Never mind. I would like to agree with you on as much as I feel I can.

Concerning the fallacy that man has ascended in any social or spiritual way, let alone his eternal propensity to bugger things up, granted that he has certainly ascended technically; I am at least largely in agreement. Mankind certainly has ascended technically. I too, when I look back with what little history I know, do sometimes wonder if mankind is really much wiser than in those past great civilisations (Greek, Persian, Roman, Egyption, etc) than nowadays. Except that is on those aspects of science and technology which are, I believe, high amongst the causes of our improved standards of living. Certainly we still frequently kill each other and otherwise mistreat each other in the most brutal and slight of ways, even though we know we know to do much better: so no change there then.

Concerning the attempt by the Enlightenment pushers to reduce the metaphysical to the status of myth, when the Big Bang and Natural Selection are just as much theories of the nature of man and matter; I concur somewhat and indirectly. As I mentioned in a comment above, I view myself as a Christian and I much value spirituality; myth and tradition, I gladly accept where it makes me or others happy. These latter things are very important in times of severe adversity; I would not do away with them. However, also as I have written earlier, their sphere and that of scientific thought are (usually) better separated; and I think the Enlightenment was, for the most part, a good thing; aggressively proselyting atheists being otherwise. Concerning Big Bang, we have an evidence tray of one (perhaps); also I do question how knowing explicitly about the origin of the universe will help us; are we expecting a second go at it? However, perhaps experiments with the LHC will tell us more than that, and I expect that ‘more’ will be of greater use. Concerning Natural Selection, our own experiments are obviously rather difficult and long-winded; however, I think we are more confident of the theory than with Big Bang, and also that it’s more useful knowledge. At least today, let’s avoid launching into the issue of Creationism as science.

Finally, on Sod’s Law; well Sod has his law – there is a great propensity of things to bugger themselves up, especially just when you least are able to cope – and other variants. But I don’t see where that fits with the discussion we are having here.

@Andrew: Hi! Thanks for being alongside from time to time.

Back to the LHC, I think I’ve commented on this thread more than enough today. 5 longish comments is well past my normal self-imposed limit. Other people must be suffering; it’s your blog; courtesy compels me to not insist on the last word. So respond what you will; I’ll smile in a kindly way (I promise) and stay quiet.

Best regards

James, Re No 1: I certainly agree it is a fallacy we have ascended in any spiritual way, how could I disagree?; but not “social” either? Did you organise the building of your house, build for yourself the roads you drive on, achieve the growth and delivery of the food you eat and the generation of your electricity all by yourself? Do you minister all your own healthcare? were you self-educated? No school? Do you take away and dispose all of your own rubbish? Have you ever made use of the NHS, ever?

Re No 2. Your “just as much” is at least progress. You are at least accepting the uncertainty of your metaphysical beliefs. But everything is not made equal by saying they are all “just” theories. There are theories supported by vast bodies of dispassionately collected evidence, and then there are theories supported by no evidence, but by a lot of human invention and hope, and a fair amount of despair too.

Re No. 3 I bow in reverence before the validity of Sod’s Law It’s the only thing that gives me hope for the universe, the likliehood that humanity will be the archictect of its own demise. Bring it on.

1. the fallacy that man has ascended in any social or spiritual way, let alone his eternal propensity to bugger things up, granted that he has certainly ascended technically;

2. the attempt by the Enlightenment pushers to reduce the metaphysical to the status of myth, when the Big Bang and Natural Selection are just as much theories of the nature of man and matter;

3. Sod’s Law.

Now that still stands. “James asserts we should not have done it.” No, James asserts the above and that this project is neither risk nor cost effective, based, s it is, on a spurious assumption about the Big Bang which even Hawking admits is just a theory.

3 billion euros of taxpayers’ money on a madcap idea is not a good idea, by any business standards. Also, to say the power involved is not immense is to ignore the infrastructure, the damage which has already occurred and the cost. It has zero to do with the power of one proton and all to do with the way they’re being manipulated.

In a similar way, Hydrogen, Carbon and Nitrogen are naturally occurring, innocuous elements. Put them together though and you have something entirely different.

Well, that’s better than earlier, but it’s still lacking somewhat on balanced objectivity in the analysis.

Also from Wikipedia we find, at full operation, the total energy in the 2 beams is 714MJ. This is the amount of energy delivered from a typical electric power station (2GW capacity) in less than 0.4 seconds. Not a lot really, for human engineering. We handle this sort of stuff all the time.

[Aside: 714MJ is also 198kWh (typical household consumption of electricity in about a week). Do note, however (and presumed from other description and knowledge), there is a vast amount of inefficiency in building up and maintaining the beam energy; thus actual electric energy consumption over a significant period is much greater than 714MJ, and a significant issue for electrical power generation in the Geneva area.]

In addition, so I’m trying not to cherry-pick here, the power in the beams is pretty big (even by power station standards) as each proton rotates past 11,000 times per second at their final velocity. Thus each of the two beams has a total power, at its peak, of 3,927GW. This is seriously dangerous, especially should things go wrong, to big equipment as well as to people. But so is a short circuit at even an electric power substation, let alone a power station itself, and so is any large-scale engineering that goes wrong. We use lots of it, and IMHO problems are not unacceptably frequent.

With any problem with the LHC, even thought the beam power is massive, that power lasts only 1/11,000 of a second. Thus the danger really should be judged on the total beam energy to be dissipated, which is still that from less than 0.4 sec of typical power station output. And I bet power stations don’t stop being dangerous within 0.4 sec of a failure. I also strongly suspect the greater dangers at the LHC are from things other than the main beams.

Next James writes: How does that strawman connect with what I was saying – that this is a pretty shoddy operation, using malfunctioning hardware and involving immense energy?

Moi? Post a strawman? Steady on there James. My original comment was concerning, particularly, a seeming confusion as to the meaning of electron volt, with the volts of electrical potential difference. This was amplified by (or replaced by, if you had no confusion with units) your under-estimation of beam energy (at full LHC operational level) by a factor, for each beam, of around 421 million million: being the number of protons. The units confusion (between energy and power) was offered as a similar error; and worse as it is in a more commonly discussed and more important domain.

If your strawman claim is wider, I offer you the above arguments to turn it to bronze, if not iron. Also, as I’ve already commented in response to The Economic Voice: “Every time we first build something, it breaks down rather a lot. Thus, when we can only afford at most one or two of them, those will suffer design faults, hardware failures, etc.”

I don’t doubt that what went wrong was a bad mistake. It should not have happened: a big, big design flaw; some hands must surely be cut off, if not heads roll. But, IIRC, no-one was seriously injured, just lots of money wasted: that surely shows other design and procedures were adequate, at least on this occasion.

Finally from James: I believe the assertion of the post still stands.

There were, I think, a great many assertions. For a single overarching one, I assume it is that mankind is most unwise to undertake such big technical projects at all (perhaps also including: of uncertain and lowish returned value), or something along those lines.

At the end of the day, the day that is on which the decision must be made, we really do not know. It is a matter of opinion, one hopes mostly from rational deduction with different assumptions as to possible benefit. Only much later will we know whether the scientific insights gained lead to economic or other societal benefit. Doubtless, like much other scientific knowledge, they could lead to disbenefit, even probably to evil.

James asserts we should not have done it. I’m sceptical about an awful lot of things, but disagree on this one.

Best regards

OK, let’s get down to this. I don’t think someone who once ran a home sound studio and made some corporate films, whose greatest delight is to tweak his blog and play with html and who prefers the blogosphere to the MSM could be truly termed technophobe.

If we can get past that and accept that technical solutions are often good and new directions are very interesting – hence my interest in Lord T’s site and others – then what is my beef about in this post?

It’s about three things:

1. the fallacy that man has ascended in any social or spiritual way, let alone his eternal propensity to bugger things up, granted that he has certainly ascended technically;

2. the attempt by the Enlightenment pushers to reduce the metaphysical to the status of myth, when the Big Bang and Natural Selection are just as much theories of the nature of man and matter;

3. Sod’s Law.

There is, on one one side and particularly in Europe, the godless, rational Man, money is everything, sky’s the limit mentality to which this post would be anathema. There is also a wiser mentality which recognizes Man’s limitations and tries to design around them but it equally recognizes the sheer power of the spirit, if only in a lover’s touch and in the aura surrounding living creatures.

It comes down to mindsets in the end – one which believes Man can and will rise above himself – the socialist believes this, if it is properly introduced – and the second mindset, the realist who knows such a thing is not possible, given Man’s base instincts and internal conflicts.

The LHC is a perfect example of people getting above themselves – good idea on paper, not workable in practice, dedicated to a false premise or at the very least, a speculative theory and costing the taxpayer billions. That’s why I used the analogy of Brown’s social experimentation.

In answer to the question – shouldn’t there be any testing of hypotheses – of course there should but not on a theory, at this total cost level, which was specifically introduced to negate the creationist view of the world which had the west in its grip two centuries ago.

Oh you sick, inquisitive, quarrelsome blue planet,
Had Ron run the programme without mess on the……

eh?… what’s that James?

“I view you as separately Christian and nut.”…..I would actually agree there, I was mad before I became a Christian.

At 99.99% of the speed of light, if I fired a grain of sand at your eye, you wouldn’t be a very well person. When a ten ton magnet can break from one small deviation and the total size of the infrastructure, it’s clear that the problem is not a mosquito bites worth of power but how it is being deployed.

Elementary physics. All this, together with Peter Mac’s comment and I have to quote Nigel: “Still, I suppose its not as bad as confusing one’s kilowatts with kilowatt-hours: a common error in those publishing their views on global warming and energy policy.”

How does that strawman connect with what I was saying – that this is a pretty shoddy operation, using malfunctioning hardware and involving immense energy?

I believe the assertion of the post still stands.

Every time we first build something, it breaks down rather a lot. Thus, when we can only afford at most one or two of them, those will suffer design faults, hardware failures, etc.

The blog “The Economic Voice” looks to me to present at least some economics. I would have thought that the above would be obvious to any economist, even with only a little analysis and experience of real life.

And the Economic Voice writes: … but I HATE science and the way it has reduced our world into this cold, rational reductionist mind set that says we are God and masters/rulers of the universe.

Oh dear, this science-hating is not good. For the known, what better can there be than rational thought, based on evidence, deduction and (sometimes) induction. And where are these who say we are God and masters/rulers of the universe: where there are those who do, I think they are stupid; you seem to think they are evil. This is from belief in a creator God means that either science is good, indifferent or evil: I vote for indifferent of itself, with good and evil applications. Also, given the Christian concept of stewardship, you want to throw rationality out of the window?

And the Economic Voice writes: Yes I know I am a Christian nut to many of you but my opinion remains.

Well, a great many scientists are also Christians (including me) or otherwise believers in God. On the basis of your submission, and taking it to be true, I view you as separately Christian and nut.

And the Economic Voice writes: … but I don’t care about advancing human understanding of anything.

Not even of God? One of the problems I do have with a lot of religious people is their assumption that their religion should be locked into the state of human knowledge that existed at the time of its founders: commonly found in such axioms as their religious book being the Word of God rather than an interpretation (mostly) justifiable at the time it was written, by one or more humans. This leads to various attacks by proselyting atheists, such as name calling like ‘skyfairy’. My concept of God is vastly more complicated than that, and I’m sure I’m not alone. Rather obviously it includes such things as simultaneous presence at all times (past, present and future)and also in all places, even thought they are separated by lightyears of distance, which clearly conflict with current scientific understanding. I also seek some interrelationship between energy and entropy, and what this might say on sentience and the meaning of God, but perhaps that’s going too far for today. However, even with these thoughts, I learn from those who profess simpler interpretations, and sometimes so much that it hurts.

Surely religion, if it is much at all, is an acceptance of unconquerable ignorance, and so also an acceptance that scientific knowledge has its boundaries; but surely too an acceptance of conquerable knowledge and its useful application. Is this not also what all good scientists believe. Mathematicians even have proof that some questions are unanswerable, and computer scientists have the uncomputable.

Douglas Adams put it so well, perhaps the best ever: What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything? Answer, by the biggest computer ever: 42. Meaning roughly: unknown and always will be. So how about we just try and benefit from both religion and science, each in their own sphere of applicability.

Best regards

The two I spoke to had just come off an urgent repair: 36 hours straight using amphetamines to keep going. Smoked dope to get some sleep, then another 36 hours on the whizz. Fixing a nuclear power station, which we are downwind of.

This man does not see man always feeling he can triumph over nature. In fact any man who does needs to take a more careful look at the evidence. Maybe it’s a matter of belief in motivation rather than a matter of belief in outcome. Its difficult to judge the former (like with thought crime, etc).

Concerning the Tower of Babel, that is (I recollect) from the Bible. I view the Bible as thoughts inspired by God rather than the word of God, and Babel is obviously metaphor.

James writes: Has anyone ever heard of Skynet?

Skynet is fiction. Does one really need to say more on this?

In my work, I do a fair bit on what is regarded by some as Artificial Intelligence. On that, I ask questions and variously try to understand whether more computing power and more memory alone are sufficient for sentience and/or sapience. I don’t know, but I’m fairly confident that getting close to human capability requires those greater computational functionalities, plus a lot more understanding. We currently have neither and only the first comes on apace.

Best regards

I know I will go against much of the opinion and beliefs of readers here but I HATE science and the way it has reduced our world into this cold, rational reductionist mind set that says we are God and masters/ rulers of the universe.

We have moved away from God and our true state which is to be reliant on him in all things.

Yes I know I am a Christian nut to many of you but my opinion remains.

Science and man’s move away from God is destroying our world….I hate having to use the computer/internet to communicate with like minded people because most of the people who live in my close proximity just accept the rubbish pertaining to the nature of reality (That includes the arts, religion, science, politics economics)that they are drip fed by the media.

The LHC is a statement…….and it is fumbling around in the dark playing with things that should not be played with until fully understood…..You may say that the only way to advance human understanding is to go ahead with the experiment…….but I don’t care about advancing human understanding of anything. As long as their is a one in a trillion chance X the distance in inches from here to furthermost point in the universe that the LHC will produce anything that threatens to remove a particle of dust from space and time then it should be shut down.

Tin Hat on

Come on chaps and chapesses; can we try and be a little more accurate and a little less emotive.

Please

As the quoted article informs us, it would be correct to write: Particles each with a kinetic energy of seven trillion electron volts are being sent round a piece of machinery …

Wikipedia reminds me that one electron volt is equal to 1.60217653(14)×10−19 joules, so the 7 trillion eV is around one millionth of a joule (the SI unit of energy).

Still, I suppose its not as bad as confusing one’s kilowatts with kilowatt-hours: a common error in those publishing their views on global warming and energy policy. And I would recommend not standing in the way of the beam, especially as there are quite a few particles passing by per second.

Best regards