Why I Have a Man Crush on the Large Hadron Collider

Last weekend they cooled it to 456.25 F below zero.

Buried 300 feet beneath the border of France and Switzerland, 17 miles long, 14 years in the making, it now begins two months of tests before some 7,000 scientists from around the world come to its grand opening party in October.

I love the Large Hadron Collider.

I love it that the citizens of 20 European countries have been willing to pony up $8 billion for something whose findings may have huge relevance to the frontiers of scientific theory, but zero relevance to the practicalities of everyday life. Like great art and literature, it may fundamentally recast our understandings of the essence of existence, but it won't invent Tang or Velcro, nor will it enable the West to say nyah-nyah to the Russians.

(On the other hand, I don't love it that political timidity and a poverty of imagination led the United States, which has chipped in $531 million to the LHC budget, to abandon construction of our own, even more powerful Superconducting Supercollider in 1993, having wasted 10 years of planning, two years of digging and $2 billion on a 54-mile proton racetrack beneath Waxahachie, Texas, that is now worthless for probing the secrets of the universe but a real contender for the title of world's most expensive mushroom farm.)

I love the exotic "God particle," the as-yet-undetected Higgs boson that the LHC may create when it crashes protons together at energies of 14 trillion electron volts and recreates the conditions of the Big Bang 30 million times a second, and whose existence will push physics beyond the Standard Model that has dominated science's understanding of the universe for nearly four decades.

(But I don't love it that the baseline of American scientific literacy is so low; that the frontiers of quantum physics and cosmology are so abstruse; that so many scientists who put a high priority on talking to one another rarely bother to help the public that funds their work grasp what they're up to; and that science journalism, like arts journalism, has become an endangered species.)

Best of all -- and here's where many scientists part company with me -- I love the LHC because trying to understand its reason for being means also trying to understand the reason for Being.

If you listen to what cosmologists say about the origin of the universe, you have to put your mind in a place where mystics also dwell.

Just try this on for size: At the beginning of time, 14 billion years ago, every single thing that exists in the universe today was compressed into one single point a zillion times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Oh, and by the way, it's entirely possible that before that Big Bang, there was a whole other Big Bang, which created a whole other universe, and before that, yet other Bangs and universes. If that is what scientists really say is true about genesis, and it is, it strikes me as something even more inconceivable and awe-inspiring than anything in biblical Genesis.

Or try wrapping your mind around this: Quantum physicists say that the smallest things in the universe aren't things at all; they're not matter, they're energy. What's more, there is no there there. Stuff isn't anywhere in particular; all that exists is probability, a calculable likelihood that various weirdly named entities will turn up in one place or another, though if you look for them, you'll change where they are.

Einstein famously hated this now-accepted idea, saying, "God does not play dice with the universe." But I find the implications of a probabilistic universe way more mystical than what follows from a mechanistic universe, including the one described by Einstein's theory of general relativity. Imagine that any given point in the cosmos, at any given time, might contain nothing at all. And yet out of all this nothing comes something. You got that? The ultimate reality described by quantum physics is arguably as ineffable as the reality of Buddha, Meister Eckhart or the Kabbalists of Safed.

There's one other thing I love about the LHC: the empirical bearing it may have on string theory. String theory says stuff that makes Richard Dawkins sound like Rumi. (If you'd like my take on string theory, and the thing about the LHC creating a planet-destroying black hole, check out the bigger longer uncut version in my Jewish Journal column.)

According to theoretical physicist Michio Kaku, at a 1993 congressional hearing about the soon-to-be cancelled Superconducting Supercollider in Texas, a congressman asked a physicist, "Will we find God with this machine? If so, I will vote for it." We won't find God in the LHC. But if we can get our minds to fully comprehend what we do discover with the LHC, we may yet find God in ourselves.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[ScienceLady]

I am so glad that this discussion is happening. It's very refreshing.
I am inspired by the scientific minds, throughout the world, that are working together to find a common truth. I am hopeful that string theory, quantum mechanics, and any other new physical and mathematical discoveries will be used to understand and improve the world.
How can we inspire the general public?

14 questions on science for the presidential candidates to ponder...
sciencedeb­ate2008.co­m

[KillTheMessenger]

What an emotional outburst. But as a physicist who worked on this project I would have been happier if you had tried to explain what it really does and why there is really very little romanticism in particle physics. Sadly nonsense like "God particle", which expresses exactly the opposite of what most physicists think about the ugliness of the Higgs-mechanism, permeates the thinking of the non-expert and seems to persevere over any attempt to set things right.

[markie1111]

well, if one can get to the bottom of matter, i think that's pretty exciting. call it what one may. we can "wave" god good-bye.

[GrainOSand]

Now I see why you took the position you did concerning my comment -- vested interest.

[Dap]

Dear Professor Kaplan,

I'm with you on being excited LHC.

You said: "Stuff isn't anywhere in particular; all that exists is probability, a calculable likelihood that various weirdly named entities will turn up in one place or another, though if you look for them, you'll change where they are. "

Seems that may *NOT* be the case after all ??? And the LHC may soon provide us with an answer.

Seems Schrodinger's cat in the box, might be a "Cat in the Hat", if ya catch my drift.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017939/posts

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080515/full/news.2008.829.html

What do ya think about that? Here a dated piece from 2006 Stanford, about Bohmain Mechanics.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/

Gonna be quite interesting, we'll have to wait and see the finding, until then I reserve my right to say, "Told ya so" about that QM stuff.

I said it long ago, the only place G-d will ever be found is within man, He is our creation, beyond any doubt, He only exists in the mind of man, one does not need the LHC to answer that question.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed your essay. Agape.

[markie1111]

it's pretty exciting, even if doesn't futher elucidate the nature of matter (which i doubt).

[OnTheCusp]

What's the difference between a crush and a "man crush?"

[GrainOSand]

Men are too manly to have crushes so when they do they need a special term to describe it.

[Doofus]

As to Big Bangs & singularities of various sorts...

Perhaps what is called for is that mankind must
learn enough about these matters so that, when
the time comes, we can create the universe.

[chinohillster]

There is another aspect to this research: serendipity, ie, the discovery and/or application of one thing to other things. Who knows what serendiptious benefits could arise - new applications to energy technologies, new applications of computing, etc?

Recall that many technologies rose out of the "Spend All This Money On Apollo Instead Of Meeting Human Needs" program - and as other posters have said, 1-2 months in Iraq cost way more and produce little benefit (unless you are KBR/Hallib­urton/inse­rt_name_of­_war_profi­teer_here)

[SiriusMrE]

The "Big Bang" is speculative fiction, cleverly masquerading as science. It has been falsified time and time again by modern astronomical observations. Unfortunately, this also means that much of the "science" based on theis faulty view of the cosmos is seriously in question.

"One more problem for the Big Bang: Recently-discovered galaxy clusters reveal too much complex structure to be as 'young' as Big Bang speculations would require."

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050401sofar.htm

[recless]

"http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050401sofar.htm"

What a load of bunk... Was the Discovery Institute behind this bunch?

[SiriusMrE]

What, exactly, is "bunk?" The FACT that the ESO made the announcement? The FACT that Halton Arp has been compiling a list of such objects for decades? Or the FACT that Edwin Hubble, the discoverer of "red-shift," in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech himself warned scientists about equating red-shift with distance/speed of recession?

Certainly, the "Big Bang" is a load of bunk.

[GrainOSand]

I have heard it explained thus:

There was wu-ji (the void -- nothing but surely something) and then there was one, and then one split through movement from stillness to form the polarities (north soutn, east west, up down, etc..., and through the interplay of complimentary or opposing forces you get the ten-thousand things or everything else. The sage of old had no collider but it seems the explanation is similar.

[KillTheMessenger]

Only up to the point where the following equation comes into play:

http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml.pdf

I bet the sage of old has something similar... not.

[GrainOSand]

The thing about the sages of old is that they felt no need to self aggrandize for purposes of self-illumination -- in fact, they hated attention. I looked at the equation and it is beyond my ability -- does that make you feel good? There are some things I could say here that would be beyond yours but it is not my interest to ridicule you or mock you. For all your mental agility, you have some learning to do and I would start with humility. If you presume to be a teacher, you need to learn that first. What does that equation represent in non-abstract terms? The space shuttle is a fine testament to rocket science yet, the crash of the Columbia is a fine testament that man does not know all and that accumulated knowledge has no bearing on knowledge not yet obtained. Put another way, I am inspired to learn not by what I know or that which I can impress others with, but more so by what I do not know, which is far greater in volume. You could be Einstein and I would say the same thing.

Lastly, I can prove physically -- in very real terms, what the sage of old was referring to such that you would be powerless to disagree.

The sincerest of regards and I will ponder that which you have offered towards growth and not destruction.

[StinkyPete]

"At the beginning of time, 14 billion years ago, every single thing that exists in the universe today was compressed into one single point a zillion times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence."

Not to quibble but this is a very,very common misconception. I am also guilty and I should know better.

According to present knowledge -
It is true that the universe and time itself had a distinct beginning. The standard models posit that the early universe was infinite in extent and each small region experienced a stupendous expansion that continues to this day. Some models posit a spatially finite early universe but no one has presented a viable universe evolving from a point.
It is common and also incorrect to state that the observable universe - that which we can see in all directions evolved from a point (or small region).
To think in terms of 2-dimensional space rather than 4-dimensional space/time, think of the early universe as a small balloon or bubble. Each point on the bubble is the same as all others. Inflate it, like a lot, a whole lot and really quickly, unimaginably so. 2 bugs on the bubble will 'move' apart from each other - but they aren't moving, rather the space between them is expanding - very different notions.
As for the observable universe, we can determine that different parts of the early universe have the same physics, a problem for future generations of physicists to explain.

[GrainOSand]

The thing about the point, the vacuum, or the void is you are left with the question of what is the material around the point that makes it a point. A glass is useful because of the empty space it encloses and music is beautiful because it can betray silence or make you long for it and in between the notes infinite silence is found that contributes to the quality and character of the sounded note. The origins of the universe may not be the big question; the origin of origin may more be the question or the great distraction that wastes precious time. The circular nature of the analysis is overwhelming and can only be soothed by mathematical expression, yet the article suggests that the practical applications of what the experiments of the collider will provide are minimal and Tang and Velcro are household names with household uses.

I appreciate the intellectual aspect of asking the big questions and pursuing the answers, that is an enjoyable and rewarding aspect of being alive. To me though, the biggest question is one of, who are we as human beings in how we live amongst one another such that we can continue out into any foreseeable future to be able to consider the question of why and how we came to be.

[KillTheMessenger]

I am sorry to say that the original post has it right and your reply suffers from a myriad of misconceptions itself. In geometry something that has an inside does not automatically have an outside. This might not be logically accessible to many, but that's because they are not thinking logically about the problem, i.e. by working from the proper axioms of geometry all the way to the most complex of its theorems, but apply emotional guesses to it that sound good but do not have any truth value to them at all (they are, as physicists like to quote, "not even false").

[StinkyPete]

Playing around with the earliest particle accelerators (electrons) led to a very useful discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray

More advanced accelerators, similar to the LHC are used in medical applications.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron

The trend seems to be that yesterday's advanced science will become today's common tool.

[LiberalIncarnate]

I'd be the first to agree that Americans, in general, are pretty ignorant. We became a super-power by chance, really. Now, that we are in decline we exist to watch endless reality TV shows and fast food.

I am not surprised that Europe has lead the way in this research. They have for the most part past their imperialist stage and joined together to do greater things than they could ever do apart.

Where do we think that Cancer and AIDS will be finally cured? The US? Hardly! It will come from Europe.

[kellygrrrl]

I'm happy I live in California, which tends to be ahead of the curve compared to most of the US
but I do get the nagging feeling that we are falling waaaaaay behind much of the world.

My friends from Belgium and Denmark and Brazil were amazed at how clueless we were on technology and recycling

[NeoAnderson]

Quantum theory is one of the most ridiculous theories ever created. String theory is the most ridiculous.

If you're a scientist Marty maybe you can answer this. Why were strings even posited to exist in the theory? How idiotic to suggest that there exist open ended strings (or any strings) for "what reason"? Answer is that there is no reason they should be in a theory. Aren't there any Einsteins left in the scientific community who question these absurd theories? String theorist must be living in a fantasy world.

Marty research the history of how strings even came into subject and I'm sure you'll see how ridiculous it all is.

Hypothetical congressional committee for funding string theory research:
----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­-
Congressman: Mr scientist when can we expect experiments to prove and show the world our scientific progress on string theory for the betterment of humankind?

Scientist: err uhm Mr Congressman string theory can never be tested. You see the theory states that we can never do any test to prove we are correct or even that strings exist.

Congressman: You mean to tell me that we'll never know if this pursuit of string theory research is even correct? ... And why do you need all these millions of dollars for?....

[Schrodingerscat]

A couple of things:
Quantum theory does indeed sound rediculuous, but when it's predictions have been proven accurate, it's hard to doubt that it is in fact "accurate" (

[markie1111]

mathematical manipulations are not necessarily reality

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Thanks for proving the point of the piece Mr. Anderson.

[Doofus]

There seem to be 'logical inconsistencies' in quantum mechanics that QM physicists
have been struggling with for many decades. There are about a half-dozen different
schools of thought among physicists about 'why' QM works. Some believe there's
a deeper reality, and that is where 'string theory' originates. In the everyday world,
both theories *are* technically 'ridiculous'. QM however, works. String theory may
end up explaining QM. Neither has too much to do with the Large Hadron Collider,
*unless* the LHC does uncover the extra dimensions that string theory predicts.

Is it worth a whole lot of money/effort to work this out? That is a very good question.
Many physicists like to think it is.

[Doofus]

See also... http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Light-Quanta-Photon-Photons.htm

[pkafin]

"Quantum theory is one of the most ridiculous theories ever created. String theory is the most ridiculous
If you're a scientist Marty maybe you can answer this....."

Perhaps the universe is somewhat ridiculous. Ever think of that?

No? That's ridiculous.

[KillTheMessenger]

Good trolling. Got the blood boiling.

[fairwitness]

"...we may yet find God in ourselves."

This machine will have exactly nothing to do with that. It's looking in the wrong place. It's the materialist delusion that dissecting the stuff of the universe to the endth degree will yield its secrets and so, presumably, provide unlimited power and justification for unlimited expenditures in support of scientists. Scientists need careers, after all, and the amoral (not immoral, but amoral:science provides tools to the angels and devils in humanity alike and without judgement or moral concern) quest for unlimited power and knowledge is worth giving them the keys to the treasury, right? I mean, they've provided the means for nuclear apocalypse, right?, so they have our best interests at heart, no question.

Oppenheimer got it: "I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

I'm not against scientific research, but how about a sense of proportionality, morality and common concern. 8+ billion dollars to maybe find the next smallest particle (and who thinks that's going to be the end of the quest? We'll need another, bigger, more powerful, more expensive machine to go deeper into the stuff, and another, and another...) as balanced against the massive human suffering NOW existing as a result of war and drought and famine that cold be addressed with 8 billion dollars. "I'm just sayin'..."­...reasona­ble, proportional, humane science, not unquestioning, worshipful scientism. As I suggested, God isn't in the stuff, but in a decent respect for mankind.

[11907281]

First, until America becomes a full theocracy and not just a soft theocracy it is now, we should leave God out of science ... unless he appears and says other wise. Second, 8 billion get you one month of Iraq war ... so this kinda of science doesn't even equal a month worth of war to you, priorities man, priorities. Lastly, any time I see a sentence start with "I'm not against scientific research, but ...." and the author brings up angels, devils and the ever so popular "morality", the intent is clear.

[AnotherMike]

Well put... I couldn't agree more.

[BrettnCalgary]

The future of mankind is in research of this nature, pushing the boundaries in every field. Right now we live in a closed system, but to advance as a species we need to break the bounds of our little world, and the sooner the better, we are using up our closed system very fast.

If we don't escape the bounds of our world, all we can look forward to is serious reduction as a civilization and species. If our destroyed ecosystem supports us at all.

[MadOzbo]

Thank you for the update!

You got me going with the "mini-black hole" thing in your last article, and just seeing or hearing anything about this in the MSM gets me all excited again.

Once we grow up, our belief in the mystical and the magical goes away (unless you're a mental/emotional cripple who sees religious images in burnt toast), so to have something scientifically and mathematically possible actually be brought to life is akin to discovering there really is a Santa Claus.