Science: how far is too far?

[Erythritol]

Eh, this is kind of a broad topic I suppose, but one thing in particular got me thinking about this. That would be the large hadron collider that is currently being developed beneath Switzerland. Read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_hadron_collider

For those who are too lazy, it's basically a giant billion dollar beam that is going to hurl protons at each other to answer several questions; mainly how elementary particles acquire mass. This is all well and fine, but there are many safety issues involved with such an experiment. There are many in the scientific community who are concerned that such an experiment could produce black holes and strangelets. No one needs to know physics to know that these would be very BAD (read: end of Earth). While this is not likely, it IS a possibility. Quite frankly, such an experiment has never been performed, so it is impossible for scientists to know for sure.

My question is: is this going too far in the name of science? How far is too far in the name of science? I think scientists are always pushing boundaries in the search for knowledge, but I think even science can go too far. Thoughts?

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Science breaks boundaries all the time, gradually most of us just grow to accept things...because no matter what we say or do they still want to find out how elementary particles acquire mass...and why we're here and how to prevent babies from having ginger hair, and generally outrageous things that MOST people who aren't scientists don't really care about.

Just about everything science creates is "too far" to some people, but they won't think twice about it in 10 years when we're designing babies with four arms and blowing each other up with banagrades.

If you can make sense of that, then I'm glad.<.<

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

I think creating black holes is somewhat pushing science too far.
Even though they're supposed to be tiny black holes that will vaporize (or something like that) before they can have an effect I just don't see how they can judge how big or small the blacks holes could be if they've never done the experiment before =/

I can live with the fact that science may push things to far 'morally' but creating black holes somewhat surpasses 'too far' by a considerable bit imo.

 

[Cactuar]

Spoiler: The LHC is just a new particle accelerator.
However it will be the fastest accelerator in existence, the actual chances of creating a big enough black hole that doesn't disappear instantly and grows are very, very slim. But what i do find funny, is that they managed to spend billions upon billions of dollars, to build a particle accelerator just to find out if a certain hypothetical sub atomic particle exists. And maybe try to simulate the conditions of the big bang. Apparently as well, loads of mini black holes will be created but they will disappear almost instantly. As for the particle, if they find it, it might prove the existence of other dimensions, as apparently the particle itself, after appearing, quickly disappears, and as no energy ever disappears-just transfers. Scientists believe that it travels to another dimension or something.

 

[Braelyn Soulheart]

Science Evolves all the time.

That can be really bad cuz all nuclear weapons were made by science..
The Hydrogen Atomic Bomb can destroy 1/2 of the planet and if that happens the other part will fall too. That's why no one whant's to make the 3rd World War cuz most probably that would be the end of everything.

But, and a big BUT, science is also a very good thing when is used for medicine. Cancer and VHS cure improvements are very good nowadays and keeps improving and that is a holy story.

End of story. Science is like Cloud and Sephiroth...The good Side and bad Side ;D

Cya**

 

[Bambi]

Um, what are they doing it FOR exactly.....I never really got science

Sounds pretty scary to me though, but I guess not knowing about something like this would be scary, especially when people are mentioning black holes and such likes. What are they hoping to achieve from it?

I er, didn't read the article, it's just confiuse me more so liek, if the answer is in there, or I just missed it because Im thick then er, oops?

I know we need to experiment with things in order to move on and advance and whatnot, as long as it has a purpose and the pro's out weigh the cons, other wise, we'd still be stuck in the stone ages....so is whatever this black hole collinder creator thingy worth it in the long run? D:

 

[Darkstar]

I'm sorry, but let me firstly say, this sounds heaps cool. Yeah, the experiment could go wrong and kill us all, but if all goes well, this could be very beneficial to today's society.

Now, on topic. I don't think science has gone to far. To me, always trying to find life's answers is a noble cause, and we should try to help them the best we can. No matter what we do, there is always a risk involved, but those risks shouldn't stop us, we should just tackle them and see what happens.

With this experiment, if goes down, we all go down, but that's risk, and if its for a noble cause, I think we should take it.

 

[Donald Trump]

Um, what are they doing it FOR exactly.....I never really got science

They're trying to find the Higgs Boson particle, which is what caused the big bang. Theoretically.
So they're just trying to understand the universe better.

I'm not an expert on particle physics, which is supposedly impossible due to the large amount of differebt particles that there are, but the chances of a black hole heing created are very slim.

What Zealot said is quite true, the Hadron Collider is just the largest version so far. I think science can probably go too far, but this is not the case with the LHC imho.
Anyway if it were to destroy the Earth, at least we wouldn't regret it.

 

[Erythritol]

What Zealot said is quite true, the Hadron Collider is just the largest version so far.

Actually, if I understand it correctly, it IS the first particle accelerator that hurls protons at each other. There are other particle accelerators, but they don't do the same thing, hence my saying that this is the first time it is being done.

While it is unlikely that it will create a stable micro black hole that will swallow the earth up, I don't like that it's even a possibility. I also am very skeptical about what is to be gained by such an experiment. I don't see the discovery of the Higgs Boson particle to be at all beneficial to mankind in any way. To me, it just seems kind of...creepy that men are trying to essentially recreate the big bang. Talk about playing 'God'. I don't think man should have that much power. I just think ultimately, we'll destroy ourselves with the need to know absolutely everything.

Anyway if it were to destroy the Earth, at least we wouldn't regret it.

Um...I would.

 

[FF7Guru]

The Higgs Boson particle is a theoretical particle that causes gravity. Theoretically. But particle science isn't neccesary to our advancement, so I don't see the point in finding the Higgs Boson particle. Let's discover teleporters instead. Or food replicators like the Star Trek ones, so that we can end world hunger. Obviously.

Or we can create strange quarks*, and destroy the universe. MWAHAHA!!!


* These are theoretical particles that could (theoretically) destroy everything, everywhere. Possibly these would have been made by what should have filled the most expensive hole in the world. It's also the biggest, and should have contained the Superconducting Supercollider. A bigger Large Hadron Collider.

 

[der Astronom]

Well, if we went and took particular chemicals in a lab and accidentally mixed them together, you might blow up the entire lab; it's entirely possible that those chemicals are both used in the same experiment, but different times; it's not like scientists don't know what they're doing. These accidents happen because people read the wrong labels, don't know what they're doing, or don't read the safety precautions; happens in labs all the time--a student accidentally poured acid on her hands and got burned seriously. These risks will always have a chance of occurring, no matter what safety precautions you take--there is always a chance that in any given experiment, there is always a risk that you may end up destroying the lab or otherwise completely sabotaging the experiment in other horrible ways. What matters is the likelihood of the accidents happening. In most cases, the probability of a devastating accident occurring in a careful, controlled and well designed experiment is very unlikely. If the problem with an experiment involves the destruction of the universe as a side effect, then scientists should probably take some time to reduce the probability of this happening or design the experiment in such a way that the side effects would not be so drastic. I consider it unscientific to perform an experiment without having calculated the probability of any risks occurring in said experiment.

Either way, I'd rather the end of the world happened because some scientists were conducting an experiment and destroyed it purely by accident, and for which they already reduced the probability of it happening as much as possible than the world end at the hands of politics.

Here's another interesting thought though--what if these scientists hadn't known or realized that they could actually be conducting an experiment which may involve the destruction of the universe?

 

[Erythritol]

"The Higgs Boson particle is a theoretical particle that causes gravity"

No. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. It explains how particles acquire mass.

Well, if we went and took particular chemicals in a lab and accidentally mixed them together, you might blow up the entire lab; it's entirely possible that those chemicals are both used in the same experiment, but different times; it's not like scientists don't know what they're doing. These accidents happen because people read the wrong labels, don't know what they're doing, or don't read the safety precautions; happens in labs all the time--a student accidentally poured acid on her hands and got burned seriously. These risks will always have a chance of occurring, no matter what safety precautions you take--there is always a chance that in any given experiment, there is always a risk that you may end up destroying the lab or otherwise completely sabotaging the experiment in other horrible ways. What matters is the likelihood of the accidents happening. In most cases, the probability of a devastating accident occurring in a careful, controlled and well designed experiment is very unlikely. If the problem with an experiment involves the destruction of the universe as a side effect, then scientists should probably take some time to reduce the probability of this happening or design the experiment in such a way that the side effects would not be so drastic. I consider it unscientific to perform an experiment without having calculated the probability of any risks occurring in said experiment.

There is a key part that you're missing here. Scientists KNOW for sure what reactions will occur when you mix certain chemicals. Physics is a far cry from chemistry. This experiment is dealing with a very theoretical particle. There is absolutely no way that scientists can ascertain whether this particle accelerator is safe or not. They can assume that THEORETICALLY it should be. However, no one has ever hurled protons at each other with a giant collider (hence the Higgs Boson particle still being a theory), so I think your parallel to a chemistry lab is a little misguided. Scientists aren't trying to mix a bit of chemicals here; they are trying to recreate the conditions of the big bang. And it has never been attempted before. Bit of a difference.

Either way, I'd rather the end of the world happened because some scientists were conducting an experiment and destroyed it purely by accident, and for which they already reduced the probability of it happening as much as possible than the world end at the hands of politics.

....Right, well, I like living, so I'd prefer it didn't end in several months. That's just me. And politics can't end the world. You'll find that black holes can. In my opinion, to compare them is a bit ridiculous.

Here's another interesting thought though--what if these scientists hadn't known or realized that they could actually be conducting an experiment which may involve the destruction of the universe?

The large hadron collider cannot destroy the universe. At worst, it can create a black hole that could swallow up all the planets in this solar system. There are millions (well, I'd guess, anyway) of black holes in the universe.

 

[strifehart]

Erythritol is right. the large hadron collider can't destroy the universe. and the probability of it causing any sort of destruction on a macro scale is negligible. science has only ever made calculated moves to learn more about the world around us.

as far as the point made that this type of experiment won't have any effect on our daily lives or really explain anything of relevance, that's just ridiculously stupid.

particle physics is probably one of the most fundamental and important fields. it explains how nearly everything works. learning more about the relationship between matter and energy as well as how to convert them effectively between eachother could solve countless problems. problems like the energy crisis.

 

[der Astronom]

"The Higgs Boson particle is a theoretical particle that causes gravity"

No. It has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. It explains how particles acquire mass.



There is a key part that you're missing here. Scientists KNOW for sure what reactions will occur when you mix certain chemicals. Physics is a far cry from chemistry. This experiment is dealing with a very theoretical particle. There is absolutely no way that scientists can ascertain whether this particle accelerator is safe or not. They can assume that THEORETICALLY it should be. However, no one has ever hurled protons at each other with a giant collider (hence the Higgs Boson particle still being a theory), so I think your parallel to a chemistry lab is a little misguided. Scientists aren't trying to mix a bit of chemicals here; they are trying to recreate the conditions of the big bang. And it has never been attempted before. Bit of a difference.

Not really. If scientists did know what would happen if they mixed certain chemicals together, there would be no need to test them, would there be? What they think will happen is theory until it is actually tested; the fact that chemistry and physics are not the same fields of science has no bearing on how both kinds of experiments are conducted--they both use the scientific method. Which means, if chemists have never performed an experiment before and don't know whether or not mixing particular chemicals will yield a particular reaction and their knowledge of it is only theoretical, then there's still always the risk the reaction will be much stronger than they predicted, and destroy stuff they didn't predict. So does that mean we shouldn't do any scientific experiment just because there's a risk?

....Right, well, I like living, so I'd prefer it didn't end in several months. That's just me. And politics can't end the world. You'll find that black holes can. In my opinion, to compare them is a bit ridiculous.

People have been speculating ways in which the world will end, and nuclear warfare might actually be one of them. Of course, nobody would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons to destroy the world, but thanks to politics, people do stupid things. What I meant to say was that if the world were to end at our hands, I'd rather it ended while we were trying to use our minds to understand something than to end it over senseless bickering.

The large hadron collider cannot destroy the universe. At worst, it can create a black hole that could swallow up all the planets in this solar system. There are millions (well, I'd guess, anyway) of black holes in the universe.

That's not the point though--I'm asking if they should still go ahead with the experiment if they hadn't known this risk.

 

[MasterX]

We'll prolly shrug off the developing black holes, but will end up complaining when we see unexplained meteors falling on our lawns.

I wanna laugh about it, but I think there's some seriousness attached to that first sentence. The effects either will happen, are happening or already have happened and are about to expose. All we know is that something bad will happen and it might involve our homely little planet.

 

[Donald Trump]

Not really. If scientists did know what would happen if they mixed certain chemicals together, there would be no need to test them, would there be? What they think will happen is theory until it is actually tested; the fact that chemistry and physics are not the same fields of science has no bearing on how both kinds of experiments are conducted--they both use the scientific method. Which means, if chemists have never performed an experiment before and don't know whether or not mixing particular chemicals will yield a particular reaction and their knowledge of it is only theoretical, then there's still always the risk the reaction will be much stronger than they predicted, and destroy stuff they didn't predict. So does that mean we shouldn't do any scientific experiment just because there's a risk?

Speaking as someone who has studied chemistry, I can tell you that's not true. We know with quite a degree of certainty how something will react. That you need to put over .25 squared cm of lithium in water for it to burst into flame. We didn't always have this knowledge but that's not the case with the LHC. We are colliding protons together, something which is unpredictable. It's like tossing a coin, the outcome isn't certain.

Also the risk of a black hole is much greater than anything that could occur whilst practising chemistry.

 

[der Astronom]

Speaking as someone who has studied chemistry, I can tell you that's not true. We know with quite a degree of certainty how something will react. That you need to put over .25 squared cm of lithium in water for it to burst into flame. We didn't always have this knowledge but that's not the case with the LHC. We are colliding protons together, something which is unpredictable. It's like tossing a coin, the outcome isn't certain.

Also the risk of a black hole is much greater than anything that could occur whilst practising chemistry.

I have no idea what you're getting at. All I meant to say is that we do science experiments because they either disprove what we thought we knew or becomes evidence for our theories. It doesn't matter whether it's phsyics or chemistry; we do these experiments because we don't know for sure what will happen; the experiments confirm for us what does.

 

[Fusilli]

Ugh, this is just science for the sake of science in my opinion. It just seems to me as if scientists are going as far as they can just because they can. I know that's probably not their reason, I'm not an idiot. But wanting to study black holes and the universe... I just think, where's the need? Okay, so this IS something that clearly interests them deeply but it just seems that they could could have put their time and money and brains to much better use, such as improving the world we live in instead of creating black holes which could destroy it completely.

 

[der Astronom]

The attempt to understand the universe may lead to more practical applications. It is not immediately obvious how yet; that's what makes us short-sighted. But there are quite a few examples. Many people considered number theory, a very pure field of mathematics to be useless. It was, until of recently. People use number theory a lot in key-encryption systems; it keeps most data safe. Our clock and other similar units require the concept of number theory to work, and counting larger amounts of them is nearly impossible without the techniques of number theory. But lots of people say math is useless, when in fact, they refuse to acknowledge that they are using math without realizing it, and much of what they take for granted is impossible without mathematics.

But enough about mathematics. You can take any scientific fact into a particular context and say it's useless. People may say they don't need to know that the Earth is round, the moon orbits it, or that there's the grand universe and the sun all around us, and what they might possibly look like. But when we make satellites and predict the weather, it's hard to believe that astronomy is useless. Or people may say they don't need to know about evolution because the stuff that happened in the past before we lived doesn't concern us. When we find new cures for diseases and predict what happens to bacteria as they grow and trace geneology in an attempt to learn some history and improve medicine in general which may save people's lives, it's hard to believe that evolution and biology are useless.

It is simple to say that scientific fact, or any fact obtained relative to reality is useless. But that's only because you stop thinking about it. Who knows; scientists may discover an alternate source of energy by doing this.

Knowledge is important to practical applications. You can't manipulate that which does not exist.

 

[Gingerbread Lesbian]

Not my personal opinion but something that cropped up on Friday is that other scientists are now challenging CERN to a safety conference to prove the black hole won't survive and eat the world...and that the EU and some sort of US thing are also challenging CERN.

Opponents of the Collider are afraid its ability to smash atoms at such high speeds that it will generate temperatures of one trillion degrees centigrade will create a mini-black hole that could “tear the earth apart,” reports the Telegraph.

"Opponents of the project had hoped to obtain an injunction from the European Court of Human Rights that would block the collider from being turned on at all, but the court rejected the application on Friday morning. However, the court will rule on allegations that the experiment violates the right to life under the European Convention of Human Rights."
​

Here’s the case against the collider by Professor Otto Rössler, a German chemist at the Eberhard Karls University of Tübingen:

"CERN itself has admitted that mini black holes could be created when the particles collide, but they don’t consider this a risk.

My own calculations have shown that it is quite plausible that these little black holes survive and will grow exponentially and eat the planet from the inside. I have been calling for CERN to hold a safety conference to prove my conclusions wrong but they have not been willing.

We submitted this application to the European Court of Human Rights as we do not believe the scientists at CERN are taking all the precautions they should be in order to protect human life.”
​

Again, not my opinion but it might add something to the debate.