Toby Ord: Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

Whether it's pushpin, poetry or neither, you can discuss it here.

Toby Ord: Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

Postby Arepo on 2008-11-06T18:34:00

Another from the Practical Ethics blog.

These are not the probabilities you are looking for

There has been an increasing buzz in the papers regarding the impending launch of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Some of this concerns the possibility that it will lead to a disaster which destroys the world. This certainly sounds unlikely, and people who seriously suggest this are typically brushed aside with official calculations about the chance that the LHC will indeed destroy the world in any of the ways that have been suggested. For example, it is said that the chance of it destroying the earth though the creation of a particle called a strangelet is only about 1 in 50 million and the chance of it creating a black hole which does not evaporate is much less than this. However, these are not the probabilities we are looking for.

The problem is that the calculations don't consider that the physical theories they are using could themselves be incorrect. For example, a hundred and twenty years ago, the scientific consensus held that Newtonian mechanics was the ultimate physical theory. If they had to calculate the chance that an experiment could lead to the curving of space and time, they would have said there was no chance at all. Indeed they would have also calculated that there was no chance of modern electronics or lasers existing, since both are impossible classically. They would have been at least as certain of this as the directors of the LHC are, and they would have gotten it wrong. We could be in just such a situation and with the highest possible stakes at risk.

There is, however, one large dissimilarity between now and then. In the late 19th Century, there was a huge amount of evidence in favour of Newtonian mechanics and only a few nagging lose ends that hadn't been explained. Now, however, we are genuinely uncertain about our physical theories. Indeed, we are so uncertain as to spend more than 3 billion euros building the LHC in order to find out more. Moreover, we know that our current theories are false because they don't correctly merge Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics. That is, we know that we don't presently understand what happens with tiny objects that are extremely dense and/or moving near the speed of light. Since this is exactly what is occurring in the LHC, we have significant reason to distrust the probability calculations. They tell us the chance of the LHC destroying life on earth given that the underlying theory is completely correct, but what we really want to know is what the chance is given our uncertainty in the underlying theory. This is impossible to calculate precisely, but will be much higher than the stated odds. Considering the stakes, it is thus highly irresponsible for the LHC's management to give so much emphasis to these misleading probability calculations, when the real chance is clearly higher.


(I'd really like to hear what Don A and anyone else with a physics background makes of this argument. I find it much less persuasive than I usually do Toby's arguments. The points he makes seem reasonable as far as they go... But as I understand it, the LHC is only recreating events that we know happen elsewhere in the universe all the time - but maybe the methods we use to discern that are susceptible to the same objections?)
"These were my only good shoes."
"You ought to have put on an old pair, if you wished to go a-diving," said Professor Graham, who had not studied moral philosophy in vain.
User avatar
Arepo
 
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 10:49 am

Re: Toby Ord: Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

Postby Don Alhambra on 2008-11-06T23:15:00

You're basically right. It think it's important to note that in science we are never certain about anything, and we never have been. All we have are the data that we collect and models that we use to describe these data. And models are always wrong to an extent. The underlying theory that Ord mentions (the Standard Model) explains pretty much all the data that we have. It's true that we haven't yet managed to marry quantum mechanics with relativity, but the Standard Model is pretty sound.

Now, in terms of probabilities of the universe ending when you start up your big particle collider: how in the world are we going to calculate this? Well, the only possible basis we have to calculate it is on the basis of what we know about the Universe, which is our current model. And there is no way of evaluating how good our model is except by looking at how well it explains the data, so the only thing we have to go on is what it actually predicts.

And what it predicts, in part, is that this is not anywhere near any kind of problem. The high-energy events that the LHC will be creating happen in the wider universe all the time, and even in the Earth's atmosphere fairly regularly (as already noted).

So don't worry, be happy, and bash protons together because it's totally fun. :)

Don Alhambra
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 12:56 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: Toby Ord: Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

Postby TraderJoe on 2008-11-07T21:17:00

It's possible to understand the risks involved in an action without fully understanding it. But I lack the physics background to talk about this in depth.
I want to believe in free will. Unfortunately, that's not my choice to make.
User avatar
TraderJoe
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:05 pm

Re: Toby Ord: Risks of the Large Hadron Collider

Postby DanielLC on 2008-11-28T19:48:00

"The problem is that the calculations don't consider that the physical theories they are using could themselves be incorrect."

This is true of the proofs that individual things won't happen, however enough Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays have been detected enough to show that what's going on in the Large Hadron Collider happens all the time. This is not a physical theory. It is a measured fact. After a few quintillion* high energy particles, what's a few million* more?

*I just made these numbers up. I have no idea what the correct values are. They're probably both a lot higher.
Consequentialism: The belief that doing the right thing makes the world a better place.

DanielLC
 
Posts: 703
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:29 pm


Return to General discussion