“TWO THINGS ARE INFINITE:
THE UNIVERSE, AND HUMAN STUPIDITY;
AND I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THE UNIVERSE.”
Albert Einstein
I always have criticized the excessive trend of specialization at the expense of losing the forest by the trees, big, well known scientist are not the exception to the rule not even figures like Professor Stephen Hawking English Theoretical Physicist, and Cosmologist in the sense of Astronomer, since we have to point out there is other definitions that apply to Cosmology (Cosmogony). In his most recent book “The Grand Design” he declared:
“Philosophy is dead.”
A sort of Nietzsche paraphrasing of: “God is dead.”
Alas!
Mr. Hawking alleges that Philosophy has not kept with modern developments in Science, particularly Physics. Therefore Scientist are the: “Torch bearers” of discovery.
Then he got to expound on the M Theory, basically in the simplest words possible he explains that ours is not the only Universe but a great many (Infinite number perhaps?) and that all this Universes were created out of nothing, and of course this not imply a supernatural Being like God, but rather they arise of Physical Laws, each Universe has many possible outcomes, and even different types of Universes, some very different from ours, were life will not be possible.
He come to the conclusion that the law of gravity it is why the Universe exist!
Of course Mr. Hawking forgets conveniently to try to explain Nothingness, and the fact that Universal laws didn’t exist before the Big Bang! Like if this wouldn’t be relevant to the same questions he pretends to answer next:
“Why is there something rather than nothing?”
“Why do we exist?”
“Why this particular set of laws and not some other?”
In page 29 he set to tell us he will answer what is the origins of the laws of nature, and that if is possible to be miracles, and exceptions, and if this are the only possible set of laws? In page 34 of his book : “The Grand Design” He declares:
“This book is rooted on the concept of scientific determinism, which implies that the answer to question two, it is that there are no miracles or exceptions to the laws of nature.”
Now let’s examine what this imply:
Determinism (specifically causal determinism) is the concept that events within a given paradigm are bound by causality in such a way that any state (of an object or event) is completely, or at least to some large degree,determined by prior states. In physics, this principle is known as cause-and-effect.
Determinism is also the name of a broader philosophical view, which conjectures that every type of event, including human cognition (behavior, decision, and action) is causally determined by previous events.
In philosophical arguments, the concept of determinism in the domain of human action is often contrasted with free will. The argument called in-determinism (otherwise “non-determinism”) negates deterministic causality as a factor and opposes the deterministic argument.
Determinist believe any determined system is fully governed by causal laws resulting in only one possible state at any point in time. A debate within determinism exists about the scope of determined systems, with some maintaining that the entire universe is a single determinate system and others identifying other more limited determinate systems. Within numerous historical debates, many varieties and philosophical positions on the subject of determinism exist, most prominently the free will debates involving compatibility and incompatibles.
Predeterminers proposes there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the Universe.”
The problem with this it take us back to square one, the origin of the Universe!
Also it presents us with the problem of Chaos theory:
Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
And this is why nobody has been able to predict the number that will win the Lotto! Embracing this Philosophy is pointless!
It is clearly that Mr Hawkins is bound by this Axiom, that to my mind it is a sort of dogma, that predispose you too look for a Godless answer to the problems of Existence, and that set you in a mindset were you are closed to a God option, Mr Hawking is in his full right to be an Atheist, or an Agnostic, but that clearly doesn’t explain what was before the Big Bang, neither explains why we do exist, and that his conclusion of a multiverse, were the law of gravity is the answer, even if mildly interesting from a scientific point of view, it is clearly misguided, and not the answer, and for an individual who dare to claim Philosophy is dead, looks to me nothing but a boastful, irresponsible declaration, even if it is clear that Mr. Hawking is a brilliant physicist, we can’t say the same when it come to his poor knowledge of Philosophy!
It is like if Mr. Hawking is trying at all cost to disassociate himself of his famous early statement in his “A Brief Story of Time” when he talks about discovering a complete theory of physics, and why and for what the Universe Exist: “for then we would know the mind of God.”
In his desire to not be identified as a Theist, he runs away scared of any idea that may suggest God as an answer, and consequently falls inadvertently, in to a crude Pantheist position, where the Universe itself, and the laws that rule it (which is first?)self create themselves radomly, hardly an explanation of the origin of the Universe or Multiverse if you prefer, but neither is a philosophical statement that will dissociate you from God.
I understand the word God is a charged issue, since most people have a tendency to associate it to an anthropomorphic image, but let’s be honest, replacing it by Existence, or Being, perfectly acceptable words, that not posit an anthropomorphic idea will not make the problem go away, since it is not Semantics that is in question, but the idea of a Creation ex nihilo! And that would be a Mystery if you wish, if you don’t want to use the also charged word; miracle!
Ironically the ephemeral qualities, and behavior of sub atomic particles of Quantum Physics had many a Physicist scrambling for explanations that not look Metaphysical in nature, and try to come with perfectly rational, and concrete reasoning that doesn’t stretch the limit of what they consider valid Science, in this effort they cook a lot of nonsense!
If you read the critics of this book, that by the way are numerous, at least 40% of them (Check Amazon) and even a large part of those who seem pleased, and give good reviews raise questions about Mr. Hawkin’s conclusion, a critic for example says:
“Anything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Obviously, the cause of the universe is not part of the universe. Gravity is part of the physics of the universe. As such, gravity cannot be responsible for the universe beginning to exist. Simple spontaneity, like “luck” or “chance”, is not a causal agent. It does not “do” anything. It’s only an abstract name we attach to what we observe after-the-fact, when we notice that something does not fit a given pattern. Instead of making a case for how God is not necessary for gravity to exist (and thus, a multitude of universes), Hawking has only opened the door for others to expose his playful, theoretical romp through magical universes for what it is. Frivolity.”
Another (a scientist) goes as far as, to examine the percentage of responses good and critical, he ended giving it a very poor review (one star) his review is very methodical but unfortunately too big to reproduce in it’s entirety here however here is a critical excerpt of it:
“Talking about philosophy, even most of those who gave the book 5 stars agree that saying “philosophy is dead” was a very sloppy choice of words by the authors — even though I think I know what they meant to say. The revolution started by -among others- Poincaré and Einstein made Science an indispensable part of Philosophy and, as Poincaré said in his “Science and Hypothesis” book: “… much advantage will accrue if men of science become their own epistemolgist…” By the same token, after such revolution, no serious philosopher can go about her/his business without deepening into what modern science has to say about the ultimate philosophical questions. Philosophy is not dead; and if “The Grand Design” proves something beyond doubt at all, it is ironically and precisely that.”
Here is an excerpt of a Muslim Philosopher of the twelfth Century: Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi, about Existence, and possibly an answer to why do we exist, to my mind a parallel explanation, and if you ask me a simpler, and more elegant explanation than the one Mr. Hawking provide us nine hundred years later, and with no need of a Hubble telescope, or giant Supercoliders that would drain the budget of many under developed Nations!
“There is only one Existence. That existence is, naturally, a state of Being. That being, then, is the One and Only, Infinite Being. It exists through its own existence irrespective of any other consideration. Naturally so, because there is no other premise than its own existence, therefore there is no other point of reference or relationship in respect of which it could be considered. When it is self-conscious it creates or constitutes its own consideration of itself. This bringing into consciousness of itself as a mentation of its own potential existence is when it “manifests” itself to itself. This is the only state of its own duality possible or imaginable where the duality is really no other than itself with its own image of itself. This self-consciousness of its ownmentation of is potentiality takes itself from its own singularity and uniqueness to its own duality of unique singularity only in its own consciousness. At this point of its singularity of duality it is necessary to give existence to all of its own potentialities since these potentialities are of the “fabric” of its own
self-consciousness. These infinite number of potentialities which thus have come to and have acquired existence through the self-consciousness of the essentially self existing Unique, One and Only, Infinite Existence, then, are the only source of number and, consequently, of all possible plurality.
Universality presumes a locus or a multiplicity of areas, a plurality of loci. This plurality, in reference to the One and Only and Infinite Existence, must either deny it or allow a situation where plurality of the One is essentially a self-corporate mode of a many-faceted existence where “each” individual existence is a consideration of accommodation for this global Uniqueness in expression. Consequently, here the infinity of the one permeates the theoretically many facets of the global one. The result is One expressed manifold. Each of these manifolded expressed facets of the One Infinite Existence are so many Universes all enclosed in the One and Unique Infinite Existent.”
It is clear to me now, that to discover the Origin of the Universe, and go back in to History, it is too profound, too cosmically disorderly to be be confined to the hands of the utilitarian neatness habitual to those scientific determinist’s minds, maybe we need people with a creative mind, used to contradictions, dichotomies, who can conciliate opposites, maybe people like artists, poets, or philosophers!
The sun of the evening announce
the fragrance of the Jazmin
Life is enclosed in the
nook of a labyrinth,
It’s roads are narrow,
and there is only a mirror
to reflect our truths.
Will I ever understand
this deepest of loves?
How right you are, Brigido!
I do enjoy the sciences and find great value in the sciences, but the zealotry of some scientists, is just as you say– they have lost the forest through the trees. To say that “philosophy is dead” is just another way of saying “We have all the answers now”. And to anyone who says that, I will just smile in amusement.
Could we not say that the arts require the anchor of the sciences, and the sciences require the anchor of the arts? Where would science be without philosophy, and where would philosophy be without science?
Frankly, I think Hawking probably knows better and likely said it as a “tongue in cheek” comment. I’m guessing he wrote what he wrote to sell a few more books. Look, it has us talking about it, right?
In a future post maybe I should talk in length about our Postmodern times and what that it means for the present, and therefore for the future, something that I do not know if a majority of scientist are aware, I suspect a few by now may be aware, with all the budget cuts, and being left out pounding the streets for a new grant, or a new job that would permit them either; continue to proceed with their scientific projects, or just make a living even if outside of their fields!
One thing it is for sure, scientist are in bed with big capital, and therefore dependent, scientist like to tell us that science is neutral, and sticks to truth, and the facts, however scientist, are humans beings, just like anybody else, subject to the mendacity, and failures of judgment like any other individual. As for Torch Bearers of discovery, and the new priest of truth, well Mr. Hawking is not only misguided about Philosophy, but he is Socially, politically, and economically naive… maybe that was a thought in Premodern, and maybe Modern times, now scientist are totally discredited with the many failures of judgment, and two disasters of NASA and the space program with the consequent budgetary adjustments, the heydays was the landing on the Moon in 1969, as a matter of prestige for America, now days simply there is no money for that “Conquest of Space” nonsense!
The Military still hold a big budget in the armament department, but who in their right mind would think that making more sophisticated weapons is the way to bring sympathy for scientist who work in this field?
As for the scientist who work in the Medical field in advances for medicine, and new treatments for cancer, or many other illness, that sound really great, but when Medicine it is only for the rich, and the profits of the Pharmaceutical companies who pay the scientist in question, well, so much for that, when lots of people are uninsured, and even those who are can’t afford the high cost of Health Care Insurance! (Check my post Critical Thinking and Freedom)
As for those scientist responsible to protect, and save the Environment, if there is such a thing, they are totally at the mercy of Oil, Mining, Chemistry, Agricultural, Farm, Water, and Fish Industry, etc. Economical interest too powerful to put a stop to the pollution of the Planet, remember: It is a business!
The rest it is just a bunch of Techno gadgets salesmen! So much for those Torch bearers of discovery, very unlikely candidates to put our Faith on, and that it is why I choose the Colossus of Rhodes, and Bad cooking as the pictures to represent them, scientist are idols with clay feet…
“Philosophy is dead.” Why?
Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?
===========.
The common opinion about Philosophy of Physics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
#
In the ‘Google’ we can read about 19,300,000
results (0.09 seconds) about ( quantum philosophy).
===========.
My opinion:
Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?
==========.
About 90 years ago in the letter to Einstein Sommerfeld wrote
that we have ‘Quantum mechanics’ but we don’t have
‘ Quantum Philosophy.’
This situation doesn’t change. Why ?
=======.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are “mathematical points”,
2.
In QT particles are “mathematical points”,
3.
In SRT particles are points.
4.
In QED particles are points.
5.
The energy, impulse, linear and angular momentum in physics
is also a ” mathematical point”.
6.
Then one “mathematical point” ( particle) interacts with another
“mathematical point” (energy, impulse ..etc ) the physicists say:
” The Quantum theory and micro-world are paradoxical.”
==========
Therefore I say: We have Physical Particle and its
shadow Mathematical Point.
#
Another problem: The Electron’s puzzles.
=.
The electron is not a point.
It is forbidden to electron to be hard as a steel, it must be elastic.
The electron doesn’t have really orbit . . .
It is a reason of a standing wave of fantastically high frequency.
It can be a corpuscular and a wave at the same time.
On the one hand, in interaction with aether all its parameters
becomes infinite, but on the other hand, it is the reason
of electromagnetic waves and a density in the aether.
The electron has a negative twin brother – positron.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Questions.
Why does electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
#
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows .
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
For example.
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book “What is the Electron?”
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
But . . . but all of these models are problematical.
So, why we call an electron a simple elementary
particle if it looks not very simple ?
Therefore we can read the about 19,300,000 results
(0.09 seconds) of ( quantum philosophy) but how can
we trust them if we don’t know what an Electron is ?
#.
In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2011, somebody will try to understand the
Interaction between an Infinite Small Particle and Geometry.
=====================.
P.S.
Let’s look at it another way –
In an Italian railway station.
It was more then two hours until the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took a place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened
a case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain
something about the bow, carefully and gently touching it.
Then another man took this bow and also enthusiastically
continued this conversation. For half an hour the bow was passed
from one hands to another followed with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level!
What a beauty!
And now let’s imagine the bow pressed into a “mathematical point”
and the musicians speak seriously about a “mathematical point”
which must produce a sound from a violin.
Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation.
Well, I agree.
But why doesn’t anybody say it to physicists when they observe
an elementary particle as a “mathematical point” , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
#
If physicists think about a particle as a ” mathematical point”
the result can be only paradoxical.
When Feynman said “I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics.” it was only because nobody
took into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.
=============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========================.
Thank you for your contribution it is appreciated. It was also Feynman who said:
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientist as ornithology is to birds.” However he forgot that Ornithology it is necessary for Humans to have a scientific understanding of birds, meanwhile some scientist pretend to be the birds of the analogy…
Reblogged this on The Hunt FOR Truth and commented:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-beginning-of-the-universe-have-a-personal-cause-a-rejoinder#ixzz3GUClvAJM
About 13,200,000 results (0.35 seconds) – my search was slower and netted far fewer results – yet the outcome may indicate that perhaps quantum philosophy is as real as any mathematical equation.
Thank you! 🙂
yes, you are quite welcomed. We of course must have a philosophy of anything that is otherwise thought to be real when in fact what we have is a mass deception. Physics is a sham. Einstein knew this, Heisenberg, Feynman. There cannot be a physics that is serious if the nothing cannot be explained. If this is impossible by science then philosophy is necessary to maintain a calm. We must have purpose that moves us along and is with us in our spacetime so that we can make some sense of any given moment to learn and grow from it into finding and being our purpose.
Yes, you are right, thank you for your contribution 🙂
Who wrote the poem that you’ve written at the end of this post?
You got me there, I wrote that post almost 4 years ago, and my recollection is vague, the reason I didn’t give credit to anyone, or myself is that I believe made it of lines of different poems, and some of the words could be my own, sorry but I like to use pictures, that describe what I am talking about, at least symbolically, or the other way around, words who fit a picture,also I use sortilege, what it’s called Rhapsodomancy or Biblomancy (divination by reading a random passage from a poem, or a Sacred book) 🙂
God particles, without Nobel Prize. / by Socratus/
==..
To discover so-called God – particle ( Nobel Prize in 2013)
was needed two conditions : deep vacuum and high energy.
But if the vacuum were deeper and energy were higher then
it would be possible to discover some kind of a new God – particles.
Question: what is the deepest vacuum in the Universe?
My answer:
the deepest vacuum in the Universe is the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K.
Question: what can be the highest energy?
My answer:
the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K continuum is itself some kind
of infinite energy continuum.
Using these parameters, I say that the cosmic zero vacuum T=0K
can create primary God – particles and their names are
“potential molar –masses (k) particles.”
==..
Question:
Why potential molar – masses (k) particles are primary God particles?
Because:
a)
Heat is result of some kind of chaotic movements of particles.
In thermodynamics the heat is explained by the formula: E=kT (logW)
It means that chaotic movements of molar-mass (k) particles create heat.
b)
In 1905 Einstein wrote “quantum of action” as: h=kb
It means that molar-mass (k) particles know some kind of another
movement which can create “quantum of action” with energy E=(kb)*f.
My conclusion.
Without heat the Universe is an Absolute Cold Kingdom.
Without “quantum of action” the Universe is dead continuum.
The molar-mass (k) particles can take part in these two phenomenons:
E=kT (logW) and E= (kb)*f. And therefore the molar-mass (k)
particles are primary elements from the First Instant (T=0K) of the
Universe’s creation. Not ” the famous Higgs Boson” (with the low
energy and prestige Prize) but the old and modest well-known
molar-mass k-particles are real “God particles”
#
k-particles have two forms of modifications: as a heat E=kT (logW)
and as an energy E=(kb)*f . The interaction between energy and heat
created everything in the Universe but . . . . but until today nobody
explained the interaction between E= (kb)*f and E=kT (logW).
=====….
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
========….
Thank you for your comment, maybe you should present your paper to the Nobel academy, in Sweden, who knows? 🙂
Thank you theburningheart.
===.
Big Bang: Time
=.
Big Bang is seriously taken by cosmologists and according
to current cosmological scenarios:
a) In the past, maybe 50 or 100 billion years ago, the Universe
as whole reached its maximum radius.
b) It took another 50 or 100 billion years when the Universe
as whole came to singular point.
c) Today we see the Universe at age 13,7 billion years.
Question.
Why do cosmologists say: “Before Big Bang there was no time”?
===..
Socratus.
============.
When I want to make my time something uitl and that fills my soul, I have to look for your articles to achieve it. I believe that philosophy will be in force as long as there is life. And the mere fact of looking for the reason of your writings, is enough for me. In other words, your exhibition is more than excellent. A hug and thanks for sharing your knowledge
Thank you Manuel,you give us the motivation to keep working on this labor of love. 🙂
Well of course I like that there is a poem at the end of this post – which came unexpectedly upon my eyes as a beautiful kind of wrap-up to your intriguing post. I refuse to believe that philosophy is dead, even if genius Hawking says it is so. If it were dead then I would hate to think how few independent thinkers there would be from this point on, given that philosophy encourages critical thought. It’s a great vehicle for questioning our surroundings and expanding ideas. Cheers to philosophy and to your wondrous post here!
You got no idea how nice it’s to see your comment at this hour, took a break of my shores and here you are!
If you wonder what I mean just check my Twitter account!
Yes, Philosophy, it’s well and alive, hubris from the people who believe that, will pass.
Thank you for your kind comment! 🙂
Accelerators as a scientific Sisyphus stone. / by Israel Socratus /
Accelerators are Useless and produce Nothing for humankind.
======.
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him to understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the energy of bombarding the target.
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs electron and proton to create atom.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, it is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator – is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that accelerator – is first of all is the Vacuum.
But this, he has withhold from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinite vacuum is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig out a hole
with 100 meters size and depth, will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to success ?
As many as the scientists have who trys to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends – antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
===========..
The critical density of matter in the whole universe is very small
( approximately 10-26 kg/m3 ) and therefore the universe is not ”closed”
it is ”open” — infinite and all the masses of galaxies exist in this infinite Vacuum.
So, instead of understand what Vacuum is, instead to understand
”Where did electron and proton come from?” the physicists break them in the
pieces, trying to understand their inner structure.
This is scientific Sisyphus work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accelerators_in_particle_physics
====================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
========================.
.
CONS
Incredibly expensive to construct and maintain
Uses hundreds of thousands of dollars for just electricity per day
Tonnes of liquid helium needed to cool the magnets to make them superconducting
Requires money just to use it
Takes up a large amount of space
Results may not yield answers.
Add to that the possible danger to Human life caused by those Super Accelerators.
Eric Johnson, an assistant professor of law at the University of North Dakota School of Law in Grand Forks. Johnson asks what a court should do with a preliminary-injunction request to halt a multi billion-dollar particle-physics experiment that plaintiffs claim could create a black hole that will devour the planet.
“It is remarkable to think for a moment how CERN’s situation might be viewed if, instead of operating a particle accelerator, CERN was a developer of pharmaceuticals. If a pharmaceutical firm attempted to take a drug to market based on the safety assessment of a panel of five of its employees, who in turn relied on the scientific work of one employee and one other scientist with a pending visiting position with the firm–it would be a scandal of epic proportions.”
“While it seems absurd, in the abstract, that a group of apparently normal people could risk the entire planet in the course of carrying out a science experiment, the prospect does seem distinctly plausible once one takes a look at the details. Such a disaster is not likely, to be sure, but it does appear plausible enough to give one pause.”
Thanks for your comment! 🙂