[bt_section][bt_row][bt_column width=”1/1″][bt_text]
The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle ,leaving only the details to be filled in – Rupert Shledrake
The Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is one of those technological marvels, right on the cutting edge of human intellect, as avant garde as it can get. 9 billion dollars, 20,000 scientists, 17 miles of underground tunnels with super-cooled magnets and one expected outcome – the Higgs Boson. That elusive ‘mass’ providing particle. Brilliant accomplishment, Nobel prize well deserved, and yet you wonder. At the complexity of it all, at its fantastic convolutions, at its bothersome outlandishness. Also, at the very visible hubris.
Then wonder morphs into a nagging doubt: Could it, could it have been simpler?
Of course, laymen like us could never understand the intricacies of cutting-edge science, but its grandiosity and unapologetic sense of entitlement set me thinking. Such extravagant use of the resources; time, money, people, for that one ‘elusive’ particle? No, don’t get me wrong. I am all for progress in science, in fact, I am heavily biased towards logic and reason. Maybe that is why I ask; Could it have been simpler? Such a massive drain on resources for ‘knowledge’ that has little connection with our lives. You might revolt at once,”Well, that is the spirit of science. One day these discoveries will totally alter lives!”. Agreed, they could. No denying that. However, they make me wonder about the meaning of those lofty terms – highest human endeavour, highest aspiration and purpose. Are these grandiose experiments a true marker of man’s highest intelligence?
Does the best, the highest, the peak of human intellect look like this?
Or could there be more, better, higher?
Contrary to expectations, no other new particles were detected, but there is adequate justification for it, since the Higgs Boson was the only one remaining to complete the ‘Standard Model’ of particle physics. As far as scientists are concerned, the description of reality in terms of ‘particles’ is complete, so yes, it is justified. Another 100km long particle reactor with energies in multiples of LHC is being planned in China. Physicists have set up more pioneering experiments like the Ice cube neutrino observatory in Antartica, and the LIGO in the United states. LIGO, the laser interferometer gravitational-wave observatory took 10 years (1992-2002), and 620mn$ to build. Observational data was collected from 2002 to 2010, but nothing significant resulted. It underwent an upgrade and picked up gravitational waves for the first time in September 2015. Sweet success, a hundred years after Einstein’s equations first predicted them, and 50 years after setting up of the ambitious goal of their detection. This unprecedented event in September 2015 was the sensational highlight of LIGO’s otherwise quiet life. The ice cube neutrino observatory, initiated in 2005, cost 279mn$. In November 2013, it announced the detection of 28 neutrinos from outer space. Neutrinos, scientists say are found everywhere, but cannot ordinarily interact with our human cognitions.
It won’t interact ordinarily, hence we ought to find a way to make them interact, right? So is this the only way then? Billions of dollars, the best minds, and lifetimes? Are you sure?
Such sizable resource in terms of time and money is spent on experiments with such tremendous liberties, in the name of cutting -edge- science. One wonders if this is egregious creative license which we will have regrets about in a few generations. Could there not have been another way? Is empiricism being stretched too far now, beyond its limits? If experimentation calls for such a massive drain on resources, intellect and time, might it need a re-thinking?
You could argue that experimental physics is a slow, laborious process. That it requires tremendous patience, unlimited resources, and lifetimes. That is how it is done! Come to think of it, if 96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, with only 4% forming known particles, what does it really say about the ‘capacity’ or the ‘superiority’ of science? With some fantastic progress, it took 300+ years to understand 4% of the universe, so at this exciting rate it could take 24*300*100 years more to unravel it. No, that calculation is not far-fetched. One particle, the Higgs-Boson, was proposed 50 years before it was seen. Gravitational waves have been predicted 100 years before by Einstein. At this rate it could easily take many millennia to figure out the entire universe! Is that marvellous?
Laurence Doyle, cosmologist at SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Institute), talks about ‘thought experiments’ which integrate the very-large cosmological world with the very -small quantum one. This thought -experiment uses many light-years of optical fibre cables to change events that happened in the past by changing the path of light! So should the next cutting-edge technology be many- light- years long optical fibre cables? What is cutting-edge, anyway? 100km long machines, the largest built by man, ever, to detect the minutest of particles? Experiments with such high energies that they will break down the laws of space-time to create black holes? The problem is not the black holes created , but the breaking down of laws on the current empirical path. Is this path of scientific empiricism correct then? Is this sublime rationality or just ridiculous bull-headedness? Are technologies like LHC or hypothetical light years long optical fibre cables our only way?
Is technology our only hope to unravel the fundamentals of the universe?
Also, what about the fundamental units of of human existence? Of human life. Why not? What relevance do gravitational waves from black holes billions of light years away, or neutrinos playing hide-and-seek in plain sight have for the essence of human life? Neutrinos and gravitational waves may be important in the course of time, and fun to know about now, but what effect do they have on the core essence of my existence? Leave the scientists alone, you may tell me, they are doing important discoveries! Sure, but what about other important discoveries, of other unknowns, other fundamentals?
Remember, the unknowns-specifically the unknown unknowns? What if there are deeper truths of human existence which fall in this category? When will lifetimes, billions, and the best intelligences be devoted to research them?
What if I say that the wheels which run the complicated machinery of ‘science’ have become decrepit, utterly worn out? What if they were trying to drive a small 1.33 cc engine city car from one continent to the other? No wonder its engine was taking a rough toll! Incredible time, loss of critical engine power, poor average, overheating! You not only need an upgraded model of the car; you need a new way of travel. You need to fly across the continents. The modern empirical framework needs an upgrade, and no, not only a refinement, but a complete overhaul. At least some scientists grudgingly admit that no further ‘technological advancement’ is possible for digging deeper into reality. Hyper dimensions, break down of space time into black holes, parallel universes, these cannot be accessed with technological improvement, no.
Then, we might not require upgraded, refined technology, but a new, different model of the universe. What we may need is a new philosophy for science.
Also, a new empirical framework.
[/bt_text][/bt_column][/bt_row][/bt_section]