James Blodgett on…

Customarily science is left alone to do it’s thing in the spirit of innovation and progress.  Normally, if you want to stop a scientific experiment, you have to prove an absolute risk beyond a reasonable doubt.  But under certain circumstances, this custom must be reversed.  And under these circumstances, it is science that must prove absolute safety beyond a reasonable doubt.  This circumstance is when the cost of failure nears infinity, and then the expected value of the experiment soars to near negative infinity, even with only a small probability of danger.
This concept is called the Precautionary Principle.  It is a widely accepted principle on the issue of Global Risks.  James Blodgett has been studying Global Risks, and in particular the LHC, for more than 8 years.  He has three graduate degrees and though he is not a physicist, his overall understanding of this issue rivals almost any physicist who has spent the last 8 years focused only on specific areas of physics.  In fact, there are very few physicists with a broad enough scope of knowledge to cover the topics of concern surrounding the LHC better than James Blodgett.
James’ approach to this issue centers on the Precautionary Principle, and formulating solid arguments for it’s application with the LHC.  His knowledge as a statistician and his gift of deductive reasoning have helped make a case that CERN is now having to address.  You will read below that James credits Dr. Walter L. Wagner as the Founding Father of this field.  But if Wagner is like George Washington, then Blodgett is John Adams, or perhaps Thomas Jefferson (he may prefer to be Jefferson).
Currently James is speaking about the LHC to a conference on Global Risks.  But over the past month he has made several important posts on another website.  This section is a collection of those posts, which deserve to see much more light than they were getting buried in a vast and confusing forum.  So if you have already read this far, please read all of James Blodgett’s posts below.  They are well worth the effort.

One Response to “James Blodgett on…”

  1. Michael Noonan says:

    There is no argument that scientists, physicists and cosmologists are all very clever people and that much of what is known is based on some very good theoretical and tested ideas. There is a small problem in that there is no actual guarantee that the universe began from a single instantaneous point.

    While that may sound a bit trivial it must be remembered that some universe models predict a rebound theory. That means incomplete collapsing to a bounce position and universe does not reach a single point at any stage. Rebound Theory may indicate the energy being tested was not ever in existence at a single point.

    The indication that something has gone horribly wrong with science is that the Higgs particle fails to show up in the smaller predicted 160 to 200 GeV energy range. Put simply it may mean single point energy was never there to begin with. Since hitting the one TeV scale in 2001 the science has presented symmetry breaking and experiments ‘breaking’ the known laws of physics as achievements.

    One can only stay safely within defined error margins if the experimenters really know what the safe error margin is. It is worth considering.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.