# Are we worried about the Large Hadron Collider being turned on? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 7, 2008, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441 "2008-09-07T02:45:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/181 "2008-09-11T00:37:44Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I’m going to say something else, too, and I don’t expect it to be any more popular than the other things I’ve written, but I think this term that they’re using - “God particle” - says a lot about the real motives behind this experiment. > > High-level theoretical physics is essentially no different from magic, religion or alchemy. It is an attempt to answer existential questions. **Paging Mr. Liberal, Mr. Liberal you’re wanted on the empirical/essential/existential courtesy phone.** and just incase you wanted to know, the wikipedia article on Peter Higgs states > [@](#): > > Higgs is reported to have been displeased that the particle is nicknamed the “God particle”, as Higgs is an atheist.[7]This nickname for the Higgs boson is usually attributed to Leon Lederman, but it is actually the result of Lederman’s publisher’s censoring. Originally Lederman intended to call it “the goddamn particle”, because of its elusiveness. **Argent** , dig up. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/182 "2008-09-11T00:51:17Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I’m going to say something else, too, and I don’t expect it to be any more popular than the other things I’ve written, but I think this term that they’re using - “God particle” - says a lot about the real motives behind this experiment. > > High-level theoretical physics is essentially no different from magic, religion or alchemy. It is an attempt to answer existential questions. It’s very different. It actually has a chance to work. Magic, alchemy and religion are made up bullshit. The beauty of this is you can wave your pitchfork and howl incoherently all you like. They’re gonna keep on working and hopefully make your life better regardless of your misgivings. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/183 "2008-09-11T00:59:06Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I’m going to say something else, too, and I don’t expect it to be any more popular than the other things I’ve written, but I think this term that they’re using - “God particle” - says a lot about the real motives behind this experiment. Leon Lederman jokes that it’s called the “God particle” because the “God-damned particle” was too long. If that’s true, would you be upset that the experiments are being run by a bunch of crass boors? What would that say about their motives? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/184 "2008-09-11T01:03:00Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > If someone raises the concern of _the whole world being destroyed_, and has a scientific basis for making this claim - even if it’s true that I don’t understand it - I want to see that claim refuted _one hundred percent_ before I put my trust in the other side. Sooner or later something will happen to destroy the world. Maybe its a giant meteor 20 years from now. Maybe it’s the sun entering its red giant phase billions of years from now. As a species, we’re living on borrowed time. The only was we can keep ourselves alive in the long run is to learn as much as we can as fast as we can. So when that meteor comes to smash everything to bits we have the technology to stop it. The saber tooth tigers are howling outside the cave. The scientists are CERN are sharpening the spears. ---
**Author:** ![ed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c77e96/32.png) [@ed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ed)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/185 "2008-09-11T01:16:05Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > High-level theoretical physics is essentially no different from magic, religion or alchemy. It is an attempt to answer existential questions. Really? How many cancer survivors have magic or alchemy to thank? ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/186 "2008-09-11T01:17:26Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > That’s a good question, and I have a good answer for it. > > “Better to be safe than sorry.” That’s a motto that I believe in very strongly. > > If someone raises the concern of _the whole world being destroyed_, and has a scientific basis for making this claim - even if it’s true that I don’t understand it - I want to see that claim refuted _one hundred percent_ before I put my trust in the other side. > > If nothing else, these scientists are absolute dummies at handling PR. For God’s sake, don’t they realize how much better off they would be if they would just say, “yes, we have determined there is an absolute zero chance, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the world will be harmed by this collider’s experiments”? Instead, they have to be scientific about it and say, “well, we can’t guarantee anything…there’s a nonzero chance that it might happen…that’s basically the same as a zero chance, but it’s not, see, because there’s still a chance…a really small one…but…uh…well, you just don’t understand the science! Just trust us!” The latter of those two is not going to reassure me. If these people were as smart in the PR department as they supposedly are in the physics department, they would have just issued a flat-out guarantee that everything’s going to be okay. So you’re angry at the CERn scientists because you’re too God-thickheaded to understand that it’s totally safe? 10^-googolplex is a non-zero number. If that was a proven figure, you’d not want it turned on? There’s probably a greater chance of the thermal energy in your body propelling you straight up into the air, but you don’t walk around tethered to the ground. **Argent Towers** :LHC:: **lekatt** :NDE ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/187 "2008-09-11T01:25:51Z")
Been lurking in this thread before now, and I’m quite unsurprised to still be here alive today. > [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > If someone raises the concern of _the whole world being destroyed_, and has a scientific basis for making this claim - even if it’s true that I don’t understand it - I want to see that claim refuted _one hundred percent_ before I put my trust in the other side. > > If nothing else, these scientists are absolute dummies at handling PR. For God’s sake, don’t they realize how much better off they would be if they would just say, “yes, we have determined there is an absolute zero chance, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the world will be harmed by this collider’s experiments”? Instead, they have to be scientific about it and say, “well, we can’t guarantee anything…there’s a nonzero chance that it might happen…that’s basically the same as a zero chance, but it’s not, see, because there’s still a chance…a really small one…but…uh…well, you just don’t understand the science! Just trust us!” The latter of those two is not going to reassure me. If these people were as smart in the PR department as they supposedly are in the physics department, they would have just issued a flat-out guarantee that everything’s going to be okay. So you want scientists to both lie and not lie to you about the safety of the experiments? For that matter, why should we put our blind trust in the nay sayers and their so called “scientific basis” for making that claim? Surely if they’re both using “science” then they both have equal and incredibly high probabilities of being wrong, right? > [@](#): > > High-level theoretical physics is essentially no different from magic, religion or alchemy. It is an attempt to answer existential questions. “What is the meaning of life?” is an existential question. “Why do some particles have mass?” is not. > [@](#): > > As for the post above - I’ve been saying it all along: why do we put our blind trust in scientists? Why do we assume that they know what they’re doing and they’re not going to fuck up somehow? The trust is not blind. Quantum physics has _never_ been wrong. The various symmetries on which physics are based have _never_ been wrong. Do you still not trust your friends and family even if you have known them for many years and they have never done you wrong? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/188 "2008-09-11T02:15:56Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Poor analogy. I am comparing energies from a natural source (hurricanes) to energies from a man-made source (nuclear bombs). So, are you saying the cosmic rays in nature are interacting under the same exact conditions as within the collider? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/189 "2008-09-11T02:21:01Z")
Of course not. I was pointing out how poor you analogy was. Conditions in a collider are controlled and restrictive. Those in nature are not. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Controvert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/dec6dc/32.png) [@The\_Controvert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Controvert)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/190 "2008-09-11T02:45:33Z")
> [@Grey](#): > > Of course not. I was pointing out how poor you analogy was. Conditions in a collider are controlled and restrictive. Those in nature are not. So, what if it is precisely those unnatural conditions that lead to a runaway reaction that unmakes the world? ETA: “controlled and restrictive” can describe uranium in a bomb as opposed to uranium sitting in a mountain. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/191 "2008-09-11T02:48:56Z")
> [@Dr.Love](#): > > “What is the meaning of life?” is an existential question. “Why do some particles have mass?” is not. I would say they are both existential questions, insomuch as that “particles” and “mass” are for all intents and purposes place-holder terms. What _are_ “gluons” and “muons” and “bosons?” “Why does matter have mass” seems to be a pretty existential question to me. And I’ve heard a hell of a lot of talk about “figuring out the secrets of the universe” from this device. I’m not arguing that science and religion or magic are the same things. I do however think that at the fringes, science is attempting to answer the same questions that religion does - it’s just doing it in a much more focused way. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/192 "2008-09-11T02:50:54Z")
> [@The\_Controvert](#): > > ETA: “controlled and restrictive” can describe uranium in a bomb as opposed to uranium sitting in a mountain. Holy shit, this is only the EXACT SAME QUESTION that I already asked. “If the conditions for nuclear explosions can exist in nature, why don’t we have Hiroshimas and Nagasakis erupting all over the place on a regular basis? It obviously takes the controlled effort of man to harness that power and cause a huge explosion.” I don’t recall getting a very good answer for it when I asked it. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/193 "2008-09-11T02:51:19Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > I would say they are both existential questions, insomuch as that “particles” and “mass” are for all intents and purposes place-holder terms. What _are_ “gluons” and “muons” and “bosons?” What might satisfy you as an answer to any question of this type? I mean, supposing I said “Gluons are Xes”, what sort of thing would X have to be for you to not then ask “Well, what are Xes”? I would not consider it terribly significant that one can, if one likes, look upon “particles” and “mass” as place-holder terms, anymore than the fact that one can, if one likes, look upon “chairs” and “tigers” as place-holder terms. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/194 "2008-09-11T02:56:34Z")
> [@Indistinguishable](#): > > What might satisfy you as an answer to any question of this type? I mean, supposing I said “Gluons are Xes”, what sort of thing would X have to be for you to not then ask “Well, what are Xes”? > > I would not consider it terribly meaningful that one can, if one likes, look upon “particles” and “mass” as place-holder terms, anymore than the fact that one can, if one likes, look upon “chairs” and “tigers” as place-holder terms. Chair and tiger are place holder terms. Obviously if I asked you what a tiger is, you’d say, it’s a large feline animal with a tail, sharp teeth, stripes, etc. This opens up more questions - what is a tail, what are teeth, what are stripes, why does the tiger have them, etc. Okay. There’s a certain level of detail in which this can be described, and it will make sense to an average person. Can the same be said of these theoretical particles? If so, can they be described in detail without resorting to ifs and maybes? ---
**Author:** ![Cider\_Depot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Cider\_Depot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cider_Depot)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/195 "2008-09-11T02:56:34Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Holy shit, this is only the EXACT SAME QUESTION that I already asked. “If the conditions for nuclear explosions can exist in nature, why don’t we have Hiroshimas and Nagasakis erupting all over the place on a regular basis? It obviously takes the controlled effort of man to harness that power and cause a huge explosion.” > > I don’t recall getting a very good answer for it when I asked it. Here you go! [http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/natural\_nuclear.html](http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/natural_nuclear.html) ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/196 "2008-09-11T02:58:47Z")
That article says: > [@](#): > > Scientists were stunned to find that the natural “reactor” produced energy with no human management for 150 thousand years, never exploding. It takes OUR intervention to use nuclear power to create explosions. ---
**Author:** ![Kythereia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e8c25b/32.png) [@Kythereia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kythereia)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/197 "2008-09-11T03:07:57Z")
Just popping in to say: I was kind of freaking out a bit earlier today, and a lot of posts here have really reassured me. So thank you, all, from the bottom of my heart. And yes, maybe this is a little cool. Go science. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Cider\_Depot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Cider\_Depot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cider_Depot)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/198 "2008-09-11T03:16:29Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > That article says: > > It takes OUR intervention to use nuclear power to create explosions. The linked article is an example of a naturally occurring nuclear fission. Kaboom concentrations of Uranium 235 no longer exist in nature. But there is nothing to say they did not in the past. U-235 has a half-life of only 700 million years. ---
**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/199 "2008-09-11T03:17:51Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Can the same be said of these theoretical particles? If so, can they be described in detail without resorting to ifs and maybes? Sure. Gluons are particles that behave like […]. Muons are particles that behave like […]. Etc. I can’t personally fill in those blanks with concrete details, but I am confident particle physicists can, given that they would have no other reason to have technical terms like “gluons” and “muons” around in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2008, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441/200 "2008-09-11T03:26:35Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > Chair and tiger are place holder terms. Obviously if I asked you what a tiger is, you’d say, it’s a large feline animal with a tail, sharp teeth, stripes, etc. This opens up more questions - what is a tail, what are teeth, what are stripes, why does the tiger have them, etc. Okay. There’s a certain level of detail in which this can be described, and it will make sense to an average person. Can you give an example of a term that is not a “place holder term”? > [@](#): > > Can the same be said of these theoretical particles? If so, can they be described in detail without resorting to ifs and maybes? By “theoretical particle” do you mean the ones we have found, or the ones we haven’t? If the former, yes, we can describe quite a lot of things that we know. If the latter, no. Can you describe the events of September 2009 without resorting to ifs and maybes? Would our description make sense to the average person? I think the average person could understand “Light is made up of lots of tiny particles called photons. Photons always move at a certain, very fast speed–in fact, light is the fastest thing in the universe.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-we-worried-about-the-large-hadron-collider-being-turned-on/462441.md?page=11)