By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - The Hedron Particle Collider - For or Against?

akuma587 on 02 July 2008

If it engulfed the whole world I really wouldn't have a problem with it.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Torillian on 02 July 2008

@Soleron
Ahhh....so this is the device meant to help prove string theory that I flippantly heard about on the Daily Show. I wanted to read up on it, but I didn't hear what the guy said. If they can prove string theory in a physical experiment and not just as a mathematical solution that would be amazing.



...

Soleron on 02 July 2008
Torillian said:
@Soleron
Ahhh....so this is the device meant to help prove string theory that I flippantly heard about on the Daily Show. I wanted to read up on it, but I didn't hear what the guy said. If they can prove string theory in a physical experiment and not just as a mathematical solution that would be amazing.

The problem with string theory is that it "works". That is, it can be made to fit with every experiment done so far. To prove it and make it a scientific theory, it must make predictions about things we don't know. Then, when we use things like the collider to get new evidence, the predictions can be compared with the real evidence and we can see whether the theory is scientifically sound as opposed to just a good model.

@bardicverse: Creationism is not a scientific theory because, per above, it doesn't make any testable predictions - it can be added on to to fit with all current evidence. The Big Bang did make predictions, primarily the cosmic microwave radiation background, observations of galaxies and the proportions of elements in the universe.

Since the Big Bang is the best scientific theory we have, we must therefore design experiments that assume its existence. If it turns out none of our current models work because the Big Bang is false, that is also valuable data. The Big Bang theory has been useful to come up with new science even if it isn't true. Creationism is not a theory that would allow us to create new science by accepting us - in fact it is a dead end that says, "Accept this and do not experiment any more because it was all part of God's plan."

 



bardicverse on 02 July 2008
mrjuju said:
You know, rather than fearing something you don't understand (and don't claim you do, the statements you have made thus far have more than proven that you don't), why don't you take the time and actually study up on these things, maybe even talk to some of the men in the field and maybe, just maybe, you will find your fears to be ungrounded and unjustified.

Oh, and if you throw creationism in a discussion about particle theory, be prepared to have a lot worse tones used than Soleron's "stupid" comment. Seriously, this is a scientific field, not theology. Kindly check your unprovable variables (God) at the door.

Ah, that's where your assumptions create your ignorance. I've thoroughly read through the released parts of the CERN report. Have you? Apparently not, as you wouldn't be suggesting that I know nothing of the matter. So, I'd appreciate it if you prepared the conversation properly before making your unfounded claims about my knowledge.

I'm interested as to how you can state one matter as an unprovable variable, when there's been a equal lack of evidence from the scientific side, a la "big bang theory". Theories come in many flavors. An unproven idea is a theory, and to the physical world, both the "big bang" and a higher power haven't been solidified with hard evidence. What if the big bang theory never gets any facts, and proof of it being the catalyst? Does that then make all who banked on it nothing more than another branch of religion, with the praise of the great unproven asteroid which brought life to Earth?

I find it quite humorous how the intense pro-science people cannot see the parallel between their own actions and the pastor of a church. Its sort of like arguing that you and your cousin have no biological relationship.

 

 



Torillian on 02 July 2008
Soleron said:
Torillian said:
@Soleron
Ahhh....so this is the device meant to help prove string theory that I flippantly heard about on the Daily Show. I wanted to read up on it, but I didn't hear what the guy said. If they can prove string theory in a physical experiment and not just as a mathematical solution that would be amazing.

The problem with string theory is that it "works". That is, it can be made to fit with every experiment done so far. To prove it and make it a scientific theory, it must make predictions about things we don't know. Then, when we use things like the collider to get new evidence, the predictions can be compared with the real evidence and we can see whether the theory is scientifically sound as opposed to just a good model.

 

 

Ahhh....thank you for the explination.  To be honest I haven't really read up on String Theory since Physics isn't really my thing, but it's always nice to see another science enthusiast out and about regardless of the field.



...

Around the Network
Retrasado on 02 July 2008
bardicverse said:

In case you aren't aware of this behemoth, read up:

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/03/time-machine-worlds-biggest-particle.html

To sum it up, this is the largest particle collider ever made, and it fires up in August 2008. The theory is that it will allow scientists to study space better, and help study how black holes work and what they're made of. Fairly useless stuff for our day to day lives, but ok,

There are 3 negative results that can happen from this device being used:

1 - Uncontrolled black hole - A black hole is created here on earth, that sucks in a pen, then maybe a book, then a table, then a room, then a state, a country, the entire world... pretty much bigtime suxxors for us all.

2 - Strangelets - Remember the story of King Midas? Everything he touched turned to gold. Strangelets have the Midas touch, but they turn everything they touch into lifeless grey goo. Not so bad, just avoid it, right? No. See, whatever touches a strangelet turns INTO a strangelet. So, if a strangelet is formed, it'd touch a desk, and the desk would become a strangelet too, then the floor, the room, the state, the country, etc. You get the point. The entire planet becomes grey playdough.

3 - Antimatter - For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Matter + antimatter + earth = PWNED Lets just say, you'll wish you were shot by a BFG instead.

Me, being the not so pro-science, see a lot more BAD in this than good. I don't think that the need to study black holes is as important as say, curing cancer or finding ways to clone food to prevent famine.

So my vote on the Hedrom Particle Collider is an emphatic NO.

Thoughts?

 

 

 

 

1) If they did form a black hole, it would necessarily be very small (low in mass) and would effect the surounding enviroment the same as any other low-mass object. (you don't see people getting ripped aprat by holding a golf ball, even though the ball does have mass.) Also, the kind of energy required to create a black hole large enough to make a gravitational filed that could rip molecular bonds appart is far FAR beyond the capabilities of our civilization. I don;t even think the fictional Star Trek civilization would be able to do that.

2) Stranglets have not been proven to exist and even if they did, it would take an incredibly long tiome for them to cause harm because they are so small and we would be stop it long before it became a problem. (if it ever even did become a problem: we don;t know that much about them yet.) Also, did you know that when they first started working on the atom bomb, they calculated there was a ~5% chance of the nuclear reaction spreading to the atmosphere? Before they tested it, they had reuled out this possibility, but you get the idea about new concepts like this. It's entirely possible that stragelet, if they do in fact exist, have this kind of a "limitation".

3) You fail to understand how this works. Any antimatter reaction would only eliminate an amount of normal material equal to the mass of antimatter created. It can't do a chain-reaction as the supply of antimatter would quickly be exhausted and the reaction would stop. Also, even this particle accelorator will only be able to create at most a few micrograms of antimatter at any one time and that would be prevented from touching any normal matter by suspeding it in the accelarator's magnetic fields.

Bottom line: You fear what you do not understand. While their is a very VERY miniscule chance that case two could happen, even that is extremely unlikely and for all practicle purposes is impossible. The other two scenarios could not possibly happen any more than the atmosphere could be set on fire with a nuclear explosion.

My vote goes for this as a good thing, though imo it would be smarter to divert funds to fusion research, but that's another issue entirely.

 



Not trying to be a fanboy. Of course, it's hard when you own the best console eve... dang it

bardicverse on 02 July 2008
Soleron said:

 

@bardicverse: Creationism is not a scientific theory because, per above, it doesn't make any testable predictions - it can be added on to to fit with all current evidence. The Big Bang did make predictions, primarily the cosmic microwave radiation background, observations of galaxies and the proportions of elements in the universe.

Since the Big Bang is the best scientific theory we have, we must therefore design experiments that assume its existence. If it turns out none of our current models work because the Big Bang is false, that is also valuable data. The Big Bang theory has been useful to come up with new science even if it isn't true. Creationism is not a theory that would allow us to create new science by accepting us - in fact it is a dead end that says, "Accept this and do not experiment any more because it was all part of God's plan."

 

 

Thats a much better point of contention. I agree, that by trying to create/experiment with one thing may have valuable side results. The funniest example is that there was an experimental drug to cure AIDS. They gave it to their patients, and while it not cure AIDS, they found that it cured nail funguses on the patients. This drug was later approved and now is on the market as Lamisil.  So, yes, I do agree that there can be good things discovered in the process, even if there is no headway made in the main goal.

Your other point, of "accept this and do not experiment" etc, is odd to me, as I don't know any faiths that suggest such. Sure, yuo will get some extremist nuts who are all against stem cell, etc, but the majority isn't like that. The way I see it, that if on a religious standpoint theory that were created in God's image, that would give us a lot of qualities. If Creationism is the case, then wouldn't we also have the desire to create? There is a primal nature for people to make things, and those who do not get dragged down in laziness succeed at such. I guess I best explain it in my own case - I'm a musician turned game developer. Since I was a child, I've always been creating things, and never stopped. I am a strong believer in fate - things happen for a reason. So, our creation of atom bombs and global pollution etc, its all leading up to something. Domino/butterfly effect if you will. It's ironic if you think about it, since I probably shouldn't care of the accelerator kills us all, as I'd believe it was destined to happen. I guess I don't really care to go out that way, by someone forgetting to move a decimal point (name the movie reference, get a bonus point!). I'd much rather go out in a gunfight. More my style. =)

At the end of the matter, my point is that the world is full of untested theories that might have a broader, more direct effect on the people here on Earth. Like how about curing cancer before you go and build this new collider? Just a thought, science and money can be better applied for the here and now, and when we got that sorted out, then go mess with deep space theories.

 



Soleron on 02 July 2008
bardicverse said:

 

 

 

At the end of the matter, my point is that the world is full of untested theories that might have a broader, more direct effect on the people here on Earth. Like how about curing cancer before you go and build this new collider? Just a thought, science and money can be better applied for the here and now, and when we got that sorted out, then go mess with deep space theories.

 

Yes, indeed, you can argue it is a waste of money. I am not disputing that. What I don't want is people to go around believing that things with a very small likelihood of occurring should stop entire projects. For example, stopping all human drug trials because of the one case that ends up in the news. People will jump on reports like the black hole thing and then waste their energies campaigning to stop the project, meanwhile people continue to die of cancer.

I protest against people who claim to be anti-science (as in, the scientific method sucks) not anti-establishment (as in, this project shouldn't have been invested in by the government).

 



wfz on 02 July 2008
senseinobaka said:
you mean the world ending may no be blamed on Wii Fit.



:(

 

Lets say something goes wrong with this new HPC and the world ends. Why did that something go wrong?

Wii Fit.

 

Well I can't wait to see what the scientists find out from this new contraption. Should be extremely interesting!



hunter_alien on 02 July 2008
bardicverse said:
Soleron said:

Don't be stupid and talk about things you don't understand.

Firstly, the device is NOT used only to study black holes. Essentially, in physics at the momnent, there are several hundred plausible models (e.g. string theory) competing to explain the universe. They attempt to unify the two main theories - quantum mechanics and general relativity - so we have a complete description that allows practical advances in relevant areas (e.g. biochemistry and nanotechnology, space exploration). To find which of the theories is more correct, physicists need to study high-energy collisions between particles and see if the results match the predictions of the theory. Some of these events only occur in exotic conditions like those found just after the Big Bang, which we can only approach by using the extremely high energies this collider can provide. To reiterate: there are a wide range of experiments that cannot be done without the new collider and are very relevant to practical advances.

Secondly, there is almost no chance anything "bad" will happen. These collisions will produce exotic particles and structures like black holes, but these will be on a small scale which cannnot affect the macroworld and decay in minute fractions of a second. The body overseeing construction has just delivered a second report on the likelihood of disaster occuring, and both the first and second reports absolutely rule out any chance of it happening.

Few people with any relevant academic qualifications think there is a 'debate' at all. There can be a debate about value for money, but the collider or similar IS neccessary to make progress in physics and therefore technology, and there is a negligible chance that any of the events you've listed could happen.

EDIT: Your link refers to it being the "World's first time machine". Well, it isn't. Everything is a time machine - the collider is nothing special. For example, it is mathematically known that antimatter is matter that travels backwards through time. Time is also distorted when moving at any speed at all. As for humans time travelling, yes, it IS physically possible but this collider is not a time machine in that sense - again, if the author had any grasp of physics then they would not have written such a sensationalist headline.

Firstly, watch your tone with me. I'm not some kid that you can just drop insults on. Besides, the mods don't care much for that tone, even in jest.

Secondly, the claim, even by CERN, is that the possibility of something going seriously awry is 1 in 50 million. There is a chance, however remote. The downside to that ratio is that there is no fix IF something goes wrong. The theory you stated IS correct, that theoretically these black holes will collapse on themselves quickly. That said, this is a theory as nothing of this magnitude has been done before and is nothing beyond advanced guesswork as to the result.

This particular unit is geared for black hole research, as stated in the CERN reports, so it is designed to be used for that. Will it be used for other research? Sure, but CERN stated that the reason for the creation of this device was dominantly for black hole research. So, I guess that, *gasp* I DO know what I'm talking about after all.

On the realm of research of Big Bang, as it is a scientific theory, what if it wasn't the case at all and the research is for naught but an epic case of crow eating? Since scientists can claim "Creationism" as a religious theory, we have two theories that may not be proven/disproven out until our lives come to an end.

The way I see this device, and even the slightest chance of a global catastrophe, is sort of like a blind person holding a loaded gun in my general direction. Chances are they might fire, or not, and then the probability of them hitting me. To me, there's still a gun pointed at me, and that's enough to make a defensive reaction.

 

 

 

Somebody got insulted on teh internetz ... quick , call the cops !!!

 

 



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!