang, at least in theoretical terms. It will do little to change our religious or philosophical views of the world around us.
An important discovery that scientists are hoping for with the LHC is proof as to whether or not the Higgs boson particle (the “God particle”) exists. This particle is predicted by the Standard Model of elementary particles which postulates on how all matter came into existence. Finding the Higgs boson particle is crucial to taking the Standard Model from the status of just a model to that of a real theory. The Higgs boson is theorized to interact with all the massive particles and transfer to them their masses through a state change from energy. If LHC cannot produce a Higgs boson, it will leave in question the Standard Model as well as many presently held theories like Grand Unified Theory of Everything and theoretical models like Superstring Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity, and Process Physics, just to name a few.
Many believe the LHC will answer the question of what triggered creation by finding the Higgs boson. I don’t. I believe the brilliant physicist Leon Lederman summed up that notion fairly well. He stated; “In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately, there are no data for the very beginnings - none, zero. We don’t know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up - we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God knows what happened at the very beginning.”
I believe we can learn much about particle physics and the moments following creation with the LHC. Answering what happened before all things came into existence and what (or who) got it all started seems a question that will always remain in the realm of philosophy and faith.
IM BACK…….The discussion on God was indeed the most interesting conversation that has ever come out of this issue. Where did everyone go?
Hey everybody its the Big Phil!!!1! WOOT
Hello Poe, I find your question interesting. I also have a Question for you
Larry.
Q.
If we were to smash the atoms together (God particle) would’nt it create a whole
new Universe Inside of ours? I mean, If atoms smashing created OUR universe,
wouldn’t It make a NEW one?
The Big Phil
Larry, you should really come back to this blog and keep the insightful conversation going. I think it’s great that you answer everyones questions and respond to everyones personal insights on the matter. Also, if it at all matters, you have incredible writing skills, and can explain your point in GREAT detail. It is very interesting to read your responses to some of your questions!
Philip,
Your question poses some interesting answers, which unfortunately I do not have. Maybe it is fortunate that I don’t have them, because in a way they are ultimate answers, and when we have answered all the ultimate questions, what is there left to live for? I am an addict of the program on CBS called “Numbers,” and although I think they go a bit far sometimes, it is still a great show. Recently the main character, Don (Rob Morrow AKA Fleischman from Northern Exposure), said that his Rabbi told him that the important thing was not finding all the answers, but that he always kept looking for the answers (msy interpretation). Amen to that, brother. The fact is, if we don’t keep looking for the answers. the only question that remains is “What’t he point?” I am 57 and I have come to realize that I will never know the answer. Maybe there *is* an answer. Maybe there is not. I don’t know — and *that* is the point. That is “42″ and that is the ulimate answer to all ultimate questions in the Universe — “I don’t know” and neither do you.
More specifically, however, I have to ask you: “Who ever said that the Universe was the result of colliding particles?” I never said that. It may well be possible to learn something about the origin of the Universe by studying colliding particles (because it helps simulate those conditions), but I never said that the Universe was the result of colliding particles.
However, your question does beg the answer of whether there are other Universes, other realities. To this I answer as I answer all things — I don’t know. There is no conclusive evidence, but there certainly *ARE* theoretical considerations that there may be other dimensions, and perhaps other Universes with which we cannot directly experience or communicate. There is a philoposphical concept, often applied somewhat freely and perhaps incorrectly, that what is not forbidden is necessarily true — given enough space and time. By this thinking, *almost* anything is possible. I grant that this is theoretically possible — but that doesn’t make it true.
So, while I do not mean to be wishy-washsy here — I just don’t know.
LS
Poe,
Thank you for your comments and kind words. Fact is, I’ve not gone anywhere, but I ahve been very busy. This semester I have had 6 sections of 4 courses for 3 different schools, and dealing with more than 200 students takes a lot of time. But I have been here and will be here and I enjoy answering questions (if I don’t know the answer, I’ve gotten good at faking it — just kidding! (:^/)
LS
Hello, its Travis
I have something 2 say.
I am worried about the LHC. I need some reasuring info about the LHC. please.
TRAVIS TRIANGLE >
Travis, I am afraid that you have missed the point of this blog. The “real” danger of the LHC is not what might happen there, but what happens in the minds of people who hear highly distorted media reports and don’t know enough of the background physics to recognize it for the garbage it is. The fact is that there is nothing to worry about, except an irrational fear of the unknown. The LHC will not spawn black holes that will gobble up Earth, or cause anything of danger. Widespread danger and destruction from the LHC is less likely than you suddenly sprouting antlers and a glowing red nose, and flying away with Santa on Christmas Eve. The bottom line is, it ain’t gonna happen.
If you feel the need to worry about something, pick something with a higher chance of actually happening. Like the polar ice caps melting, or being attacked by killer bees, or a blizzard in Los Angeles. Heck, it’s much more likely that sharks will sprout legs and crawl up out of the oceans to take control of the world than something terrible happening with the LHC. So find something scarier to worry about.
And, by the way, you might want to stock up on extra heavy duty shark repellent.
LS
A very interesting read for a very interesting project, I must say though I was a tad alarmed when I first heard about this instrument. Not because of the creation on “blackholes” and scare mongerers touting the end of the world, but due to the fact that the scientists were attempting to recreate the “Big Bang” a much larger event than that of a “blackhole”. I’m sure the people coordinating these experiments have crunched the numbers and taken everything into account, but just for a brief second, think about the implications of recreating the creation of our universe.. Thats a pretty monumental event, what does that mean for the current universe, will there BE any way to contain an event with such a massive amount of energy. All things aside this is a very exciting time for science and discovery, I’m excited to be alive during this time
Keir,
Thanks for your comment, but you are very far off if you think that the scientists with the LHC are trying to recreate the Big Bang! No way. All they are trying to do is to create the conditions — on a very small scale — that predominated at a time very near the time of the Big Bang. The closer we can get to those conditions, the better we can understand the Big Bang (or whatever created the Universe). We certainly are not now capable of creating the conditions at the precise moment of the Big Bang, and may never be due to the phenomenal temperature and pressures. But we can get close.
However, what you may be misunderstanding is the energy involved. The energy needed to create the Big Bang was more than ALL the energy in the Universe today. (Some of the energy at the time of the Big Bang was converted into matter, so the energy left over today is a bit less). So in order to recreate the Big Bang in a lab, we would need more than all the energy in the Sun, more than all the energy in the 200 billion or so stars in the Milky Way, more than all the energy in all the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the Universe. That’s not just difficult, it is impossible.
Granted, much smaller amounts of energy could do great damage, but even if the LHC could produce energies capable of destroying anything, it would be the lab or maybe the building, certainly not the Earth. Physicists, astronomers and other scientists have families and lives and they loving living as much as anyone else. They are not the nutjobs so often depicted on TV and in the movies. They would not pursue this project if they thought that there was any reasonable chance that a catastrophe would occur.
The scientific method of experimentation has no appeal to authority. It seems quite a few science writers don’t understand this point; preferring to label skeptics as unschooled and uninformed.
Your analogy about the statistical chance of spontaneous combustion of a human form just doesn’t work. The LHC is about recreating conditions which do not occur precisely this way in nature near our biosphere. I know there’s some evidence that they might but note that a) this is not certain; and b) note how the safety of this experiment hinges on this assertion. But even they do, why not study these natural phenomena a little bit longer as theoretical work advances?
As to chances, we know there’s a chance of blackhole formation. In the case of this experiment, it is not a random chance (at least we can say that). We also have a theory about black hole radiation which has less of a basis in observation than the formation of black holes. So there’s a chance any such construct would decay immediately. We’re not sure what that chance is either.
Now balance these unknown chances (which could be small or large) against the destruction of everything. Do a thought experiment on a 44 month collapse of our biosphere. How much of us would survive. You know enough about our space to technology to know that not even Nixon’s signature would escape. That’s the stakes. We don’t know the risk; we do know the stakes.
Einstein’s theory was developed long before it was observed. We can afford to have much more theoretical work done before we smash particles together at abnormal speeds to merely see what happens.
The whole enterprise reminds me of the credit default swap idea. Look how that turned out.
It is good that science has “no appeal to authority.” But it does appeal to experience, observation, experimentation and logic. In my opinion, the physicists and other scientists working on a project such as the LHC certainly have more experience, have made more observations, performed more experiements and are in more of a position to make logical decisions on this than is the lay public.
There needs to be oversight and public input into scientific work, but we also in reason must leave the major decisions to those who are most likely to understand the possible and likely outcomes. Physicians needs to be properly trained and highly experienced before cutting open a heart. Physicists must be properly trained and highly experienced before being allowed to experiment with an enormously expensive project such as the LHC. Now, we would not expect the heart surgeon to not stop in the middle of a bypass operation to call up his high school English teacher to ask which artery to cut, and where. Why then should we expect physicists to stop, delay or modify their research based on the input of bankers, journalists, outdoors men, cab drivers — whoever — who have no significant training in science. This is not an issue of arrogance or “appeals to authority” but just plain common sense.
The concern over the so-called “mini black holes” shows just how poorly the general public understands the topic, not to mention science in general, and how thoroughly they are influenced by bad (uninformed and sensationalist) journalism. In this sense the Internet has made things worse by allowing the spread of rumors, half-truths and often utter fabrications around the world in a matter of seconds.
Here is where the “appeal to authority” comes in. We should question the authority of everything we read, especially on the Internet and in supermarket tabloids. But we must apply reason and common sense as well. We cannot reject all authority because that would mean that we would have to start back at the beginning of everything to learn everything through our own experience. We must reject or at least question the authority of anything that comes from unreliable or unknown sources. At the same time, it is intelligent to cautiously accept the authority of those who have earned it through academic preparation, experience and peer review. (Note that I said “cautiously” not “blindly”). Generally speaking, the greater authority, the more likely it to be genuine. To pose a rhetorical question, I have to ask, which would give you the most confidence, a thousand scientists saying that the Sun will rise in the morning, or 100 scientifically untrained lay people saying that it will not? Who would you believe?
The idea that science does not appeal to authority — that is, accepting something as true based on the authority of whoever is saying it — doesn’t mean that you throw away all knowledge up to that point and start from the beginning again. Instead, you proceed cautiously and build on the foundation of the many scientists who have gone before. If just one physicist was saying there is no danger in the LHC, and thousands of others were convinced that the “mini black holes” would destroy the Earth, then there would be cause for concern. But the fact is that the scientists working on this project — all of them as far as I am aware, but the vast majority in any event — understand the physics and realize that there is no reason whatsoever to worry about it. I’ve gone through this before, so I won’t explain it again, but the energies and time scales just don’t allow it.
If we want to worry about something, let’s worry about real threats, such as hunger, the spread of disease, terrorism, and global climate change. We should have done something about global warming years ago — certainly scientists called for it — but conservative politicians and oil execs said no, the evidence isn’t conclusive, we must wait. You know, it’s funny, or maybe sad, that the public worries when science says that there is no reason for concern, and ignores them when they give a well-studied and researched warning.
In any event, what needs to have been said has already been said and I do not intend to further repeat myself here.
Believe what you choose to believe, but be prepared to accept the consequences. I choose to form my beliefs as far as possible on evidence and logic rather than yellow journalism, paranoia and hysteria.
Pseudoscientists also thought that Thalidomide would not harm at all human fetuses, because they had done the absurd “scientific” experiments with non human animals to avoid the teratogenic malformations in our species. However, 10.000 children were born without legs or with serious malformations. So if I the LHC scientists are of the same kind (and nowadays some pseudoscientists are doing the same experiments with animals, though they are not predictive) we must keep this project under suspicion. If 10.000 human beings are born with malformations or if the world is destroyed by the LHC, well anyone can make a mistake, even “scientists”.
The old saying that people “fear what they do not understand” is certainly at work here. The scientists who understand the underlying physics of the LHC and its goals know that the dangers of any large-scale catastrophe are imaginary. That is not to say that nothing at all can go wrong, but any problems would be localized to the facility or at most, the immediate area. It is the uninformed, the ill-informed and the mis-informed — those who do not understand the underlying physics — who raise the fear of catastrophe.
Equating LHC physicists with “pseudoscientists” is simply wrong, insulting and exposes a lack of understanding of how physics, as a profession, works. Physics is the science least tolerant of pseudoscience, and given the enormous cost of some experimentation at the LHC level, ill-conceived experimental programs and ideas are vetted out of the process long before they have any chance of being performed. I cannot speak to the biological experiments on thalidomide to which you refer, but I can say with some confidence that those programs were not anywhere near the cost of LHC programs, and were no doubt sponsored by the very drug companies who stood to profit from its use.
There are many, many things of vastly greater danger than the LHC. Ignorance is one of them. Some things we can’t do anything about (at least for now), such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and worse yet — asteroid impact. But the LHC and legitimate scientists around the world are doing something about the ignorance. Let them do their jobs.
LS
Hah my dad teaches physics he migt know some stuff about that!
Larry,
Thank you for this enlightening article.
Knowledge is power, and the only danger that this machine possesses is the likelihood that we’ll learn something dangerous from it. However, that is a political problem, not a scientific one.
I also want to say a word to the folks who have posted here saying that life is meaningless. They should go out and make their life meaningful by serving others. Even if someone doesn’t believe in God, the afterlife, and an eternal purpose, they can still believe in and serve people, life, and the next generation.
Hadrons will be smashed at the rate of 600 billion per second over the course of x hours per day/week/month. I wonder how they arrive at the chances of anything going wrong at 1 in 50 billion? It seems that the more collisions there are, the more the likely a stable, undesirable particle will be created. And if it’s so unlikely that something will go wrong - like creating heavy matter, how is it any more likely they’ll find what they’re looking for? I am a layperson, but when I look at everything that’s presented, it just doesn’t add up. What are they holding back? I agree with the poster who recommends postponement of these experiments until there all questions of safety are dealt with to the satisfaction of at least all the scientists who take issue with the safety studies already done.
Dear Astromuffy,
Physicists aren’t holding anything back. They aren’t hiding anything. They are not trying to confuse or trick you. They do not wish harm to the world and they are not gambling with our future. They are, as a whole, extremely conservative and careful. They would do nothing that had any reasonable chance of causing harm. What about atomic bombs and nuclear weapons, you say? Keep in mind that it was politicians, not physicists that led to that problem. All the physicists want is knowledge.
While there are a very small minority of so-called “scientists” — few if any are physicists and others are pseudoscientists — the overwhelming majority of professional physicists around the world support the LHC. These are well-trained and experienced scientists who have worked in the field and know what is going on, not self-appointed “experts” who dabble in conspiracy theories and fear-mongering.
Imagine that you have some major health problem and your doctor suggests an operation. You may want a second opinion, and you find that the second doctor says the same thing, and then you ask a third doctor with the same result. You keep asking and keep getting the same suggestion. When would you get the operation? Would you do it and possibly save your life, or would you cower in the corner, thinking that the doctors are just holding out on you, that they have some nefarious intent to force you into an operation you don’t need? Would you feel that you would have to learn all about medicine and surgery in specific in order to trust the doctors? I doubt it. My guess is that you would trust the doctors, have the operation and choose to live.
Now in the case of the Large Hadron Collider, you don’t have to take the word of just one physicist. You can ask another, and another, and another….. You could ask thousands of physicists and my guess is that you would find 95-99 percent of them saying the same thing the LHC is safe and a wonderful way to learn more about our World. Granted, the experiments of the LHC are not necessary for humankind to continue to live on Earth. They don’t have the same urgency a heart operation or the like. But knowledge is necessary for continuation of a vibrant society, and without it, we will shrivel up and die, country by country and person by person.
Do you think that you need to study physics and become a degreed researcher to trust what the vast majority of the world’s physicists are saying? If so, then you better not drive or use a cell phone or come within 50 feet of a computer, because unless you are an expert in any of those fields, then you don’t understand fully how they work. Do you think that just because you don’t fully understand it, that it is dangerous. If so, you need to go back to the Stone Age to live.
LS