Is Earth 10,000 years old?

Darwin used to be a deeply religious man. He studied theology at Cambridge and as a young man he looked forward to the lifelong service of a cleric. His professional outlook changed dramatically after he embarked in 1831 on a five-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle. His observations led him to develop the theory of natural selection, the process by which organisms that are best adapted to their environment produce more offspring while those less suited eventually die out. In a stroke of unparalleled genius he obtained the scintillating insight that all living beings are connected through a long lineage that goes back billions of years, to a common ancestor. That indeed all life is one.

For the next twenty years he meticulously crafted and weighted the implications to his theory. One the one hand, evolution tied well with his egalitarian and anti-slavery ideas. It demonstrated in a scientific and rational way that all humans were born equal regardless of race or color of skin. But Darwin was deeply concerned because his insight clashed directly with the biblical description of life. So he decided to keep his work virtually secret, confiding only to a few of his closest friends. Fortuitously, Darwin was a man of his time. In the heart of the Victorian Era, there was much evidence pointing to the uneasy fact that Earth was very much older than the 10,000 years religious scholars estimated to be. Lyell’s geological notions and Malthus’s theory on demographics spurred Darwin on, while torrents of collected fossils poured into England from all corners of the British Empire illustrating that Earth had been through many previous epochs when other, now extinct, creatures lived. Why didn’t the Bible say anything about that? The untimely death of Darwin’s daughter Anne in 1851 at the age of ten threw a devastating blow to Darwin’s religious beliefs. Nine years later he finally decided to publish his seminal book on “The Origin of Species”.

Just as Darwin predicted, the reaction to his ideas from religious believers was a combination of denial and ridicule…which happened mostly on the other side of the Atlantic. By the beginning of the 20th century many States in the US had passed laws that banned the teaching of evolution at schools, a situation which lasted well into the 60s. It was the Soviets putting Sputnik in orbit that prompted President Eisenhower to reexamine the quality of scientific education for young Americans, and therefore insist that science, and indeed evolution, be taught at secondary level. America had to regain its scientific edge in order to win the Cold War, and the Congress agreed that the constitutional separation between Church and State ought to be enforced in the schools. Federal Courts begun to try cases where teachers were persecuted from State School Boards, for teaching evolution. In a series of famous rulings the courts defended science and declared “Creationism” – the notion that Earth and Humans were created by God just like it says in the Book of Genesis – as well its pseudoscientific offshoot “Intelligent Design” to be religion, not science.
And yet, despite all that, recent polls indicate that only 14% of Americans believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. On the contrary, nearly 45% completely trust the Biblical version of Adam and Eve. It seems that no matter what Federal Courts decide and what scientists publically decry, minds are next to impossible to change.
But why is this so important? Because confusion between evidence-based science and faith-based religion can only lead to the detriment of the former. Take, for example, alchemy and chemistry. Both deal with matter and reactions between chemical substances. Their respective laboratories may look strikingly similar to the untrained eye. And yet they differ in something very fundamental. Alchemy is obsessed with the transmutation of metals to gold. After many centuries of trial and error it produced nothing. Chemistry on the other hand, once it separated from faith-based alchemy and adopted the scientific method, managed to produce the wonders of our technological civilization, including medicinal drugs that have saved - and save - millions of lives. Abandoning scientific enquiry, rejecting evidence whenever it clashes with scripture, sanctioning academic liberties on the basis of dogma, and obsessing with “proving” religious notions, can only result in our world returning to the Middle Ages. That’s what is at stake here.

And is not an American problem only. Greece has the lowest public acceptance of evolution in the EU. Thirty per cent of the population accepts the Genesis narrative, and another twenty percent strongly doubt that humans evolved from apes. A few years ago the then General Secretary of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs (sic), when asked about the Ministry’s view on evolution, responded that “evolution is just a theory”, meaning that it has not been proven yet! Evolutionary theory, although included in the school’s textbooks, is almost never taught because it is part of the material that Greek students are examined upon. Elsewhere in Europe the situation is only slightly better, and even in the United Kingdom evolution is seriously challenged by Christian fundamentalists and Islamic hardliners.

So is there a way to reconcile evolution with the Bible? Pope John Paul II in 1996 all but accepted the fossil record and the scientifically calculated age of Planet Earth as true. And yet the Catholic Church remains ambivalent as to the mechanisms that guide the evolution of species. Where most scientists see the mindless hand of chance genetic mutations, Catholics see the guiding spirit of divine providence. The dialogue seems like an impossible discussion between deaf people separated by a thick wall. Recently, and rather amusingly perhaps, it took the form of advertising banners on double-decker buses across London, with Christian fundamentalists defending the doctrine of God-the-Creator and atheists refuting biblical belief as nonsense.
At the heart of the debate lies the irreconcilable contrast between two fundamental narratives of Western civilization: one written by science, the other purportedly by the Word of God. It is the Book of Genesis versus the Origin of Species, the former remaining unchanged through the ages, the later continuously updated as new data come to light - from genetics and fossils - that support the workings of natural selection. You have to believe Genesis to be true, but you do not have to do the same with evolution. You can doubt evolution all you like, for science is the art of skepticism and doubt. The caveat it that science also requires you to be brave enough to accept the evidence, even when it upsets your most deeply-held beliefs.
There are of course people of faith who regard the Bible as an allegory and therefore claim to have no qualms accepting a scientific narrative too. But as Richard Dawkins has poignantly commented, they do not seem to truly appreciate the fact that was so profound to Darwin: that if one accepts evolution one must automatically exclude God from life’s equation. Because evolution explains everything. There are no missing factors or mysteries left. The fundamentalists in Texas understand this well and hence their relentless struggle to eradicate Darwinism from their schools’ curricula. So if you happen to be one who does not believe that Earth is 10,000 years old, and yet you still believe in a biblical God, think again. Unfortunately, you cannot have the cake of science and eat it too.
Published in the Athens News on 27th March 2009

Temnothorax de Condorcet

How the collective intelligence of social animals can provide a new paradigm for ecological decision-making (notes for a forthcoming lecture at Panteion University)

Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) was a pioneer in applying mathematics to the social sciences. His jury theorem states that if each member of a voting group is more likely than not to make a correct decision, the probability that the highest vote of the group is the correct decision increases as the number of members of the group increases. The sum of information available per juror is also proportional to the probability of the correct decision, which means that the more individuals jurors know (or understand) the more likely is that a correct decision will be reached. Democracies are thus theoretically, or potentially, better than dictatorships because they can solve problems better by means of collective decisions. However, as a recent article in the Economist correctly pointed our, human societies are prone to groupthink which neutralizes the benefits of the jury theorem.

Groupthink is typically found in modern parliaments where members vote along party lines, regardless of information available. In societies at large groupthink often manifests as a result of brainwashing by the media. For example, once the financial crisis became headline news terrorists “disappeared”. Terrorists and terrorism, was the mainstay of media output since 9/11, as if the world was at the brink of being blown up by a mad suicide atom-bomber. Groupthink in the western world meant that citizens conditioned their political thinking under the spectre of terrorist threat, mainly coming from so-called Islamo-fascists dreaming of resurrecting the caliphate of the Middle Ages. All that has disappeared now, and replaced with a new enemy of the people: the amoral bankers. The new fear is losing everything, job, savings, home in a black financial hole.

Along with the terrorists global warming has also disappeared from the foreground. Who cares about the melting of arctic ice when there is a meltdown of financial institutions? And so on.

So the question arises how are we, the human race, become able to deal with global problems (poverty, ecology, financial institutions, epidemics, etc.) when we are constantly swayed by the forever trembling cyclopic eye of the media? How can we, the jurors, arrive at the best possible decisions, when information is restricted, or conditioned by groupthink?

A possible answer may come from evolutionary biology. Darwinian sociobiologists studying the behaviour of social animals such as bees and ants, are beginning to understand the way those creatures chose between various options. The ant species Temnothorax albipennis, studied by Nigel Franks of the University of Bristol, establishes a new nest by attenuating information-sharing of best routes amongst scouts. When a suitable place is identified the scouts begin to lead other scouts to the new site. To speed things up, the ants have developed a strategy whereby efficiency is increased by means of leading scouts back to the nest via the quickest route during the phase of migration. Thus, by going to and fro, more scouts become familiar with the route and the speed by which migration takes place increases. This type of dynamic – termed by the researches “reverse tandem runs” – resembles the loading of connections in a network.

rhaps then, the ants shows us the way too. Human networks may provide the answer to getting over groupthink, and utilizing human collective intelligence and collective decision-making. There are two main characteristics in human networks: firstly, that most individuals have few connections (some friends and family members only) and only a few are highly connected (the “connectors”); secondly, networks are clustered, i.e. they tend to build around specific social groups (e.g. sharing the same profession, or hobby, etc.). If we manage to find strategies in human networks whereby we connectors increase the load of connections by means of increased information, then we may be able to get over the groupthink problem. Connectors have an obvious evolutionary motive to perform this task, namely to safeguard - or increase - their prominence and status in the network. To validate information passed to a network by the connectors, one may use the power of clustering. In clusters, peers are able to perform instant validation of information. This is apparent in readers’ commentary in news websites, as well as wikis.

Collective decisions are complex but so are the problems that currently face humanity. Current global institutions, such the UN, or the IMF, or the G7, are built on 20^th century ideas and technologies.  We must now develop new technologies and ideas in order to tap on the collective intelligence of human networks. The democracy of the 21^st century will have to be less representative and more direct, in a totally new way. 

Darwin 101 for politicians

No other idea in human history has had a more profound impact on modern society than the evolutionary theory, independently conceived by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace 150 years ago. In neat, concise, transparent terms, it explains the multiversity of lifeforms that have replenished Earth since billions of years, the shooting of species from other species and, ultimately, the emergence of human beings. Its explanatory power is omnipotent. Evolution occurs because of natural selection. In the ever-changing environment of our planet creates conditions where certain, randomly appearing, traits in a species favor particular individuals over others, who then go on to procreate more often. By procreating they pass those favorable traits to their offspring, and this, over time, changes the whole profile of the species. A new species is thus born. From humble bacteria and viruses to sophisticated, intelligent, car-driving mammals, there has been not a single case in biology that has countered evolutionary theory. On the contrary, evolution has been confirmed again and again, not only by fossil records and discoveries in geology and the past climate of Earth but, more importantly perhaps, by probing into the nexus of life, the cell itself. The discovery of DNA as the principal promulgator of genetic information across generations has confirmed Darwin and Wallace beyond any doubt. We, and the apes, and the fish and the trees and every living thing, are indeed the products of natural selection, the descendants of a common unicellular great-great-grandfather that appeared on Earth some four billion years ago.

 It is therefore not at all surprising that such a powerful idea spilled over quickly from the curious observation of amphibious lizards and garrulous birds in the Galapagos Islands and the Amazon forest, and entered the controversial realm of human society. Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, was first to coin the term “eugenics” and reinterpret evolutionary theory as political philosophy. Faced with the dilemma of altruism that lead to medicine being supplied to the “poor”, the “feeble-minded” and the “sick”, and therefore ease the propagation of “inferiors”, he suggested that human society should develop towards a world of “superiors” by selectively breeding the best with the best. Being a liberal, Galton proposed that active measures should prune amongst the “poor” for those with talent.

 His proposition inspired, several decades later, the instigation of the welfare state in the UK. In the US, a virtually apartheid state in the beginning of the 20^th century, eugenics were taken more literally and several States introduced forced sterilization of mentally-ill patients and others who were deemed “inferior”. Interestingly, Karl Marx was very excited about evolutionary theory. He sent Darwin a copy of his book “Das Kapital”, and wrote to his friends how evolution and class struggle seemed to go hand in hand happily. As species evolved through strife towards perfection so would human society, ultimately arriving at a classless utopia through the uprising of the oppressed workers. And yet later on, in Soviet Union, Darwinism fell quickly out of favor. Orthodox communists of the Stalinist era supported instead the acquisition of new genetic characteristics during one’s lifetime, which could then be passed on to one’s offsprings. This idea is called “Lamarckism” (from the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck) and it made more sense to communist visionaries who dreamt of shaping man as the ultimate altruist. Trofim Lysenko, a notorious charlatan agronomist, denounced Darwin with the full support of the Communist Party and applied the flawed Lamarckian theory in Soviet agricultural projects, with disastrous effects.

 Evolutionary theory trumps all other explanations about life on Earth. Nevertheless, it is one thing to scientifically and unequivocally explain why bats have wings, or why we have five fingers in each hand instead of six, and totally different why the variation in intelligence, or prowess, or beauty. Implying a genetic cause for such inequalities - as evolutionary theory surely does - smacks of biological determinist: i.e. that you are who you are because you were born like this, and there is nothing you can do about it. Which goes against the liberal ideology of freedom to chose and the right to prosper, as well as the socialist ideal of equality and justice. Thus, Social Darwinism, the idea that competition drives evolution in human societies, ultimately collided with almost every color in the political spectrum of the 20^th century, except perhaps fascism and Nazism which saw in the “survival of the fittest” the foundation of their totalitarian and racist ideologies. Eugenics, originally inspired by a liberal thinker in Victorian England, was corrupted and ultimately led to the crematoria of Auschwitz. That tragic event alone was enough to tarnish Social Darwinism with a terrible reputation which persists to our day.

 Enter sociobiology, which many critics consider as Social Darwinism in disguise. Originally inspired to explain complex behavior in the animal world, sociobiology is routinely applied to interpret just about everything, from the dot com and real estate bubbles, to why rich men attract women more and why wealth is relative and never absolute. A new breed of economists, inspired by evolutionary thinking, takes issue with Adam Smith’s original assumption of rational players in the economy. These “behavioral economists” explain the stock markets in terms of instincts genetically inherited from our hominid ancestors that rummaged the ancestral savannas of Africa. Greed that drives markets up is seen as a battle for status amongst players who want to increase their wealth and therefore their chances of mating with a preferred member of the opposite sex. Fear – the factor that swings markets down - as the result of not wanting to lose high status, which in human societies is determined, and defined, by money.

 Notable sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins, contend that sociobiology is science, not ideology. That, unlike Social Darwinism, it does not say what ought to be done but why something happens. Yes, but surely if one has an explanation for social behavior then one ought to be compelled to take action according to that scientific knowledge. If Darwinism explains, for example, murder as a way for hierarchically-low (i.e. poorer or destitute) young males to assert their dominance, then punitive measures should be restructured accordingly. Moreover, critics of sociobiology, such as the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, argue that traits such as genre or identity are social constructs and have nothing to do with inherited genes. It is nurture not nature, they say, that carries the day and therefore a socialist utopia of socio-economic equality is ultimately feasible.

The debate of nature versus nurture is bound to define political thinking in the current century too. For, if evolution provides us with a scientific insight to human nature, we must rid ourselves of ideology, whether liberal or socialist, and embrace a neutral, scientific perspective on society. The only caveat, alas so common in science, is to distinguish between cause and effect. Are we humans what we are because of our genes? Or are we because of what we think ourselves to be?

published in the Athens News, on Friday 30th January

The roots (and futility) of conservation

The modern idea of conservation was born in 19^th century evangelical United States and has its roots in literary - i.e. anti-evolution - Christian ideas about life on Earth and the age of our planet. According to these ideas, life on Earth is static and does not evolve. It was created ex nihilo by an omnipotent designer a few thousand years ago. The last of the designer’s creation, us humans, were bestowed with the obligation of presiding and preserving Earth’s Garden of Life, God’s Creation. Hence, the creation of Yellowstone, the first national natural park of the world, was vociferously argued by Theodore Roosevelt on the basis of Christian duty, thus swinging the republican vote in favor of spending a considerable sum of federal money on the project.

Since then, natural conservation has an aura of sanctity about it. This sanctity has an appeal for many, and brings together very disparate groups of people under one umbrella, namely the “saving of the planet”. Such a premise is misled, unscientific and dangerous.

I have already argued the reasons for being misled. It is unscientific because to try to “preserve” a dynamic system such is life on Earth is simply futile. It is like trying to preserve a sunny day for ever. The difference is one of time scale only. Our “sunny day” is the Pleistocene (plus Holocene – for those who like making the distinction) Era. We, today, see the world in an evolutionary, geological and climatic snapshot of its last 1.8 million years. However, the film reel so-far is 4.5 billion years, or 4,500 million years. “Conservation”, in the sense that is currently dominant, is the unscientific attempt to stop the film of evolution.

 That is why conservation can be also dangerous. The current climate debate is an example. The idea that humanity can somehow “stop” the planet getting warmer, and somehow” return” to a pre-industrial time of low CO2 levels, is not only unscientific and futile, but diverts considerable global resources to the wrong kind of project.

 So what can the “right” project be? Certainly not to lay waste on Mother Earth by polluting the air, the ground and the sea, and killing every living species! The idea of conservation must undergo serious scientific overhaul. The emphasis should shift from static to dynamic, and should encompass three main action areas:

 Increase our understanding on Earth’s systems and their interplay. Instead of studying systems separately, we need a cross-disciplinary approach to include the concurrent study of geological, climatic (i.e. atmospheric and oceanic), space and life feedback systems.

1. Develop monitoring systems to observe and measure human interference with Earth’s feedback systems.
2. Develop technologies that can support a comfortable and healthy life for all human beings, which operate in harmony with Earth’s feedback systems.

 The current political, and dominant scientific, agenda must change.

 

Going Nuclear

Living under the specters of global warming, as well as economical and political instability, out planet is evermore hungry for energy. So let’s look at the options. Fossil fuels, a concentrated form of solar energy, come from plants which became fossilized over millions of years and formed oil, coal and gas. In the process, solar energy was concentrated. Burning coal produces twice the energy of burning wood. Oil and gas are about twice the energy density of coal. All fossil fuels, when burned, produce greenhouse gases. Moreover, recent estimations of oil reserves predict an oil crunch in 30 years, if current trends of consumption persist. The discovery of new oil fields will not save us from the inevitable crunch because increased consumption will outstrip any foreseeable new supply. Being addicted to oil means we go turkey in less than a generation, unless we kick the habit now.

Renewables, such as wind and sunlight, are on the other side of the scale, i.e. they are less energy dense than wood by a factor of 10 to 50. The amount of sunlight that falls on a square meter of earth is barely enough to power one 100watt light bulb. To implement solar energy power stations on an industrial scale requires huge amounts of land. Covering every rooftop with solar panels would probably get enough electricity for our indoor supply (approx. less than 10% of national total), and only during daytime. Storing solar energy in batteries so it can be used during nighttime creates the vexing problem of waste managing the highly toxic materials in batteries.

Wind farms do not fare any better. Covering hundreds of acres with 65-meter structures produces unpredictable electricity output that is difficult to integrate in the national grid. Wind not only comes and goes as it pleases, but is stronger on places that need massive investment to connect to the grid (mountains, islands), and mainly blows during seasons of low demand in electricity (autumn and spring). Biofuels, once heralded as the magic bullet to save the planet, has been called by Jean Ziegler, UN’s raporteur on food, “a crime against humanity”. Fermenting double digit percentage points of the world’s food output to produce ethanol has caused steep rises in food prices and consequently hunger, riots and deaths. To conclude, subsidizing so-called “green technologies” makes perfect media sense but very little economic sense.

 

Let’s now look at nuclear. The energy density for uranium compared to coal is 2 million! That means that one kilogram of uranium gives you 2 million times as much energy as a kilogram of coal. You can run Athens for a week with a lump of uranium you can hold in one hand. The comparison with coal plants is even more flabbergasting. To fuel a 1000 MW coal plant you need massive and endless trainloads of coal feeding it daily. To fuel a 1000 MW nuclear reactor you need an infinitesimal fraction of that input in the form of fuel rods that are mildly radioactive and can be handled with gloves. In their four-and-a-half years lifecycle these fuel rods produce zero carbon emissions. By comparison, the same coal plant over the same period will have spewed 3 million tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

 

Resistance to nuclear energy rests on three issues: danger of meltdown and/or explosion, security issues pertaining to theft of atom bomb materials by terrorist organizations and nuclear waste disposal. So could a nuclear reactor explode? What about Chernobyl? The danger for explosion, or meltdown, is directly related to the fraction of radioactive material that takes part in the nuclear reactions in the nuclear plant. There are two types of uranium, U-238 (with 238 neutrons) which makes 99.3 percent of the natural ore and U-235. The former sheds two protons every now and then over a 5 billion year period, and is less harmful than your TV set. The latter is the powerhouse. It can split and create massive amounts of energy. But U-235 constitutes only 0.7 percent of the natural ore. Being so sparse it cannot undergo a natural “chain reaction”. In order to obtain a larger fraction of U-235, natural core uranium is “enriched”. This is extremely difficult. You need a huge factory to do it and various techniques such as running the natural ore through magnetic fields and whipping it in centrifuges. There are different kinds of enrichment. To produce the nice calm chain reactions in a nuclear reactor you need to enrich U-235 from 0.7 to 3 percent. To enrich to bomb-grade material you have to enrich to 90 percent. This takes a lot of time and effort and specially designed reactors that have dual-use, civil and military. A strictly civil-use nuclear plant is inherently safe and cannot explode. Chernobyl did not explode. The cooling system failed and tore apart the reactor casing resulting in radioactive gases released in the atmosphere. It was because soviet-era reactors did not have the safety feature of reactor casing as western reactors did. Since those days, western reactors have become even safer, with automatic shut-off mechanisms for controlled nuclear reactions, should any accident occur. Earthquakes are not a problem for modern construction engineers who can build safe structures able to withstand the most violent tremors.

 

The fear of proliferation of nuclear fission by-products, such as plutonium, which could be stolen by terrorists and used in terrorist activities, prompted the Carter administration in 1976 to pass a bill forbidding nuclear fuel recycling. However, to build a bomb you need to enrich uranium at 90%, which is a very difficult process. That is why, for example, one should not worry too much that the Iranians will get to it quickly. The stuff enriched in a civil nuclear plant is not even good for a firecracker. As experience has shown, the bad guys got their nuclear technology from Pakistan and North Korea, not by stealing materials from western, or Soviet, civil nuclear plants.

 

As for waste, there is no such thing as “nuclear waste”. Nearly all the material in a spent fuel rod is recyclable or easily handled. Ninety-five percent of a spent fuel rod is harmless, natural, U-238 that can be put back to where it came from. The rest is fissionable U-235 (1%), various fission products that can be used in nuclear medicine (2%), a residue of “minor actinides” (2%) - that includes plutonium (1%) - that can also be recycled. The French have virtually complete recycling. All of France’s nuclear waste from 25 years of producing 75 percent of its electricity is stored beneath the floor of a room at Le Hague. The lifetime output of each French citizen would fit in a beer can.

 

Nuclear power could be humanity’s greatest hope for the future. Currently, to construct a nuclear plant costs 2,000 to 5,000 USD per KW/h. This means that a 1000 MW reactor would cost anything between 2 and 5 billion USD. If this sounds a lot, remember that the Greek government gave the banks a fat cheque of taxpayers’ money amounting to 35 billion USD. The same money could have bought us all the energy we need for the next century, save the environment, create jobs, rejuvenate the economy, and promote science and Greece’s geopolitical role in Eastern Mediterranean as a power of peace and prosperity. As for the fuel, uranium is ubiquitous and currently costs 59 USD per pound.

The Earth’s core is hot because of uranium’s natural nuclear decay. And because of the small percentage of U-235 in the natural ore, planet Earth is in no danger of exploding into space. We tap this nuclear energy with geothermal plants and call it “geothermal”. However, by simply taking the uranium ore out of the ground and placing it in a nuclear reactor we can multiply the energy efficiency of the same process by millions of times, providing massive amounts of electricity with zero greenhouse emissions. Investing in nuclear plants will not only solve our country’s energy problems and make us energy independent, but will also provide jobs for construction workers and highly skilled scientists and engineers. The majority of the Greek public is currently against nuclear power because they are either misinformed or plainly uninformed. And yet, while neighboring countries are set to construct nuclear plants within the next 20 years, Greece desperately needs visionary politicians to take up the nuclear agenda. The debate must open.

 This article was commissioned for the Athens News, published Nov. 28th

The ignorant miracle-workers

Is science the surest way of arriving at truth? Can we validate its worth beyond anyone’s doubt? Surely, the limits of knowledge have been discussed ad nauseum by the ancients. Aristotle did not approve of Platonic metaphysics, but ask any string theorist what she thinks about the laws of nature and she will tell you maths. Where is maths? Where does it reside, before expressing itself in the motion of bodies or the flow of fluids? Where does music go when the instruments stop their play? Historians of science tell us that once upon the Middle Ages science and magic were twin sisters, Siamese twins living together side by side and forcefully separating not before the time of Descartes. His definition of res extensa was followed by logical positivism a few centuries later; but no one would have given a toss if it wasn’t for the Industrial Revolution. I stand firmly behind this argument: if it wasn’t for the engineering miracles that were produced as a result of scientific discovery, science would have been little more than a pastime for gentlemen and gentle ladies of plenty means and time to spare. Everyone had to bow to the miracles of science because the damn thing worked – and it did so better than prayer. Planes fly after all, not by well-wishing (although I often see many fellow passengers pray during take off) but by engines roaring and good wing design. But do we really know why they fly? I would argue that we do not, not really. We do have a good set of equations available, and a sound theory of aerodynamics that we teach to college students, but this corpus of descriptions sits uncomfortably on top of vast, unwavering void of stark ignorance. At the end of the scientists’ day what remains in the Petri dish, or the computer printout, or the spectrum of a far away galaxy, are unanswered questions followed by more unanswered questions. Some call this a virtue. And why not: there is certainly something alluding to heroism in a person willing to face mysteries whilst remaining agnostic. Heroics apart, however, the bottom line is that working the miracles of science was, and still remains, the biggest mystery of all. The body of knowledge is riddled with holes, curious singularities where our notions precariously stand. I would like to give three ready examples of such “singularities”. First, the Big Bang; and of course all that follows it, which is the whole of physics. Our descriptions of the universe, mathematical as they are, should not be confused with knowledge. Secondly: Life, the origin of. How did it come about? Thirdly: the mind. If you have doubts about those three examples, let me put them in another way. The litmus test of true knowledge is the power of reproduction. If I know something - truly know it, not suppose it - then I can reproduce it, nominally or otherwise. If we knew, or came to know, the nature of the Universe, of Life and of the Mind, we could easily reproduce all three of them. We do not (not “yet” some will say, but I dispute that). What we do (re)produce are similes; or simulations of. Scientists are ignorant miracle-workers performing in the circus of history while the rest of world watches in amazement. How long more will the show last? A good answer would be “when the miracles run out”. And then what? What will follow science? A retro-religious era perhaps?

The end of the beginning

Turok and Steinhardt’s Ekpyrotic Theory for the Big Bang (This is an article commissioned by “The Athens News”)

Until recently scientists and priests seemed to be in awkward agreement. Genesis started with a bang! It happened 13.7 billion years ago; and questions like “what caused it?” or “what was there before?” were considered a scientific no-man’s land where no decent, career-minding, physicist dared to venture. After all science is about things that can be measured. How could one measure something before it happened?

This was precisely the subject of the public lecture given by Cambridge physicist Neil Turok on April 17th at the Athens Concert Hall. The daring title was “what banged?” and it aimed to introduce a radical new cosmological theory. Turok, together with Paul Steinhardt of Princeton, have named their theory “the ekpyrotic universe” and explain it in their trade book “Endless Universe” (published in Greece by Avgo Books, http://www.avgobooks.com/). According to the pair of authors, there have been countless Big Bangs, followed by long terms of space-time expansion, an endless cycle of universal birth and re-birth. “Only by positing an endless universe can we explain the mysteries of the cosmos,” said Turok like a modern-day Brahman.

Cosmic Puzzles
And there are mysteries aplenty to keep cosmologists on their toes. Following the observational confirmation of the Big Bang theory in 1964 by Penzias and Wilson, scientists had to explain how the universe was so uniform (same average density of matter and energy wherever you chose to turn your telescope). They thus hypothesized something that happened during the first critical moments of the Big Bang, a force field that guaranteed thermal equilibrium across the universe as well as uniformity of matter and energy (think of an electric heater trying to heat up uniformly a room that keeps expanding, and you will understand the difficulty cosmologists were facing). The force field was called "inflationary field".

In summary, the traditional viewpoint holds that a tiny fraction of time after the Big Bang, the Universe expanded with an amazing rate, doubling itself in size every billionth of a billionth of a second. The cause of this incredible expansion - named “inflation” - was first suggested by Alan Guth, now at MIT. Inflation worked on the early universe only for a very short while and then died out, allowing for a much slower expansion afterwards. It was an elegant, albeit ad hoc, hypothesis that seemed to satisfy observation data - until two new observational puzzles arrived to upset it.

The first puzzle is the so-called “dark matter” that accounts for 25% of the cosmos (“normal” matter, the stuff of stars, galaxies, you and me, accounts for only 5%). No one knows what dark matter is, but we do know it is out there, in the same way that we know there is water in a glass even if transparent (light bends when travelling through it). The second weirdness is “dark energy”; it accounts for 70% of the universe, and a few billion years ago started to accelerate the universe’s rate of expansion. The inflationary hypothesis had to be urgently overhauled in order to account for both.


Getting rid of Inflation
Turok and Steinhardt had both worked as theorists on the inflationary model of the Big Bang, but became increasingly disillusioned with its ad hoc character; until they decided to apply the mathematics of string theory to the early universe and see what happens. When they did so all puzzles and weirdness disappeared! No need for an invented inflationary field! Dark matter and dark energy were acounted for and made perfect sense! It was an incredible eureka moment! All you had to hypothesize was that we live in a universe of normal matter that hovers parallel to another universe of dark matter. Between the two parallel universes flows dark energy, pulling and pushing them apart. When the two universes collide a Big Bang occurs; all matter and energy becomes light and a new pair of twin universes is born; the “normal matter universe” expands and cools by pulling away from its “dark matter” twin sister and then, when expansion arrives at its maximum, dark energy pulls the two universes back for another collision - and the whole cycle starts anew.


Ekpyrotic Strings
To understand better the ekpyrotic universe hypothesis you have to understand strings. Since the early 20th century physicists have two wonderful theories to explain everything: the relativity theory of Einstein that deals with gravity and explains natural phenomena from a multi-molecular scale upwards to planets and galaxies and clusters of galaxies – and quantum theory, which explains what happens at a submolecular and subatomic scale. The problem is that scientists cannot reconcile – or “unify” - the two theories together. This is extremely annoying because it suggests that nature is operating different laws at macroscopic and microscopic levels, which is absurd. String theory, rich in exotic mathematics and developed during the past twenty years, comes to the rescue! It suggests that nature is built by tiny, dimensionless strings, objects that look like rubber bands. Depending on the oscillations and twists of those tiny strings, the cosmos behaves in a quantum or relativistic way.

According to string theory our universe can be seen as a three dimensional membrane where space-time is stretched and pulled by dark energy. Think of space-time as the arena and planets and galaxies as the objects inside it. String theory suggests that the sun and Earth spring into existence from within the fundamental geometry of space-time. In other words, everything is the physical realization of mathematical entities. The world is a shadow show of maths-at-work in a multi-dimensional background! Plato, had he been among the audience of Athens Concert Hall that night, would have felt vindicated.

Complexity begets complexity
What I find exceptionally thrilling with string cosmologies such as the Ekpyrotic Universe is that instead of assuming material nothingness as the primal cause of the Universe they presuppose mathematical complexity. Indeed, the mathematical complexity of the vacuum assumed by the ekpyrotic theory - and its parent M theory – is (at least for the time being) enormous, to an extent as yet unimaginable. But we do not need to see the whole mathematical picture in order to appreciate that, the very idea whereby a complex universe - such as the one we inhabit - manifests out of complex mathematical-geometrical entities offers a new and deep insight. Could these complex mathematical-geometrical entities be the natural laws? Could the laws of nature resemble abstract, immaterial casts into which planets, starts and creatures and minds are molded? If that is the true nature of reality, I somehow feel that it makes far more sense than silly ideas such as the Copenhagen Interpenetration, or the Multiple Worlds interpretation of quantum physics.

LISA will test
Turok and Steinhardt applied string mathematics to the early universe and found that the theory works perfectly. But how can they be sure? One must always judge the efficacy of a beautiful scientific idea by the means that can be tested. Can we do so in this case? Surely the only way to tell if the ekpyrotic theory is correct is to peer into the moment of Big Bang itself, to go behind the primal afterglow as sensed by W-MAP. But can we measure anything before radiation was born? According to Turok we can! We can measure gravitational waves, the ripples of cosmic turbulence that travel across space-time, like waves on the surface of a pond when a stone has been tossed. And that is exactly what is going to happen in 2018 when spacecraft LISA (Laser Interferometer Space Antenna), a joint venture of NASA and the European Space Agency, will aim to detect and confirm the existence of gravitational waves. If Turok is right there should be no gravitational waves from the Big Bang.

He certainly believes in his theory, so much that he made a wager with a very famous wager-man who also happens to be Neil’s friend as well as his colleague-down-the-corridor at Cambridge University. “I betted Stephen Hawking I’m right”, he said smiling, to the general applause of the Athenian audience.

Interview with Jean-Marie Lehn (in Greek)

This is an edited transcript of an Interview of Jean-Marie Lehn taken by George Zarkadakis in Athens on 3/05/2006)

Ο Jean-Marie Lehn γεννήθηκε στη μεσαιωνική πόλη Rosheim της Γαλλίας το 1938 και στα νεανικά του χρόνια αμφιταλαντεύτηκε να επιλέξει ανάμεσα σε πανεπιστημιακές σπουδές στη φιλοσοφία ή στη χημεία. Τελικά επέλεξε τη δεύτερη και το 1987 κέρδισε το Βραβείο Νόμπελ Χημείας για την έρευνά του στη μοριακή αναγνώριση, δηλαδή τον τρόπο που ένα μόριο-δέκτης εκλεκτικά αναγνωρίζει και προσδένεται σε ένα υπόστρωμα. Σήμερα ο Jean Mari-Lehn είναι Διευθυντής του Εργαστηρίου Υπερμοριακής Χημείας, στο Ινστιτούτο Επιστημών και Υπερμοριακής Μηχανικής του Στρασβούργου (ISIS).

ΓΖ: Τι είναι η ζωή;
L: Δεν υπάρχει μεμονωμένη χημική ουσία που να μπορεί να θεωρηθεί έμβιο ον. Το ζήτημα είναι ποια, ποιο είναι το όριο πέρα από το οποίο ξεκινά αυτό που λέμε ζωή. Η απάντηση είναι οι ιοί. Οι ιοί είναι σαν ένα σακούλι γεμάτο πρωτείνες, το οποίο ωστόσο διαθέτει γονιδίωμα. Όταν ο ιός είναι απομονωμένος θεωρείται νεκρός γιατί πολύ απλά δεν μπορεί να πολλαπλασιαστεί από μόνος του. Όταν όμως προσβάλει κάποιο κύτταρο παίρνει από αυτό τα ένζυμα που είναι απαραίτητα για τον πολλαπλασιασμό και αναπαράγει τον εαυτό του. Τότε θεωρείται ως μορφή ζωής. Μόλις όμως αναπαραχθεί και βγει από το κύτταρο, αυτόματα χάνει την ικανότητα αναπαραγωγής και θεωρείται απλά ως ένα σύνολο μορίων.


ΓΖ: Η ζωή είναι πληροφορία;
L: Το γονιδίωμα είναι η πληροφορία. Ο ιός έχει μια δεδομένη δομή. Για να αναπαραχθεί αυτή η δομή, δηλαδή για να «ξαναφτιαχτεί» ο ιός, χρειάζεται η πληροφορία του γονιδιώματος. Στο DNA, για παράδειγμα, η πληροφορία είναι αποθηκευμένη με τη μορφή τεσσάρων γραμμάτων. Η ακολουθία και οι αλληλεπιδράσεις μεταξύ των γραμμάτων είναι αυτό που λέμε γονιδίωμα.

ΓΖ: Η εξέλιξη είναι μονόδρομος;
L: Όχι, πολλές διαδρομές. Οι προβιοτικοί χημικοί πιθανολογούν ότι η ζωή προχώρησε παράλληλα σε πολλές διαδρομές. Αυτό που συνέβη όμως ήταν το εξής: όταν μια μορφή ζωής ήταν επιτυχημένη συνέχιζε να εξελίσσεται Αντίθετα οι υπόλοιπες σταδιακά εξαφανίστηκαν. Αν η ζωή βρεθεί σε εξελικτικό αδιέξοδο δεν μπορεί να γυρίσει προς τα πίσω, προς το σημείο εκκίνησης, και να διαλέξει άλλο δρόμο εξέλιξης. Έτσι μπορούμε να πούμε η ζωή ήταν ένας συνδυασμός άτακτης και αυτοβελτιούμενης εξέλιξης.

ΓΖ: Τι είναι η «υπερμοριακή χημεία»;
L: Η υπερομοριακή χημεία ασχολείται όχι με τα μόρια των χημικών ενώσεων, αλλά με τις αλληλεπιδράσεις μεταξύ των μορίων μέσα στις χημικές ενώσεις. Η υπερομοριακή χημεία είναι η χημεία που μελετά με ποιες διαδικασίες τα μόρια αναγνωρίζονται μεταξύ τους και γιατί δημιουργούν επιλεκτικούς χημικούς δεσμούς.


ΓΖ: Ποιες είναι οι μεγάλες προκλήσεις της χημείας τον 21ο αιώνα;
L: Αυτό που προσωπικά με ενδιαφέρει είναι η έρευνα γύρω από την οργάνωση της ύλης, η μετάβαση από ένα μεμονωμένο μόριο σε πολύπλοκες μορφές ύλης. Ένας άλλος ενδιαφέρων τομέας της χημείας είναι η κατάλυση, δηλαδή το πώς θα δημιουργήσουμε χημικές αντιδράσεις οι οποίες θα είναι πιο αποτελεσματικές και ταυτόχρονα θα απαιτούν λιγότερη ενέργεια. Επίσης η νανοτεχνολογία, η σύμπραξη χημείας και φυσικής, και η προσπάθεια να ελέγξουμε τις κινήσεις των μορίων ώστε να κατασκευάσουμε μικρομηχανές με μοριακό μέγεθος.

ΓΖ: Πολλοί άνθρωποι θεωρούν τη χημεία συνώνυμη με τη χημική ρύπανση...
L: Καταρχήν να ξεκαθαρίσουμε ότι παράγουμε χημικές ουσίες επειδή ο κόσμος τις χρειάζεται. Αν για παράδειγμα οι άνθρωποι δεν οδηγούσαν αυτοκίνητα δεν θα είχαμε τόση πολύ ρύπανση. Οπότε ας σταματήσουμε να χρησιμοποιούμε το αυτοκίνητό μας αλόγιστα. Αν δεν θέλουμε να το κάνουμε αυτό, τότε πρέπει να δεχτούμε τις συνέπειες των πράξεών μας, δηλαδή την ατμοσφαιρική ρύπανση. Επιπλέον η χημεία ενοχλεί επειδή μυρίζει. Πράγματι, οι άνθρωποι είμαστε ζώα και η αίσθηση της όσφρησης είναι πολύ σημαντική για τα ζώα. Για παράδειγμα, αν βλέπαμε ένα κατακόκκινο σύννεφο το οποίο δεν ξέραμε ότι ήταν τοξικό και δεν μπορούσαμε να το μυρίσουμε, τότε όχι μόνο δεν θα μας ενοχλούσε αλλά μάλλον θα μας γοήτευε κιόλας. Πάντως τα τελευταία 30 χρόνια έχει γίνει μεγάλη πρόοδος στον τομέα της ρύπανσης. Και μπορεί να γίνει ακόμα περισσότερη αρκεί να είμαστε πρόθυμοι να πληρώσουμε. Ένα εργοστάσιο που θα εγκαταστήσει φίλτρα και θα χρησιμοποιήσει αντιρρυπαντική τεχνολογία θα πρέπει να ξοδέψει πολλά χρήματα. Προφανώς το προϊόν που θα βγαίνει από τη γραμμή παραγωγής θα είναι ελαφρώς ακριβότερο και το κόστος αυτό θα μετακυληθεί στον πελάτη. Σε κάθε περίπτωση όμως πρέπει να ξεκαθαρίσουμε ότι με όρους τοξικότητας η φύση παράγει πολύ πιο τοξικές ουσίες απ’ ότι ο άνθρωπος. Για παράδειγμα, υπάρχουν φυτά που χρησιμοποιούμε, μετά από κατεργασία βέβαια, ως φάρμακα και τα οποία είναι τόσο τοξικά ώστε στη φύση είναι άκρως δηλητηριώδη.

ΓΖ: Βλέπετε να αλλάζει ο χάρτης της επιστήμης με την είσοδο νέων «παικτών», όπως η Κίνα ή η Ινδία;
L: Η επιστήμη είναι επιστήμη. Δεν έχει σημασία αν γίνεται στην Ανταρκτική, στην Αλάσκα ή στην Νότια Αμερική. Αυτό που ίσως αλλάξει είναι το επίκεντρο των επιστημονικών ανακαλύψεων. Η Κίνα και η Ινδία διαθέτουν λαμπρούς επιστήμονες και σίγουρα θα καταλάβουν δεσπόζουσα θέση στην παγκόσμια επιστημονική κοινότητα. Αναπόφευκτα η Ευρώπη θα περάσει σε δεύτερη μοίρα εκτός αν προσπαθήσουμε πολύ σκληρά. Αν δεν φτιάξουμε το σύστημα μας, θα μετατραπούμε απλά σε τουριστικό προορισμό και τίποτα παραπάνω. Επιπλέον πιστεύω ότι αν και στην Ευρώπη εδραιώθηκε ο ορθολογισμός, δεν έχουμε καταφέρει να τον περάσουμε στην κοινωνία. Για παράδειγμα πληροφορήθηκα ότι στην Ελλάδα δεν διδάσκεται η θεωρία της εξέλιξης των ειδών στα σχολεία. Αν αυτό ισχύει τότε υπάρχει πρόβλημα. Αντίστοιχα φοβάμαι την άνοδο του φονταμεταλισμού στην Ευρώπη. Η εντύπωση μου είναι ότι οι Κινέζοι εξαιτίας της κουλτούρας τους δεν έχουν ισχυρό θρησκευτικό φονταμεταλισμό, αντίθετα είναι πιο πρακτικοί.

ΓΖ: Πώς θα εξηγούσατε την αβεβαιότητα των επιστημονικών ανακαλύψεων σε ένα κοινό που αναζητά τη βεβαιότητα;
L: Οι άνθρωποι οδηγούν το αυτοκίνητό τους και πιστεύουν ότι σίγουρα θα φτάσουν στον προορισμό τους. Ξαφνικά όμως ένα δέντρο πέφτει στο δρόμο ή σκάει το λάστιχο και τότε… Η βεβαιότητα, το 100%, δεν υπάρχει πουθενά στη φύση γιατί λοιπόν να το απαιτούμε από την επιστήμη;

Science as Religion (in Greek)

(This is an article commissioned by the newspaper "Vima")

Η πνευματική επανάσταση η οποία ξέσπασε στην Ευρώπη ανάμεσα στον 16ο και 18ο αιώνα ανέτρεψε τον μέχρι τότε τρόπο σκέψης και αντίληψης του κόσμου. Αν και η επιστήμη γεννήθηκε μέσα από τα σπλάχνα της θρησκείας η μητροκτόνος σύγκρουση ήταν αναπόφευκτη. Η Εκκλησία έκανε τα πάντα για να αποφύγει το μοιραίο. Όμως ο κατ΄ οίκον περιορισμός του Γαλιλαίου και η πυρπόληση του Τζιορντάνο Μπρούνο από την Ιερά Εξέταση δεν κατάφεραν να αναστρέψουν τον οριστικό θρίαμβο της επιστήμης. Η βιομηχανική επανάσταση του 19ου αιώνα και η σχάση του ατόμου τον 20ο αιώνα ήταν η χαριστική βολή. Σήμερα, σε μια εποχή ιδεολογικών αναταράξεων, όπου ο ισλαμικός φανατισμός τροφοδοτεί την παγκόσμια τρομοκρατία και οι χριστιανοί υπερσυντηρητικοί επανακάμπτουν αμφισβητώντας την εξελικτική θεωρία, τα αναχώματα ανάμεσα στις δύο φαινομενικά αντίπαλες κοσμοθεωρίες υψώνονται πάλι, σαν ο πόλεμος ανάμεσά τους να μην κόπασε ποτέ. Επιφανείς διανοητές - όπως ο Ρίτσαρντ Ντόκινς στο πρόσφατο βιβλίο του («Η περί Θεού αυταπάτη») - παίρνουν μια ακραία πολεμική στάση εναντίον της θρησκείας, κατηγορώντας την για μισαλλοδοξία και λογική ασυνέπεια, και (επανα)προτάσσοντας ισχυρά επιχειρήματα υπέρ της υπεροχής της επιστήμης.
Αδιαμφισβήτητα, η επεξηγηματική ισχύς της επιστήμης, καθώς και η επιτυχία της να προσφέρει θεαματικές τεχνολογικές ανακαλύψεις, δείχνουν να καθιστούν την οποιαδήποτε σύγκριση μάλλον περιττή. Θα πρέπει να είναι κανείς επίμονα εθελοτυφλών για να ισχυρίζεται τις ανοησίες των δημιουργιστών. Μάλιστα, οι περισσότεροι θρησκευόμενοι – λογικά σκεπτόμενα όντα και αυτοί - παραδέχονται ότι η επιστήμη εξηγεί το φυσικό κόσμο με τόσο σαφή και λογικό τρόπο που η θρησκεία οφείλει να αναθεωρήσει την κυριολεκτική ερμηνεία των ιερών γραφών της και να επιδιώξει καταφύγιο στην αλληγορία. Ο επιστημονικός τρόπος σκέψης έχει ταυτιστεί στη συνείδησή μας με τη λογική, τη νηφαλιότητα και, ακόμα, με τη δημοκρατία. Οποιαδήποτε παρέκκλιση επισείει το σκέλεθρο της δεισιδαιμονίας, του ολοκληρωτισμού, της καταπίεσης της ελευθερίας της σκέψης, και της παλινδρόμησης στην τυραννία και στον σκοταδισμό.
Η επιστήμη δεν χρειάζεται ακόμα έναν υπερασπιστή. Στόχος μου είναι - χωρίς διάθεση να υπερασπιστώ τη θρησκεία - να επισημάνω ορισμένα χαρακτηριστικά της επιστήμης τα οποία θεωρώ ότι προσομοιάζουν στη θρησκεία σε τέτοιο βαθμό ώστε να μου προκαλούν ανησυχία. Θα εστιάσω εν συντομία σε τρία από αυτά.

Το πρώτο - το σημαντικότερο ίσως - έχει να κάνει με την φαινομενικά εντυπωσιακή αποτελεσματικότητα της επιστήμης να μας παρέχει μια ορθολογική και απρόσωπη εξήγηση των φυσικών φαινομένων - σε αντιδιαστολή με τη θρησκεία της οποίας η εξήγηση βασίζεται σε μια υπερ-προσωπικότητα (το Θεό) «έξω από το σύμπαν». Η διαφορά, θα έλεγε κανείς, είναι προφανής: η μεν αναπόδεικτη ύπαρξη της θεότητας απαιτεί πίστη ενώ, αντιθέτως, η επιστημονική ερμηνεία αποδεικνύεται χωρίς αμφιβολίες μέσω του πειράματος.
Κι όμως, όπως έδειξε ο Σκοτσέζος φιλόσοφος Ντέιβιντ Χιουμ (1711-1776), το πρόβλημα με το πείραμα είναι ότι - πάντα και αναπόφευκτα - οι επιστήμονες χρησιμοποιούν επαγωγικό λογισμό για να γενικεύσουν τα αποτελέσματα των πειραμάτων τους και να διατυπώσουν μια φυσιοκρατική εξήγηση των φαινομένων. Το πρόβλημα με τον επαγωγικό λογισμό είναι ότι δεν μπορεί να είναι κανείς ποτέ απολύτως βέβαιος ότι τα αποτελέσματα ενός πειράματος μπορούν να επαναληφθούν παντού και πάντα. Ο επιστήμονας πρέπει επίσης να πιστέψει στη γενίκευση που διατυπώνει. Ο Καρλ Πόπερ (1902-1994) επιχείρησε να αντιμετωπίσει τον Χιουμ μέσω της ιδέας της διαψευσιμότητας: μια θεωρία είναι επιστημονική, όχι όταν επιβεβαιώνεται από το πείραμα, αλλά μόνον όταν μπορεί να διαψευσθεί. Αλλά και αυτή η ιδέα πάσχει αφού η οι επιστημονικές θεωρίες δεν ανατρέπονται αναγκαστικά όταν ένα γεγονός δεν συμφωνεί με τη θεωρία, όπως έχει επανειλημμένα συμβεί στην ιστορία της επιστήμης. Συχνά, οι θεωρίες απλώς διορθώνονται. Φυσικά, υπάρχουν και επιστήμες (όπως η κοινωνιολογία και τα οικονομικά) οι οποίες δεν εμπεριέχουν το πείραμα, αλλά ο Πόπερ εννοούσε κυρίως την πιο θεμελιώδη επιστήμη, η οποία είναι η φυσική.
Εντός των επομένων μηνών θα έχουμε την ιστορική ευκαιρία να διαπιστώσουμε (ή να διαψεύσουμε) την επιτυχία της σύγχρονης φυσικής. Στο CERN θα αναζητηθεί η πειραματική απόδειξη του σωματιδίου Χιγκς το οποίο, σύμφωνα με το Ενοποιημένο Μοντέλο, δίνει τη μάζα στην ύλη. Αλλά, αναρωτιέμαι, κι αν ακόμα «βρεθεί» το Χιγκς θα έχουμε όντως απαντήσει το αίνιγμα της δημιουργίας; Η σύγχρονη φυσική, κυρίως η κβαντική, έχει περιέλθει από τις αρχές του 20ου αιώνα στην μαθηματική περιγραφή ενός αόρατου κόσμου πέρα από τις αισθήσεις, κι ακόμα πιο πέρα από την κατανόησή μας. Το σωματίδιο Χιγκς, όπως τα φωτόνια, τα κουαρκς, τα σωματίδια πεδίων, είναι μαθηματικές έννοιες που κατοικούν έναν ιδεατό κόσμο μακριά από τον ρεαλισμό με τον οποίο υποτίθεται η επιστήμη ερμηνεύει τον κόσμο. Παρατηρούμε τα αποτελέσματα της θεωρητικής τους ύπαρξης αλλά όχι τα αντικείμενα αυτά καθαυτά. Το «Άγιο Δισκοπότηρο της Φυσικής», η αναζήτηση δηλαδή μιας Μεγάλης Ενοποιητικής Θεωρίας (π.χ. μέσω της θεωρίας των χορδών), ακούγεται ως ύποπτο υποκατάστατο ενός απρόσωπου, μαθηματικού δημιουργού – τον οποίο ποτέ δεν θα γνωρίσουμε αφού η πειραματική του απόδειξη θα βρίσκεται πάντα πέρα από τις ικανότητές μας. Κατά πόσον λοιπόν αυτή η επιστημονική «εξήγηση» διαφέρει από τη θέση της θρησκείας περί της ύπαρξης ενός αόρατου - και άγνωστου κατά βάθος - Θεού; Κατά τη γνώμη μου, ελάχιστα. Αναρωτιέμαι μάλιστα αν μια μη-μονοθεϊστική κοινωνία θα είχε την ίδια μονομανία για μια επιστημονικά ενοποιητική θεωρία, σε σύγκριση με μια πολυθεϊστική. Γιατί η φύση θα πρέπει να έχει μια και μοναδική αιτία; Γιατί όχι δύο, ή τρείς, ή άπειρες;

Ας έρθω τώρα στην κοινωνική οργάνωση της επιστήμης. Τα πρώτα ευρωπαϊκά πανεπιστήμια οργανώθηκαν με πρότυπο τα μοναστήρια. Όχι τυχαία λοιπόν η επιστημονική κοινότητα διαθέτει όλα τα χαρακτηριστικά ενός οργανωμένου ιερατείου. Επιπλέον, η κοινωνία αντιμετωπίζει τους επιστήμονες με δέος ως σύγχρονους προφήτες, αφού η εξήγηση και η πρόβλεψη είναι δομικά συμμετρικές. Κι όμως, θα έλεγε κανείς ότι υπάρχει μια σημαντική διαφορά ανάμεσα σε θρησκεία και επιστήμη: ο κριτικός ορθολογισμός - η τολμηρή αναζήτηση της αλήθειας χωρίς ιδεοληψίες αλλά με διάθεση σύγκρουσης με το κατεστημένο, η διαρκής εξέλιξη των ιδεών που διαρκώς κρίνονται, το αποκλειστικό προνόμιο της επιστήμης ως της μόνης λογικής μεθόδου σκέψης και διερεύνησης του κόσμου. Διαφωνώ ως προς την αποκλειστικότητα του προνομίου, αφού και η ιστορία της θεολογίας είναι γεμάτη από παρόμοιες συγκρούσεις με βάση τον ορθολογισμό. Αν βρεθείτε ποτέ σε κάποιο συνέδριο φυσικής για τις χορδές είναι πολύ πιθανόν να σας φανεί ότι οι σύνεδροι μιλούν λίγο-πολύ για πόσους αγγέλους χωρά το κεφάλι μιας καρφίτσας! Επιπλέον, θεωρώ ότι ο Τόμας Κουν (1922-1996) έχει επαρκώς περιγράψει τον τρόπο με τον οποίο εξελίσσεται η επιστήμη, μέσα από τις περιρέουσες κοινωνικές συγκρούσεις και τις απαιτήσεις τις εκάστοτε εποχής.

Τέλος, θα ήθελα να εξετάσω το βαθμό της ηθικής ουδετερότητας της επιστήμης. Σε αντιδιαστολή με τη θρησκεία, η επιστήμη φαίνεται σαν να μην προτάσσει καμία ηθική εντολή. Η επιστημονική αλήθεια υποτίθεται ότι προσφέρεται ακέραια, αμερόληπτη και δίχως ιδεολογικές επιταγές. Μάλιστα, η επιστήμη μοιάζει σαν να ελευθερώνει τον άνθρωπο από τα δεσμά της ιδεολογικής προκατάληψης και της απολυταρχικής εξουσίας, και σε μεγάλο βαθμό - είμαι βέβαιος - ότι το κάνει. Όχι όμως πάντα. Ολοκληρωτικά συστήματα όπως ο κουμμουνισμός και ο ναζισμός βάσισαν την ιδεολογία τους στην επιστήμη με ολέθρια αποτελέσματα. Στις μέρες μας η επιστήμη της κλιματικής αλλαγής έχει προσλάβει διαστάσεις ορθοδοξίας και άνθρωποι που τολμούν να αμφισβητήσουν την γενική επιστημονική παραδοχή (η οποία όπως εξήγησα είναι τελικά, σε όλες τις περιπτώσεις, πίστη και μόνον πίστη) διώκονται πνευματικά. Χωρίς αμφιβολία, ζούμε σε μια εποχή επιστημονικού φονταμενταλισμού όπου η επιστήμη καθορίζει το ηθικό πλαίσιο συμπεριφοράς των πολιτών, των κρατών και των διεθνών σχέσεων. Όποιος εκπέμπει διοξείδιο του άνθρακα είναι, σχεδόν, εγκληματίας (φυσικά όλοι το κάνουμε μέσω της εκπνοής, ένα ακόμα δείγμα του βαθμού γελοιότητας στον οποίο η οποιαδήποτε ακραία ιδεολογική θέση νομοτελειακά καταλήγει) .
Ελπίζω να φώτισα μερικά σημεία όπου η επιστήμη προσλαμβάνει τα χαρακτηριστικά της υποτιθέμενης αντιπάλου της. Η πρότασή μου είναι να επανέλθει το κέντρο στον πολωμένο διάλογο ανάμεσα σε θρησκεία και επιστήμη, που δεν είναι άλλο από τον υγιή αγνωστικισμό. Τόσο η επιστημονική αθεΐα (η πίστη στην μη-ύπαρξη του Θεού) όσο και η θρησκευτική ομολογία (η πίστη στην ύπαρξη του Θεού) βασίζονται εξίσου σε αναπόδεικτες ιδέες. Θεωρώ ότι τόσο η επιστήμη όσο και η κοινωνία θα εξελιχθούν καλύτερα όταν επανέλθει στη συλλογική μας μνήμη το περίφημο λογοπαίγνιο του Σωκράτη περί της επιγνώσεως της αγνοίας. Γινόμαστε σοφότεροι μόνον όταν αντιλαμβανόμαστε ένα ακόμα μέρος της άγνοιάς μας. Κι αυτό δεν είναι καθόλου κακό. Ας διατηρήσουμε τον σκεπτικισμό μας, τόσο για τη θρησκεία όσο και για την επιστήμη. Ο πραγματικός εχθρός είναι η απόλυτη βεβαιότητα.

The post-scientific era is here

Counterknowledge, the corpus of pseudofactual narratives that dominate much of today’s discourse, shocks many in the scientific community. I often talk to scientists who cannot comprehend why intelligent people, some with science degrees, are so gullible that they take homeopathy drugs, read their horoscopes and believe that aliens frequently visit our planet aboard UFOs. Richard Dawkins has been prominent in forging a camp of polemical atheists who, presumably fed up with counterknowledge, have raised their intellectual arms against the resurgence of religion. Meanwhile, creationism gains ground in the west and is the dominant belief in the Muslim world as well as among Muslims living in western countries. I am told that the President of China has been reported claiming that Chinese vessels circumnavigated the world in 1421 and established colonies in South America. Is the world going crazy? It seems to me that the world has entered a post-scientific era. The Enlightment project, still unfinished, is on the defense everywhere. A medieval mentality had returned whereby belief is more important than fact, where connections and patterns between disparate things are put together in order to “prove” the most incredible things. The media, applying the only filter they care for (i.e. ratings) propagate these narratives and thus legitimize them further. The results range from comical to tragic. People in South Africa have been dying of AIDS because their ex-President believed that the disease is not caused by a virus but by social conditions. Scientists have a new social responsibility. They cannot hide in their labs, watch the other way, delegate the issue to politicians. If they do, soon there may be no labs. If the trends of today are left unchecked, then in the not-so-distant future tax money may be diverted to building astrological observatories and laws may be enacted that require the ritualistic blessings of "enlightened" beings in order for society to function. Dawkins has been criticized for causing a “polarization” between science and religion. My opinion is that he has not caused anything of the kind; he has simply shown to the rest of us that such a polarization already exists and we should wake up and do something about it. The future could well be of a world in possession of nuclear technology and the lack of rational thinking. Imagine the Crusaders attacking medieval Jerusalem with atom bombs and you’ll get the picture. This is the definition of a nightmare.

Cyborgs - 1

Augmenting physical ability by making use of techno-prostheses is as instinctive to primates as the sticks that some chimpanzees use to extract termites from their nests. The whole edifice of technological civilization has been exactly that, to implement knowledge collected on natural processes in order to achieve supernatural ends. It should therefore not come as a surprise that a fusion of machine and body has become ever so prominent in the last few years. The difference is one of interface, or to be more succinct, of intimacy. It is one thing to sit in your car and drive at a hundred miles per hour and a completely different thing to be running at a hundred miles per hour using a pair cyber-legs – or is it? I would argue that although it may “feel” different it is basically one and the same. But I guess the real issue with cyborg technology is not adding a few degrees of extra functionality to our bodies. Simply by wearing a pair of glasses and correcting my shortsightedness I have already done so. The real issued emerges when the human brain is part of the interface, when the intimacy between body and machine reaches the level of our neurons. Deep brain stimulation works miracles with patients suffering with severe symptoms of Parkinson’s disease, and yet the ethical repercussions of this “intrusion” send shivers up the backs of ordinary folk. Is this the dawn of a post-human era? Of creatures half-machine and half-human? Where the “self” is modulated by electrical currents and electrodes implanted in the brain? And what would that mean for Free Will? These are too many questions to ask at once, so let me try to unravel each one in turn, in the light of the New Narrative. A central thesis of the New Narrative is the deconstruction of Self. This is something that began in earnest with the introduction of psychoanalytic theory in the mainstream culture. The “discovery of the subconscious” blew the foundations of assumed rationality sky high. It is perhaps rather amazing that it took a century for economists to factor the human subconscious into their theories – but this is, I believe, a fine example of the permeability of the New Narrative, a subject that I shall return to. To return to my current analysis, the result of deconstructing the Self has been that cyber dreams are interpreted as horrors, in the same manner that a room of magic mirrors modulates our reflection to the extend that it becomes another “us” out-there. The rationalists would have no trouble realizing that cyborg technology does not alter a thing. But we are not rationalists, not any more. We are the heroes of a narrative that self-describes our existence using a new code of ethics based on deconstruction. According to this code, we are all post-human, in the sense that our biology has been enhanced by technology, chemically, electrically, mechanically, members of an interconnected hive called the Web, our “collective consciousness”. The questions we therefore ask are completely out of context. When we ask, for example, where is “Free Will” in the case of electrical brain modulation, we are directing the question to our past, not our present, and certainly not to our future. Thus, the question lingers on unanswered, for it is unanswerable. A better question might have been: can we modulate Free Will in order to achieve a more harmonious society?

The political anticlimax of climatic change

This article was commissioned for the Athens News

Our planet is warming up. Scientists agree that global average temperature is about 0.6oC higher than it was a century ago and that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30 percent over the past 200 years, mostly because of the burning of fossil fuels. Although the causal link between the increase in greenhouse gases and global warming cannot be unequivocally established, there is widespread consensus amongst scientists that global warming is man-made. There are data that contradict this consensus; for example, satellite measurements of the upper atmosphere where temperatures have remained virtually unchanged and deep ocean temperature measurements which indicate that oceans are in fact cooling. Other factors may be attributing to global warming too, such as atmospheric soot, land-use change, and solar variations, as well as natural processes which we do not understand yet. Scientists, in trying to understand disparate data and thus explain global warming, build so-called models, which are mathematical simulations of measured facts and logical hypotheses. These models are run on powerful computers and their efficacy is tested by means of their predictability. Current climate models are quite sophisticated and most of them predict a rise in global temperatures of around 10C in the next 50 to 100 years.
It is important to understand that although few disagree that global warming is real, the interplay between anthropogenic climate forcings and natural processes is a difficult one to establish. Our planet is an extremely complex system of natural feedback systems in constant interplay and, therefore, in unremitting change. For example, the history of climate on Earth, as revealed by science, shows that 500 million years ago temperatures were 80C higher than today; and levels of carbon dioxide many times higher too. Antarctica glaciated around 30 million years ago, probably due to plate tectonics that caused a restriction in the flow of ocean currents. Temperatures started falling below today’s average around 3 million years ago and the world entered into alternating ice-age cycles, the last one ending 10,000 years ago. Since then we live in what has been called “the long summer”, and it is no coincidence that farming and civilization arose around the same time.

Faced with undoubted scientific facts as well as scientific uncertainties, pressured from environmental groups who see their day, overwhelmed by media hype that feeds upon the theme of climatic apocalypse, western political thinkers have devised policies to avert climate change. The main premise of such policies is to “fix” future climate by reducing the burning of fossil fuels today. The argument for such policies is economic; climate change according to certain economic analyses will be devastating and, therefore, action should be taken today to avert future consequences.

Both the premise and the argument are debatable. Earth’s climate is always changing and the world can only accept change, embrace it and prepare for it. “Fixing” is an engineering term that assumes a deterministic understanding of the system to be fixed; something which does not apply to Earth’s climate. We are simply too ignorant, and too arrogant, to want to fix Earth’s climate by twiddling concentrations of carbon dioxide over the ensuing decades. Suggestions for “positive Geo-engineering” (altering Earth’s climate towards a “preferred” state by disrupting natural processes) reflect the logical extend of such a misled, potentially dangerous, and much criticized, approach.

Although there is widespread scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of climate change, economic analyses on the future impact of climate change are very disparate. For example, the Stern Report to the UK government, which estimated the cost of carbon dioxide at 86$ per ton, has been challenged as too overblown; most economists estimate it between 2 and 12$. Other economists argue that funds spent to fix climate will be withheld from other, more crucial and more urgent causes such as world poverty, tropical diseases or the spread of AIDS.

Proposed climate policies are also under scrutiny. “Market-based” greenhouse gas reduction schemes, such as cap-and-trade, promote the development of a carbon cartel seeking to exploit the system to make profits. Political considerations affect carbon markets and carbon lobbyists are having a field day. The carbon markets can never be truly open, and therefore market forces will be perennially superseded by politics and political corruption. “Green tax” schemes, although more effective, will be extremely unpopular to enforce, not only in the US but also in the EU where petrol prices are already heavily taxed by governments. It is no coincidence that, despite big talk from European leaders, Kyoto targets have not been met by the majority of EU members. Everyone knows that reducing the burning of fossil fuels, or increasing fuel taxes, will adversely affect economic growth and jobs in developed countries, particularly in times of economic downturn and recession; it will also put in peril economic advancement of the energy-hungry developing world. It is a dismal sign of our media-weary times that not one western politician seems brave enough to contradict global groupthink.

And yet the world ought not to remain inactive. Dependence on fossil fuels is politically and economically precarious for the West, as the case of Iran, the deliria of Chavez and the conflict in Georgia amply demonstrate. Continuing global economic development and prosperity needs vast amounts of environmentally-benign energy that must be found and made available to all, without the threat of blackmail by cartels and dictators. The long-term solution will have to come from massive public and private investment in research on renewable forms of energy, such as wind and solar, as well as safer nuclear. Climate change is an unavoidable part of living on a planet with an atmosphere. Future generations will be better prepared to face it - and better off - if we, instead of alluding to ineffective policies, we tap humanity’s greatest asset: our inner world of ideas.

Ghost-hunting at Pylos

Searching for the mysterious neutrino particle
This article was commissioned for the Athens News

Imagine yourself in the countryside during a clear night staring at the countless stars that never failed to inspire poets, science fiction writers and lovers. For those lucky enough to have viewed the sky through a powerful telescope, the splendid beauty and immensity of the cosmos acquire near-religious potency. Astronomers, a race of stellar priests-cum-poets of sorts, use electromagnetic radiation – such as light or radio waves – that is emitted by those distant worlds in order to investigate the mysteries of the universe and to explore the evolution of stars and planets. However, there are parts of the universe that are opaque to optical or radio telescopy. For example the nuclei of stars, or the dense centers of galaxies, or the early universe when light did not yet exist.
The experimental confirmation of the mysterious neutrino particle in 1956 ushered a new era in astronomy - called “neutrino astronomy” - that can boldly go where other astronomies cannot, and see things no optical or radio telescope can. 
Neutrinos (not to be confused with neutrons) were first theorized to exist in 1930 by the famous physicist Wolfgang Pauli. They are tiny particles which result from nuclear reactions, such as the ones taking place in the Sun or inside a nuclear reactor. Unlike electrons (which are negatively charged) neutrinos have no electric charge and are virtually massless. Thus they pass through matter virtually unhindered. Every second 50 trillion of those ghostly things pass through your body without you noticing it!
The bonus of being like a ghost is that you can travel through anything, anywhere, anytime. Compare that with photons, the particles of light. Photons produced inside the core of the Sun take 40,000 years to reach its outer surface and become visible by our optical telescopes. This is because photons interact with the electromagnetic forces inside the core of the Sun which impede their transmission. Neutrinos, having no charge and interacting with nothing, travel from the core to the surface almost instantly. A similar phenomenon occurs during the final stages in the lifetime of a big star. When such a massive star burns out it implodes and then violently explodes all its matter and energy into space. The phenomenon is called supernova and is one of the most spectacular and amazing events in the universe. In 1987 detection of a massive “neutrino storm” foretold a supernova explosion 18 hours before the light from the explosion arrived at Earth.
Let us return for a moment back to our imaginary telescope. Modern astronomy tells us that all the stars and the galaxies out there, all “ordinary matter” as it is called, accounts only for 4% of the universe. Of the rest, 22% is made up of the mysterious dark matter, and 74% of the even more mysterious dark energy. Dark matter is responsible for the way galaxies are clustered together, it gives the universe its “shape” and it is made up from weakly interacting particles of matter that are still unknown. Neutrinos may account at least for a part of the “missing” dark matter.

With so many cosmic mysteries to solve, the scientific interest in neutrinos is great and since the late fifties many scientists and engineers have tried to develop machines that could detect them. This is no easy feat. For example, if we wanted to block half the typical neutrinos that emanate from our Sun we would need a sphere of water around the sun with a radius of 10 light years!

The coast of Pylos may not hold so much water but it does hold enough for Nestor, an experimental neutrino telescope. The design for Nestor is based on a rigid metal structure that supports arrays of thousands of sensors which detect the faint collisions of neutrinos as they pass through Earth. The structure, more than 10 times higher than the Eiffel Tower, has been immersed in the deep waters outside Pylos, where depths go down to 5 kilometers. So far only 2 of the total 12 floors of the structure have been assembled. The sea water is important because it absorbs most of the light as well as other electromagnetic radiation, allowing only the ever-elusive neutrinos to pass through.

In fact it is the great depth, combined with the close proximity to the shore that Pylos is putting forward as its comparative advantages in competing with the two other European observatories, Antares in France and Nemo in Italy. The prize will be the selected site for KM3Net, the future European infrastructure for neutrino telescopy. At the southern hemisphere, on icy Antarctica, another neutrino telescope – aptly called IceCube - is being built already. Together, IceCube and KM3NeT will view the full sky while searching for neutrino sources, such as gamma ray bursts, supernovae or colliding stars. A final decision for KM3Net is expected within the next two years and the Greek scientists, as well as the Greek Government, are trying to convince their European counterparts for the scientific as well as geographical values of Pylos. Till then, the existing detectors of Nestor will keep on searching for the ethereal passes of the tiny neutrinos, listening deep into the dark waters of the Mediterranean Sea, perhaps the most unlikely and curious place to watch the sky.

A Wh(ITER) elephant?

This article was commissioned for the Athens News

Imagine a machine that you can throw in a few grams of hydrogen – which abounds in the Earth’s oceans – crank it a few times, and harvest massive amounts of cheap energy. And all that thanks to fusion, a physical process where the nuclei of two elements (for example deuterium and tritium, which are kinds of hydrogen) fuse together to produce a new element (helium). The new, fused, nucleus is somewhat less than the sum of the two original nuclei, and the residual mass becomes energy (called “thermonuclear”) according to Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2. And that’s all the physics you need to solve Earth’s energy problems!

Fusion sounds too good - and because it is also true - it has led to ITER, the “International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor”, a 10billion dollar megaproject, jointly funded by the EU, Russia, US, Japan, South Korea, China and India. ITER’s long and turbulent history began in 1985 as a political-cum-scientific gesture towards easing Cold War tensions. The West and the Soviet Union, each one having developed their own thermonuclear technologies, decided to put them together for the benefit of all mankind. The Soviet Union collapsed but ITER survived. After much politicking and dramatic bargaining over the ensuing decades, its location has been finally decided: Cadarache, near Marseille.

ITER will take 10 years to construct, and 20 more years to operate. It will build upon experience gained from previous experiments, such as JET (The “Joint European Taurus”), and will test new ideas and designs for a reactor. Although the science is well-known and straight-forward, the engineering is a daunting task evermore. For nuclear fusion to occur elements have to be stripped off their electrons. This state of “electron-less” matter is called “plasma”. The Sun is a fireball of plasma and its radiant energy is theorized to be the result of naturally occurring fusion. Plasma only exists in extremely high temperatures and therefore no material container can contain it. So engineers must develop something “immaterial”; a magnetic field powerful enough to hold plasma at 100 million degrees centigrade. By 2018 the hope to fuse half a gram of hydrogen, sustain the generated plasma for 400 seconds, and produce 500MW of energy. (By comparison, in 1997 JET managed to sustain plasma for half a second only and produce 16.1MW). Commercial thermonuclear reactors are envisaged by 2050.

The promise of ITER is environmentally benign, widely applicable, essentially inexhaustible electricity. Criticism from environmental groups focuses mainly on safety and waste disposal; however safety is inherent in fusion reactors (if plasma cools, even slightly, reactions stop at once) and the only waste is water. Fusion reactors may become radioactive but much less so than commercial nuclear reactors currently in use; and tested technologies to safely manage decommissioning already exist. Indeed, faced with the huge challenge to drastically cut down on greenhouse emissions, thermonuclear energy seems god-sent. Economic growth, which lifts people out of poverty, increases prosperity and guarantees peace, is based on the assumption of cheap, renewable, and widely available, energy resources. Such resources do not exist on our planet. Solar, wind and hyrdo cannot keep pace with the required rates of economic growth. Thermonuclear, with its zero emissions, inherent safety, minimum waste management overheads, and Mega-watt energy output is seen, by ITER’s supporters, as the only real alternative.

Nevertheless, serious scientific skepticism points to the fact that, although the uranium-fission bomb that obliterated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 has found peaceful use in nuclear reactors, the hydrogen-fusion bomb of 1952 has not. Containing the plasma at 100 million degrees for any economically meaningful period, may be an impossible engineering feat. Furthermore, the prevailing theory that the Sun is a gigantic fusion reactor is currently in dispute because it does not comply with new measurements of solar radiation. NASA is scheduling missions to investigate alternative explanations for the Sun’s mysterious energy cycle.
Could ITER be a White Elephant? A multi-billion megaproject which will result in nothing but water?
Questions such as these have led the US to vacillate in and out of ITER, and Canada to let go for good. The current political climate does not help either. The reasoning behind any “blue-sky” exploration smacks against the “precautionary principle”, an idea dominating contemporary political discourse. In a risk-averse society, playing with an expensive toy full of radioactive plasma may sound like an abomination. And yet we humans have managed to survive thus far by taking risks, by going out there and hoping to discover something new. Stifling potentially vital innovation on the grounds that it is “very difficult” to produce any results, or that it may incur “risk”, may be a far more dangerous proposition.

Big Bang Reloaded

This article was commissioned for the Athens News

It is now official: in a somewhat embarrassed statement, scientists recently declared that Earth will not be swallowed up by the tiny black holes that could be created this summer at CERN. Akin to the paranoia of 1910, when the media forewarned on the destruction of the planet due to the gaseous tail of Halley’s comet, the switching-on of the largest-ever experiment in physics has made news mostly by grace of its hypothetical potential to end it all in one big flash. A group of concerned citizens in Hawaii has filed a lawsuit requesting an injunction to stop CERN immediately. So is this the vainglorious return of human hubris to be stopped before it’s too late? Are scientists, like the ever-curious Pandora, about to open the proverbial box and let all hell break loose?

The European Centre for Nuclear Research (CERN) is a wonder of international collaboration. Situated at the Franco-Swiss border it has been a beacon of scientific excellence since its establishment after the WWII, churning out not only insights into the workings of subatomic nature but also fabulous inventions like the World Wide Web. During the past twenty years CERN has been abuzz with an army of scientists, engineers, technicians and workers putting together the largest, most complex project ever built. It is called the Large Hardon Collider (LHC) and its purpose is to explore the edge of our understanding about nature.
The LHC is a particle smasher in the shape of a hollow ring 27km in length, dug 100m underground. Inside this ring neutrons and protons, the elementary particles that make up the nuclei of atoms, will be accelerated by means of strong magnetic fields. Once they reach 99.99% of the speed of light they will be made to smash into each other. The particle debris that will result will be awash with exotic things scientists are dying to explore; evidence of extra dimensions, mysterious traces of the dark matter that is supposed to pervade the universe, the infamous Higg’s boson which gives mass to everything. The LHC will offer us a glimpse of the universe when it was only one millionth of a second old. In this sense, it is also a time machine which will take us back to the beginning of time.

A tremendous amount of information will come out of LHC, and the next big challenge for scientists will be to record, analyze and, ultimately, make sense of it. To help them, four extremely sophisticated detectors, placed at certain points along the ring, will act like huge cameras taking snapshots of the disintegrating particles. The biggest one - aptly named ATLAS - will have to process data equivalent to 50 billion phone calls made at the same time!
The late physicist Victor Weiss was right to call underground particle colliders the “gothic cathedrals of the 20th century”. The LHC is pushing our technology to its limits, has required the combined craftsmanship and ingenuity of thousands of workers and it has taken decades of collective, single-minded commitment from conception to completion. But there is another aspect in the simile that I find even more inspiring. Like the cathedrals of the medieval past the LHC is the modern temple of worship of the ultimate forces that have created us. Scientists may not call it God but, in essence, is the same: recreating the Big Bang in this magnificent mega-lab will not only enhance our scientific understanding but will also provide the moral justification for our technological civilization. It will demonstrate that technology is not merely utilitarian but, like art, music and literature, it underpins the spiritual fabric that makes life worth living. The 10 billion Euros spent to build LHC are therefore the best - and wisest - investment we taxpayers of the western world have ever made.

So what about those tiny black holes? True, Stephen Hawking has predicted that they will be part of the debris. Buy will they suck up everything around them and start growing fast till they eat up the planet? Virtually impossible, or – to be more scientifically precise – equally probable with a firedragon materializing inside CERN’s cafeteria one late winter evening. Earth is bombarded daily with cosmic rays which are scales of magnitude greater than the energies at LHC, creating billions of tiny black holes every second, and yet we are all still here. If Hawking is right, those pussycat black holes are nothing like their roaring lion cousins that lounge in the centre of galaxies and eat up stars. They live for a fleeting moment and then vanish by radiating away all their energy. At least that is what Hawking is theorizing and, if proven right, he will be snatching one of the Nobel prizes expected to varnish the great discoveries to be made at CERN in the next few years. Stay tuned and fear not. Planet Earth is safe.