What Good is a Higgs Boson?

The confirmation of the Higgs Boson brings this question: how can we use it?

Even Professor Peter Higgs has no idea, despite the fact that he is likely to win a Nobel Prize for the discovery that bears his name.

There’s no telling when we might come to realize the practical applications for this particle. If we look at the history of particle physics, our ability to understand, use, and control the elements of each discovery took more than just decades. They took well over a century.

 

In 1733 French chemist Charles-François de Cisternay du Fay discovered that electricity had both negative and positive charges. A decade later, Benjamin Franklin would claim that the tiny particles of matter contained co-existing positive and negative “fluid” electricity. Utilizing the discoveries of the positive and negative charges, Alessandro Volto invented the first known battery in 1800, and proved that electricity could travel through metal wires.  (When I say “first battery,” I am discounting the so-called Baghdad battery, since its function is unknown.)

But the existence of electrons and protons were first theorized in the 1840’s – over a century after DuFay – by natural philosopher Richard Laming, who conceived the atom to have a central core surrounded by layers of both negative and positive charges. Working with these theories, Farraday made his cage and discovered electromagnetism.

Discoveries in the 19th century proceeded at what seemed like a breakneck pace. Then, in 1897, J.J. Tomson developed his notion that the positive and negative charges were actually particles in each atom. In the meantime,  and Tesla and Edison were using the positive and negative currents of charged particles to invent ever more amazing electrical devices. Simultaneously, Pierre and Marie Curie would isolate radioactive isotopes of polonium and radium. The lightning speed of 19th-century discoveries was supplanted by the 20th century’s explosion of knowledge. Within 40 years, we had not only discerned the nature of isotopes, we had split the atom and devastated a country with the raw power of fission. Only a generation after that, we walked on the moon. Each new discovery led to many, many more. Magnetic tape, the computer, interplanetary travel, the microchip. By the end of the century, we had such a dizzying array of devices that even science fiction couldn’t keep up.

Now, in the second decade of the new millennium, we continue to develop technology at such a speed that it is obsolete almost the moment it gets into the hands of consumers.

So when we ask ourselves whether we should pour resources into researching theoretical physics, history tells us that we not only should but must. Had researchers not pursued the weirdly conflicting positive and negative charges present in electricity, you couldn’t read this blog post and I couldn’t write it. We cannot imagine the advances of the next 300 years any more than duFay could have conceived of smartphones.

 

What technology are we missing?

What about something cool and heretofore science-fictiony, like, say, Faster Than Light (FTL) travel? Well, no. The Higgs boson doesn’t change the laws of physics. It confirms what physicists already thought. So, if the smart guys already have ideas about what it is, why don’t they know what it can do for us?

Wireless power delivery would be nice. So would cheap, renewable energy. How about a substitute for plastic that does not rely on petroleum? Even if we can’t go faster than light, speeding up and cleaning up the environmental cost of travel would be a most excellent way to use new technology. Matter transference. Beam me up, Scotty.

Advances in optics go hand in hand with advances in particle physics. Because of both, we know that the universe is expanding, how stars are formed, and where we might find sibling planets. We are learning the stuff of the creation of life itself, which leads us back to the medicinal uses of technology. Hypocrites could never have imagined the x-ray, that allows doctors to see hairline fractures and dental caries. He certainly could never have imagined the MRI. And what about shrinking deadly tumors with radioactive elements? Even the most learned Arab doctors of the Middle Ages weren’t thinking of such a thing.

So, medical applications. We’re missing medical applications.

And there have to be more out applications out there.

We spent tons of money to go to the moon, and many say that we did it for political reasons, not scientific ones. It’s been said that the missions to Mars are just a way to keep ahead of the Chinese, the way Apollo 11 was our competitive “gotcha” against the Soviets. We have to allocate the limited resources we have.

 

How do we prioritize spending on research and development?

Without a bottomless well of money to tap, how do we prioritize where to spend? Shouldn’t we look at what we hope to get out of it?

Absolutely. For instance, there are some who believe that everything we classify as “life” violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because as evolution goes on entropy should increase; life should not get more complex. This argument has holes in its logic that won’t be addressed here, but even assuming that it is true, we definitely stand to benefit from the research. If we don’t understand what happens on the quantum level, we may never understand how life arose. We need to understand how and why life has evolved to better understand our own bodies, the living plants and animals we share the Earth with, and the earth itself.

But that answer begs the question, in a way. If all research is important, where do we start? And if some R&D projects are funded at the expense of other projects, how are we supposed to choose?

We cannot spend all our money only on things that seem to promise immediate benefits. We have to spend on things that do not yield instant applications so that someday we can hope to realize those applications. Faraday’s cage was a nifty creation in 1836, but its use was not readily apparent. Further study in the behavior of electricity showed that its structure protected its contents from high electrical charges. Now, Faraday’s invention is put to a mind-boggling array of uses. Without the Faraday cage, we wouldn’t have microwave ovens, coaxial cable, or MRIs.

And no one starved because we went to the moon.

So should R&D be completely unrestrained?

Physics students don’t have to take ethics courses. In fact, most students of science don’t take ethics courses. This seems somewhat at odds with the ethical outcry that is raised about certain kinds of research. Stem cells come to mind immediately, as does the atom bomb.

Technology scares some people. We should not assume that technology will always be put to positive use. We want to improve standards of living, but negative uses of new technology – and old technology – are still a danger.

 

Should ethics training be required?

Of course, the more technology we have, the more practical applications we’ll find. But should physicists be required to take classes in ethics? Should ethics be part of the continuing science education curriculum?

We cut corners on technology. For instance, buildings wired with aluminum are more likely to catch fire. Yet we continue to use aluminum wire, even though resources aren’t an issue, because of comparative budgets.  this seems to be as much an ethical issue as anything.

And so, at Socrates Cafe, we had this discussion:

Chris: Assume the existence of a supervirus. If it is at only one lab, should it be given to other labs to study? Is the added danger of a weaponized virus worth the risk of spreading it around to study it?

Rudy: 100 years from now, or 1000? What will life be like?

Wilson: Humanity won’t kill itself off within the next millennium. We’ll keep improving our lot.

Lisa: If science is tied to economic gain, how can the fields that are only theoretical really expand?

Chris: Relations between those on the ground and those developing theory. How will we pay for R&D if there are no practical applications?

Paul: Inspiration for future generations is worth the cost of doing theoretical research today.

Wilson: Part of being alive is seeking out an understanding of how we connect to other people and things.

Elaine: Some stuff is just plain fun to think about, like string theory.

Paul: And multiverses.

Wilson: String theory is a cult. The string theorists adjust their theory to fit the world; it’s not provable or stable.

Paul: So, you’re saying that string theory is no more than a religion.

Chris: If we can apply theory to reality and get a predictable result, the theory is proven.

Wilson: String theory is neither provable nor observable; therefore, it is a cult.

Elaine: Scientists hold on to theories, and despite their best efforts tend to be stubbornly biased in favor of their own interpretations. They are just as guilty as the religious in that regard.

Stellus: But observational science bows to peer review.

Wilson: Religions evolve, too, according to the popular will. They aren’t provable like science is, but something makes adherents.

Chris: Let me recommend a book: Doubt: A History, by Jennifer Michel Hecht.

Rudy: Who decides what is worthwhile? In fact, we should define “worthwhile.”

Roxana: If it gives me pleasure, if it has some benefit in the world, then it’s worthwhile.

Lisa: To have science considered worthwhile, people have to believe in it, despite its lack of immediate practical application.

Stellus: Highly educated people work as menials because there are not enough positions available in their fields. IS what they do worthwhile? Are their lives and talents and purpose worthwhile?

Rudy: So, what are worthwhile endeavors?

Anne: Something worthwhile will improve the world. It might eliminate reliance on non-renewable resources, for example.

Elaine: Or ensure adequate clean water.

Paul: Or eliminate over-reliance on electronics.

Lisa: “Worthwhile” is always someone else’s judgment.

Rudy: What good was Hubble? Was the flawed telescope worthwhile?

Wilson: We learned that the universe is expanding, and we got amazing pictures of nebulae.

Elaine: And the optics were repaired in a feat never before attempted. The flaw itself was worthwhile because we had to figure out how to fix it.

Paul: We also learned more about the size of the universe.

Wilson: The knowledge Hubble gave us changed how we relate to the world. Check out the YouTube documentary “Mindwalk.”

Elaine: If we had to choose between science and poetry, which would we deem more worthwhile?

Anne: We can’t eat poetry. Science is how we survive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Updated on July 10, 2012 by