Freaky Physics

There's a very odd story about the large hadron collider at CERN in the Telegraph, New York Times and other places. It proposes a solution to why the multi billion dollar collider has encountered so many problems - it is sabotaging itself from the future. From the future.

The strangeness begins:

Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one.

This implies that nature has some sort of consciousness or is at least a self-regulating system, able to stop us screwing with it too much like a universe-wide Gaia theory. These are proper scientists, with PhDs and everything. My O level physics and Humanities PhD qualify me to say: Huh? Freaky stuff happening with time?

The scientists have said that "It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck,” . In an unpublished essay, Dr. Nielson said of the theory, “Well, one could even almost say that we have a model for God.” It is their guess, he went on, “that He rather hates Higgs particles, and attempts to avoid them.

OK, this I can handle. No, we do not have a model for God here (and which god would that be?). If this unidentified god hates Higgs particles, why did he make them in the first place? Or is he some sort of second-rate god who didn't make the universe and spends his time trying to jump out of the way of particles like the fat kid in PE class during dodge ball? He seems pretty happy to let us screw up the Earth - is there something out there in the cosmos that he wants to protect? His collection of Franklin Mint plates, perhaps?

The article continues: While it is a paradox to go back in time and kill your grandfather, physicists agree there is no paradox if you go back in time and save him from being hit by a bus. In the case of the Higgs and the collider, it is as if something is going back in time to keep the universe from being hit by a bus.

Something? Is that a scientific term?

What is going back in time? We all know that the only thing which can do this is Doctor Who (preferably in his David Tennant incarnation). Is he messing with the LHC to stop the Daleks getting their hands on it - is that the terrible thing that would happen? There are no doubt some Star Trek time-travel scenarios I could quote if I knew them, but I have a life.

The two physicists have proposed that CERN engage in a game of chance, a “card-drawing” exercise using perhaps a random-number generator, in order to discern bad luck from the future. If the outcome was sufficiently unlikely, say drawing the one spade in a deck with 100 million hearts, the machine would either not run at all, or only at low energies unlikely to find the Higgs.

As far as I am aware, luck is not a scientific concept. And it's very different from a reaction caused by something we do in the present rippling forward into the future and then bouncing back, which would be an entirely physical effect.

Either it's science or it's supernatural - god and luck are not science. They are throwing your hands up and saying "Search me, guv."

On the other hand, if they are right, then a large part of the physics we know is wrong. Maybe we can have warp drive, transporters and Tardises after all. But they might want to stop talking about God and luck if they want to have any credibility.

Simon Singh wins the right to a full appeal: UPDATED

Simon Singh was granted the right to a full appeal at the Courts of Justice this morning by the presiding Judge, Justice Laws, in the on-going libel case started by the British Chiropractors Association.

The judge overturned*, the original judgment by Justice Eady on Simon's use of the word 'bogus' in a Guardian article to describe claims by chiropractors to treat certain childhood illnesses. He said that there was no question of the good faith of the appellant (Simon) who wrote what he honestly believed with the purpose of serving the public interest. *[Edit: not overturned, but effectively reversed]

Laws also questioned whether Eady's ruling could have serious implications for the application of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, which concerns freedom of expression, and said that there was a disproportionate burden of proof on the appellant.

He also commented that the 47 pages of written evidence presented in Simon's defence were on the 'voluminous' side.

The BCA, who were informed of the decision in advance, did not show up.

Simon's case will now go to full appeal, probably in the spring - just in time for the next Chiropratic Awareness Week.

I was there representing the National Secular Society, which defends freedom of expression and evidence-based rationalism.

After the hearing we all re-convened at the pub for a celebration.

The full legal details can be found at Jack of Kent's blog.

Update: The BCA's response.

Update: A fuller response from the chiromancers (sorry, chiropractors):

Dr. Simon Singh has been granted permission to appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Eady. As the Claimant is not permitted to be represented in a hearing of this nature, the Judge of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Laws, did not have the benefit of being able to consider all the issues, nor indeed, has he heard any argument from the BCA.

Dr. Singh has used this case as a platform to argue that science writers should be immune from the law of libel and be free to write what they please. [No he hasn't] Ever since the Eady decision of 7th May 2009, he has engaged in a high profile media campaign to assert that the BCA's action is a restriction of the freedom of speech. It is nothing of the sort.

The BCA supportes and would never seek to stifle legitimate open scientific debate [legitimate meaning 'not critical of the BCA'?] . However, this action is actually a simple libel claim based on the fact that the BCA was maliciously attacked by Dr. Singh in the Guardian newspaper. When given the opportunity to retract his words and apologise, Dr. Singh refused. This claim has been brought to restore the good reputation of the BCA and that of its members.[Good luck with that]

Dr. Singh may now put his case before a full Court of Appeal. Here the BCA will, for the first time, have the opportunity to present its case. The BCA remains confident that once in possession of all the facts the presiding judges will refuse the Appeal.

And comment on it here.

And an excellent article by Allen Green (Jack of Kent's alter ego) here.

Update: The BCA has now changed its press release to remove the possibly libellous accusation. The words 'maliciously attacked' (in bold above) have been replaced by 'libelled'. They have now pretty much run out of feet to shoot themselves in.

Is nothing sacred?

It's National Chocolate Week (although in my world, that's every week) and the purveyors of something that looks like chocolate but smells considerably worse are trying to muscle in. Is nothing sacred?

Russell Grant has consulted his astrological charts and listened to the voice of the cosmos to come up with a list of which chocolate is best suited to each star sign. According to him, my star sign - Libra - likes the finer things in life and is likely to choose soft and smooth chocolate fillings preferably wrapped in a heart-shaped box to share with their partner. Hand-made chocolate moulded in novelty shapes will amuse this chocolate lover.

No. I like large bars of dark chocolate, preferably Green & Black's Maya Gold or Cherry. Or anything by Paul Young of Islington (I would never normally advertise in my blog but this is chocolate and all normal rules are suspended).

Novelty chocolate shapes? Yes - chocolate shaped like a very large bar of chocolate. Oh and Russ, I don't share my chocolate with ANYONE. My ideal partner is a diabetic.

To capture the diet market, or possibly to guilt-trip anyone overweight, there is a chocolate face mask being advertised for Chocolate Week. According to the advert, Cocoa is packed with antioxidants to smooth skin, macadamia nut oil moisturizes, and almond oil reduces imflammation. Let's ignore all the research that has found anti-oxidants do sod all, then. [Edited to add: now there is some evidence that they may increase the chances of developing type 2 diabetes]

And why would your face be inflamed in the first place? Perhaps from weeping because some bugger bought you this stuff instead of the real thing. Eminence Organic Skincare Mousse Hydration Masque costs £36 for 60ml. That's a teeny tiny pot with a very big name.

In my local supermarket today, £36 would buy:

78 packs of Minstrels or Maltesers

90 Mars Bars

36 packs of Fox's double chocolate cookies

240 Fingers of Fudge

and I don't even want to think about how many Gü chocolate puddings or I'll have to go out and buy some.

According to Mintel, people in the UK ate £3.5bn worth of chocolate last year - that's £57 each person. Is that all? If that's an average, there must be an awful lot of babies who aren't onto solids yet.

Mintel have also found that sales of dark chocolate almost doubled in the UK between 2005 and 2007. A (female) senior market analyst at Mintel said: Although dark chocolate is still high in sugar, it is rich in antioxidants and is lower in fat than milk chocolate. Dark chocolate now has the reputation of being a healthier alternative to other chocolate. Again with the anti-oxidants. Let's make it absolutely clear - THEY DON'T WORK. Anyone would think chocolate was one of your five a day. If dark chocolate is 'healthier', that means you can eat more of it, right?

Chocolate is not now nor has it ever been good for you (although it is cheaper than Prozac). But it is one of life's essentials. And in case anyone's interested, it's my birthday this week. Good timing.

Motes and beams

Skeptics have pretty good antenna in areas like the paranormal, 'alternative' medicine, bad science and dodgy journalism. Scientific methodology and the vocabulary of doubt come easily.

But when it comes to other areas that are not obviously in the skeptic domain, the radar can fail and we can be as irrational and gullible as someone who believes their great aunt is talking to them from Beyond The Veil. There are areas where the appliance of science fails us.

It's not just true believers who allow faith and hope to triumph over reason. We are all more gullible than we like to admit and we all have blind spots. I will be the first to admit to this; I really do believe that one day I will find a mascara that will make my lashes five times thicker. And I'm a sucker for adverts about new brands of crisps.

We could all benefit from turning our skeptical eye inwards sometimes.

Skeptics buy shoes that are lovely but not quite the right size, consigning ourselves to months of plasters and the possibility of seriously lumpy feet. Skeptics really really need that huge screen TV when the money would be better spent at the dentist. We hope against all reason that our team will win or believe that we'll find a parking space in the middle of town on a Saturday night. How many times has the mother of all hangovers made us swear never to drink again? Is any of this rational, evidence-based behaviour?

We may laugh at adverts that say 'Pay attention, here comes the science' but we all buy body products. It's not just women whose rationality fails here - how many blades does a razor need?Are we loyal to our toothpaste brand because our double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, peer-reviewed testing has proved it to be the best, because our mum used to buy it or because it's on offer? It's only toothpaste, after all. We may do comparison shopping for expensive things but for cheaper ones, convenience and habit often rule.

Technology is another area where rationality may fail. In some cases it fills a need, in others fashion and marketing create a 'need' and then feed it. Some upgrades improve functionality, some products improve efficiency or quality of life - and some do nothing more than run up the overdraft or stop you feeling old and left behind. It's technology, it's the future, look how shiny it is.

Then there is dieting. Skeptical methods may tell us that Atkins does not work and may well do harm but how many of us have failed to lose weight or put it back on again? We know how to lose weight, we know the science - calories in versus calories out - but reason fails in the face of pizza, beer and yes, crisps. And of course, some of us smoke.

How many good skeptics who are the first to spot confirmation bias or the ideomotor effect join a gym only to stop going after a couple of months while the cross-trainers we spent too much on get worn down the pub? The average monthly spend on a gym is £41. 95 and most gyms tie members in for a year. Some research shows that 80% of people stop going regularly - but are still paying - within eight weeks. Joining a gym is often an act of blind faith. The money could be better spent on other things - like shoes. Oh, and justify it any way you want, Wii is not exercise.

But it's when it comes to other people we're most likely to wander from the straight and narrow.

It's human nature to like people who are like us. There is good evolutionary sense in this, it bonds us to partners, kin and allies. We're much less likely to disbelieve or think badly of someone we like than someone we don't, even though common sense says this is nonsense. We cut friends more slack, ignoring or excusing flaws in people we love that drive us mad in others. Until the flaws start to really annoy us and we wonder how we ever found them charming. Or we wonder why they don't find our little habits so cute any more.

Instinct puts blinkers on everyone; a skeptic in love is no more rational than a true believer. The stats about how many marriages fail, how many people cheat and the costs of child support are bandied about in the media. But we hope, we have faith it will be different for us and we believe that this time we have chosen well because not to is to be cynical and alone. No one wants that and no one wants to take a step back and analyse someone's pros and cons before getting involved. Even if we did want to, instinct (or lust) would foil us.

Everyone succumbs to flattery sometimes, becoming willing accomplices in our own deception, wanting to be told that our bums don't look big in this, that the bald patch doesn't show or that size doesn't matter. Women pad their bras and buy magic knickers. Men put on a black T shirt, look in the mirror, suck in the gut and pat themselves on the back.

It's human nature; being completely rational and skeptical all the time is not possible - or even desirable. If we were, life would be pretty dull and predictable. Even Mr Spock couldn't be 100% logical and Data wanted an emotion chip so he could be a real boy.

We're all human, we all make mistakes, we all get fooled and fool ourselves. Nor should it be any other way, even if we do try to minimise the failures. Remember that Bible quote about motes and beams?

UPDATE: Some people are misreading this as excusing beliefs in the supernatural or 'alternative' medicine. Or that I'm saying all mistaken perceptions are equal so we should just shut up.

To spell it out for them: try to see people as individuals, not as targets or sets of behaviours and beliefs to be corrected. You can't explain the facts to someone if you've already alienated them. A little empathy goes a long way.

Most people, on the other hand, got that first time through.

Doctor Jesus

Have you had enough of pain or illness? Have the doctors given up on you? Come to Doctor Jesus.

So says the flier being spread around Manchester at the moment by the Body of Christ International Ministries. Thanks to James Robinson for alerting me.

It also says:

HEALED!

A lady diagnosed with an enlarged heart was miraculously healed after she prayed for a couple of times. Hallelujah Jesus healed her!

HEALED!

This lady had suffered from hip arthritis for many years. The doctors said that it was due to old age and that nothing could be done. After prayer, she felt the pain leaving her. The next day there was no more pain in her hips, she could squat, ride her bicycle and walk in high heel shoes without pain.

HEALED!

Cancer Disappears!

A lump in the throat of a lady that the doctors believed was cancerous disappeared after she was prayed for in the name of Jesus. Doctors did several examinations and could not find the lump in her throat anymore. Glory to God! Lump disappeared! Cancer disappeared! Operation cancelled!

All three of these claims are possibly in contravention of the BCAP code of practice 50.27:

Marketers should not falsely claim that a product is able to cure illness, dysfunction or malformations.

It could be argued that prayer is not a product and Jesus is not a brand, despite the aggressive marketing. But they don't weasel out that easily because there is the Cancer Act, which would cover the third claim.

Section 4.1(a) 8 of the Act states that:

No person shall take any part in the publication of any advertisement -

(a)containing an offer to treat any person for cancer, or to prescribe any remedy therefor, or to give any advice in connection with the treatment thereof;

(8) In this section the expression 'advertisement' includes any notice, circular, label, wrapper or other document, any any announcement made orally or by any means of producing or transmitting sounds.

There is no conclusive evidence at all that prayer can cure. The US government has spent $2.2 million dollars over 5 years studying the effect of distance healing (prayer). Apparently positive results have proved flawed and in some cases people who knew they were being prayed for did worse - possibly because they thought they if they were being prayed for they must be on their last legs.

At best, acts of faith can have a placebo effect - which has been shown to work on pain but absolutely not to work in curing serious medical conditions. This would explain why the woman in the flier with painful arthritis was (allegedly) able to squat, ride a bike and wear high heels. All at the same time in some sort of circus act, I hope.

As to the woman with the enlarged heart, there is no mention of whether she was receiving medical treatment at the same time, which might just have done the job. For that matter, there's no mention either of whether Cancer Lady was having chemo. Ah, right - that's because Doctor Jesus did it. Hallelujah.

There is never any follow-up of people who have allegedly been cured or evidence of doctor's reports before and after the miracle. Even the Vatican, which is hardly the most scientifically rigourous of bodies, is very careful about accrediting miracle cures at Lourdes these days because they are aware of placebo and of the consequences of making unsubstantiated claims - in terms of bad publicity, if nothing else.

If Jesus can cure, why does he need to advertise? Why does he need the all-singing, all-dancing BCIM Healing Nights? Why can't he just cure anyone who prays to him? Why does he cure some but not others? Best not go there... Yes, let's go there. Because he does not exist and even if he did, anyone sitting at home praying and getting cured would not be fattening the coffers of the BCIM. By the way, if you're not cured, it's because your faith is not strong enough or because your suffering is part of God's Mysterious Plan. Not because the product is faulty. Nice.

This is a dangerous and misleading advert, suggesting that prayer can accomplish what science cannot. It may give people false hope or stop them seeking medical advice - or not until it's too late. People who are seriously ill or have a chronic condition can understandably be very vulnerable to being exploited and misled. That's how a lot of 'alternative' therapies operate.

The flier also says:

The testimonies speak for themselves!

No. Empirically tested, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, peer-reviewed evidence speaks for itself.

As to the 'science doesn't know everything' defence: it's not how much you know, it's how you know it. That's know rather than believe. Facts not faith.

I have reported them to the ASA.

Hallelujah.

UPDATE 12 October 2009

I also reported them to Manchester Trading Standards who contacted me today to say that MTS has 'advised' the Pastor both by phone and in writing about the Cancer Act and 'advised him not to distribute leaflets with such claims in future'.

We shall see.

UPDATE

See more here on the ASA ruling.

Jaffa Cake Alert

Fulfilling the duty of this blog to include carb-based posts, I bring the news that Sainsbury's Free From Jaffa cakes have 0.67g of salt per 100g while their regular ones have 0.1g per 100.

Why anyone would want to eat anything other than the real thing* beats me. Imposters and pale imitations.

*0.1g salt per 100g

I Believe Part 3

A quick update on a small victory for science.

In June this year, I wrote about a poster in Finsbury Park, north London, put up by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God.

The text of the poster read: My son was born with a heart problem. After a party he started bleeding from the mouth. I rushed him to hospital and the specialist said he had 16 loose arteries. He went into a coma, his heart stopped and both his lungs collapsed. Doctors and specialists expected him to die. At the UCKG I was given some blessed oil to anoint my son with. Now that his heart and lungs are better I thank the UCKG for all the spiritual support I received. Julia Caro.

At the time, I picked the claims apart and also pointed out that the US version of the poster has the same text but a different couple.

I also corresponded with someone who contacted me at work and encouraged her to report it to the ASA.

The ASA have now ruled against the poster, as reported in the Telegraph and the Guardian, among others. In their defence, the church said: The UCKG does not claim to heal people but believes that God can through the power of faith. Always follow your doctor's instructions.

If the healing is done through God, not the UCKG, does he really need to advertise, his wonders to perform?

The UCKG has more trouble heading its way.

Thanks to Pam for sending me this news story about how Bishop Edir Macedo, the founder of the UCKG, and nine others in Brazil have been charged with collecting money for charitable work, evangelism and building funds then using it to purchase companies which, in turn, were used to launder money which was then loaned to Macedo and other church leaders. That money was used to buy other businesses, real estate, aircraft and a TV station. Two of the companies involved are said to be responsible for moving and hiding over $71 million.

The church in Brazil has 8 million followers and is present in 172 countries. The Brazilian Public Prosecutor is considering filing formal requests with other countries to look into the financial dealing of the UCKG there.

The Lord helps those who help themselves.

All of which makes a claim on a billboard look like small potatoes. But it is important to challenge every attempt by religion to chip way at science, truth and sanity.