Circle of Trust

"Particle physics is the unbelievable in pursuit of the unimaginable. To pinpoint the smallest fragments of the universe you have to build the biggest machine in the world. To recreate the first millionths of a second of creation you have to focus energy on an awesome scale."

The Guardian

If one understod this observation held to the nature of the very small, one might see how such observations as Brian Greenes could place a six foot tall human being in a piece of the beginning.

Of course I am outside of the "circle of trust" :) here in terms of debating the essence of what scenario's might have an influence on the "safety of humanities concerns" while a whole vast network of scientist and all the like, work in the society around LHC.

There are 1800 physicists (Including 400 students) participating from more than 150 universities and laboratories in 34 countries.

It would be a career suicide for someone within these years established, to say such a thing counter to what had taken from 1955 to what it has become what it is today.

Here Peter Woit might be happy to know that experimental processes have instigated a whole history of developement that is ongoing through trial runs and the sort, for those who will track these histories from the beginning of collision process.

So "Risk assessment," although we had been presented with this outfit in concert from the developing perspective of questions dated to 2003, are asking in light of concerns, how it can be of detriment to having some influence on society?

So gaining ground from a informative stance on where society is today with it's scientists leading the way is important. Do they have "watch dog process" that determines these factors in advance of any proposals that would initiate scientific concerns and risks attachments sanctioned that the process is okay?

I personally do not think it has to be a behind the scene process, in terms of how the watch dogs in society might have revealled their concerns. Were then, given demonstrable arguments as to why there are no needs to worry.

This process in itself might be telling in terms of how scientists and the experiments that are put forward, are responded too, before the actually implementation.

I don't know how this works and it might be interesting from a societal point of view?

Might I use Peter Woits steadfastness to present thoughts about string theory as an example of why such atttudes would be allowed predominance and encouragement, to present the argements for, and against, as to somethings viability? We know now that the commitment is well documentated in what already exists, so I don't think it to likely at this point one could stop the process.

I would be extremely happy to know that extra diensional work, has no bearing on what is being produced, while we get a clear picture of our universe?