:: OP-ED

CERN: Will outcome match ambition?

S.H. Venkatramani

Nov.06 : There is an intriguing question mark over the resumption and continuation of the path-breaking experiments on fundamental particle physics at the Centre for European Nuclear Research (CERN). CERN had initiated a path-breaking project to observe and investigate the formation of matter in the immediate aftermath of the Big Bang, i.e. precisely during a time span of 10 seconds after the cosmic Big Bang explosion. By simulating the Big Bang in the laboratory, the physicists of our planet were hoping to gain invaluable insights into the creation and dissolution of matter, or, for that matter, anti-matter!

With the largest particle accelerators on planet earth, including a few of the largest Linear Hadron colliders, CERN was slated to resume its exploration into the macrocosm cooped up inside the microcosm of the atom in November 2009. But overwhelming safety considerations cried a halt to the unfolding rapid pace of this stimulating subatomic research over a year ago.

But right now the buzz in the campus and its neighbourhood, strategically located 100 miles below the surface of the earth, is that it will take at least a few more months for the institution to hum again with its phalanx of exciting research projects. November 2009 will be an impossibly tall order as a deadline for the research establishment to meticulously pick up the threads of its full scale research once again and get going full steam. The CERN racing track is the longest racing track in the world, stretching to a total of 27 kilometres.

There is also a sullen undercurrent of resentment that is snowballing against the grandiose project. Poised, as mankind is, on the tingling threshold of a daunting and demanding 21st century, we are no techno-geeks and ning-nongs to cower and crouch at the feeblest hint of a pulley, a lever or a word processor. So why can't the CERN establishment make itself transparent and take all of us interested and concerned folks into confidence as to what is happening inside the hermetically-sealed and formidable fortification of European Nuclear Research? The complex is also home to 9,300 magnets as part of the infrastructure for accelerating the sub-atomic particles.

Another disappointment is that the heaviest sub-atomic particle discovered so far, the Higgs' Boson, is not likely to materialise in CERN as promised. The talk in town is that the particle is so repulsive that it will be done away with soon after its creation.

The precise reason as to why CERN applied the brakes to its fundamental particle research has itself not been clearly spelt out so far. A large number of people in Geneva believe that the leakage of some radioactive material from the campus was the reason behind the abundantly cautious cessation of scientific research activity. In the absence of open communication, ripples of fear spasms gnaw at the vitals and viscera of the local people every now and then. A lot of the inhibition is about the foolhardiness of man trying to play God! There is understandable concern about upstart man tilting at divine windmills!

Down the ages, time and again the point has been driven home to us that conquering and vanquishing nature is all fine up to a point. But when push comes to shove, we should respect divine turf. That is why whenever we have deigned to ask fundamental questions, nature has drawn the blinds and played its cards close to its chest. It should not become a case of fools rushing in where angels fear to tread.

At a meeting of the International Congress of Mathematicians on December 31, 1899, David Hilbert, a British mathematician and president of the Congress, threw the gauntlet to fellow mathematicians. He observed that mathematicians had, till then, been happily cruising along on the basis of deductive logic and self-evident axioms. But can we be sure that deductive logic will not lead us to any self-contradiction? How can we be sure that we will not contradict ourselves if we continue evolving and enunciating ever newer theorems through deductive logic?

Mathematicians diligently went to work to prove the absolute internal consistency of their discipline. But three decades later Kurt Godel in Germany proved that it was impossible to meet Hilbert's challenge. Even if such a proof, as to the internal harmony of deductive logic, were possible, what tool would that proof use? Again, only deductive logic. Using deductive logic to drive home the sanctity of deductive logic is like presuming what has to be established. It will be a classic case of "post hoc, ergo proctor hoc", a splendid illustration of begging the question.

It is one thing to anticipate and pre-empt the onslaught of an approaching infection. To cautiously inoculate yourself to anticipate and ward off a viral infection is perfectly in order. But if you want to dismantle and understand the theoretical foundations of the universe, then, as William Wordsworth warned us, "We (have to) murder to dissect". If you are going to rock the infrastructure of the world, then God had better sit up and take note.

Bertrand Russell used to recount the story of a Cretan who once observed that "Cretans are always liars". Was this statement of the Cretan true, or was it false?

If this generalisation was true, then in accordance with it, this Cretan himself must have been telling a lie when he made the statement. If, on the other hand, the statement was untrue, that would imply that Cretans are generally in the habit of lying. Therefore, the statement should be deemed to be true. So, if he was speaking the truth, he was uttering a falsehood. And conversely too.

Bertrand Russell's classic conundrum was that of the barber in town whose brief was to shave everyone who did not shave himself. But did the barber shave himself or not? If he did not, he did. And if he did, he did not.

With such treacherous pitfalls in the domain of mathematical logic, the CERN project is not going to be a fast track one.

S.H. Venkatramani is a former journalist, critic and commentator based in New Delhi