The Holy Grail of Science.

[Widows Peak Oz]

:D
Could this end all creationist debates??

AUSTRALIAN scientists are at the core of the largest and one of the most controversial science experiments in history - recreating conditions at the beginning of the universe.

The $8 billion, 27-kilometre circle of the Large Hadron Collider, built 100metres below ground on the border of Switzerland and France by CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research, is due to come online in a few weeks.Particles will be accelerated around the most powerful collider in the world until they reach close to the speed of light, then smash together inside a seven-storey high containment chamber known as ATLAS.

Scientists are trying to discover the secrets of the origin of the universe, to simulate what happened in the millisecond after the Big Bang, to work out how it led to the creation of stars, planets, organisms and humans.http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/aussie-scientists-help-unlock-the-planets-secrets/2008/04/27/1208743316244.html?s_cid=rss_national

Anyone else a little excited by this??
I didn't even know such a project existed until now.

[Lightning Strike]

Well, you have to ask yourself, how did the particles get there in the first place. :cool:

I try not to think about it, there's no point in thinking over something that can never be resolved. Why can it never be resolved? Because something always has to exist before the beginning of existence.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Their?? Should be "there" little matey, and you should know better than to propose that question, because believe it or not, there is such a thing as implosion, and if there was an entity who spawned the particles, I doubt it'd sit around for billions of years before figuring out that hydrogen and nitrogen need to exist.

[Lightning Strike]

Their?? Should be "there" little matey

Thanks for picking up on that, it's been fixed.

...and you should know better than to propose that question, because believe it or not, there is such a thing as implosion, and if there was an entity who spawned the particles, I doubt it'd sit around for billions of years before figuring out how to put hydrogen and nitrogen together.

I don't have an opinion about the subject, it's too confusing and I don't understand the laws of the universe and such... Although, to answer your question in the opening post, I am interested into seeing how this project will pan out.

[Draco]

:D
Could this end all creationist debates??

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/aussie-scientists-help-unlock-the-planets-secrets/2008/04/27/1208743316244.html?s_cid=rss_national

Anyone else a little excited by this??
I didn't even know such a project existed until now.
How could you not know, when our scientists are braving it out there, tut tut;) :p
But yeah i'm really excited. Apparently it was supposed to open August last year or sometime, but it was feared that it would create some sort of small blackhole and suck the Earth into it; what a shame that would be:rolleyes::p i guess only the international space station would remain, orbiting a blackhole.

I wonder if any Christian or other religious groups have opposed the LHC. It sort of reminds me of the film Contact, where this crazy Christian guy blows himself up at the travelling device they were meant to use to travel across the galaxy. That was a good movie.

[Widows Peak Oz]

How could you not know, when our scientists are braving it out there, tut tut;) :p
But yeah i'm really excited. Apparently it was supposed to open August last year or sometime, but it was feared that it would create some sort of small blackhole and suck the Earth into it; what a shame that would be:rolleyes::p i guess only the international space station would remain, orbiting a blackhole.

I wonder if any Christian or other religious groups have opposed the LHC. It sort of reminds me of the film Contact, where this crazy Christian guy blows himself up at the travelling device they were meant to use to travel across the galaxy. That was a good movie.

Lol, braving it?? Sounds like playing with magic rather than harsh conditions. :p

But, just the possibilities, re-enacting universe creation, or it's defiance through little black-holes, toying with light speed, gravity and laws of physics. Only thing I worry about is whether it could create more questions than answers, or fail to perform at projected levels to create results.

Hah, I doubt any religious groups could actually get even remotely close enough to an $8 Billion dollar project to whine and preach. :D

[termite]

I for one am hoping they DON'T create a black hole, I will settle for the destruction of France and Switzerville.:o

[Bitter Jeweler]

Sounds like a huge waste of money.

[Widows Peak Oz]

To try and discover how our universe came about??

I'll tell you what's a waste of money, that goddamn creationist museum in the state of wherever. :o

[Draco]

Hah, I doubt any religious groups could actually get even remotely close enough to an $8 Billion dollar project to whine and preach. :D
They should have built it in Australia;) Plenty of space, no radical groups (compared to other countries).

To try and discover how our universe came about??

I'll tell you what's a waste of money, that goddamn creationist museum in the state of wherever. :o
And a waste of a good, young mind the stories the people of that museum propagate to young children:sour:

[Widows Peak Oz]

They should have built it in Australia;) Plenty of space, no radical groups (compared to other countries).

And a waste of a good, young mind the stories the people of that museum propagate to young children:sour:

Just put it right next to Uluru (haha Firefox doesn't recognise a natural wonder of the world) as the ultimate polar opposite. ;)

I know right, it is wrong to want to suddenly buy a plane ticket to it's nearest airport and test the museum's flammability?? :)

[termite]

Sounds like a huge waste of money.

I agree, it should have been built in Germany.:o

[Draco]

Just put it right next to Uluru (haha Firefox doesn't recognise a natural wonder of the world) as the ultimate polar opposite. ;)

I know right, it is wrong to want to suddenly buy a plane ticket to it's nearest airport and test the museum's flammability?? :)
Yeah nice one;)

[BalticSailor]

To try and discover how our universe came about??


Not only that. LHC wasn't built for this sole purpose.

And if we're talking about waste of money... Anyone remember the pics from Vatican? How about everything that's been invested in scientology stuff?

Of course, one could try to argue that science still requires more money, but it's comparing apples and oranges actually - in case of science the money's not simply thrown away without any chance of getting something, material or otherwise, back.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Not only that. LHC wasn't built for this sole purpose.

And if we're talking about waste of money... Anyone remember the pics from Vatican? How about everything that's been invested in scientology stuff?

Of course, one could try to argue that science still requires more money, but it's comparing apples and oranges actually - in case of science the money's not simply thrown away without any chance of getting something, material or otherwise, back.

Hmm, well I suppose THE purpose (big bang) couldn't possibly be it's only one, is it an emulator of sorts to explain?? Or is it a generator to create and/or destroy to fulfill theories?? Or both lol??

Personally Im relieved it has received that much funding and still remain relatively out of the limelight in general society, most people were too concerned about Britney's meltdown to await the possible ultimate explanation for our being and existing. :o

But to create a blackhole..............humanity now possesses the technology to defy time and space, in a way that is power, yes??

[Dreadnaught]

If they were to prove something conclusive (which they won't), people will just rattle off reasons why a particle accelerator isn't like the beginning of time or how nothing in the accelerator was ever "seen" by human eyes, etc. etc.

In short, nothing produced by this experiment will be plain English and easy to understand.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Ooh such cynicism, come on Dread, have a little 'faith'. ;)

[Zbot]

If this experment does anything it might just bring about the end of the world.
Because they may create another universe inside our own. Causing a second big ag that will obliterate the earth.
Or it could go the Half Life 2 route and open a portal for us to be taken over by other beings.

Either way I don't think we should be screwing with all this stuff.

[Loki]

$8 billion? Are they insane? :bored::down:

[Ominous Gamer]

You didn't know this thing existed? :bulb:
Its been in the news for months, the people funding it even got sued because idiots are jumping to the "its the end of the world" conclusions.

Granted, I would be pissed if this thing fires up next month and makes me miss my birthday. :mad:

[BalticSailor]

Either way I don't think we should be screwing with all this stuff.

Good thing you aren't. :downcast:

[Pyrus]

:D
Could this end all creationist debates??

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/aussie-scientists-help-unlock-the-planets-secrets/2008/04/27/1208743316244.html?s_cid=rss_national

Anyone else a little excited by this??
I didn't even know such a project existed until now.
This project has been in the news for years. However, I think the writers of this article took a bit of an artistic license in describing it. I think they have unrealistic expectations of what exactly this thing can do.

How could you not know, when our scientists are braving it out there, tut tut;) :p
But yeah i'm really excited. Apparently it was supposed to open August last year or sometime, but it was feared that it would create some sort of small blackhole and suck the Earth into it; what a shame that would be:rolleyes::p i guess only the international space station would remain, orbiting a blackhole.

I wonder if any Christian or other religious groups have opposed the LHC. It sort of reminds me of the film Contact, where this crazy Christian guy blows himself up at the travelling device they were meant to use to travel across the galaxy. That was a good movie.
erm, this is another exaggeration.
Yes it was hypothesized that this new accelerator could theoretically create extremely tiny black holes, but such are already believed to be found in nature already and dissipate rather quickly because they don't have enough mass to sustain them. Such theories were in place long before this collider was a rough sketch on a drawing board. The Black holes everybody thinks of are the supermassive ones created by collapsing stars. these are BIG and start off with the mass of entire star. therefore they last for longer periods than we can understand.

You do raise a valid point though. Religious groups could see this as a threat to their beliefs and try to destroy it on one form or another. Especially if exaggerations and/or statements like the one Widows said are made.
If this experment does anything it might just bring about the end of the world.
Because they may create another universe inside our own. Causing a second big ag that will obliterate the earth.
Or it could go the Half Life 2 route and open a portal for us to be taken over by other beings.

Either way I don't think we should be screwing with all this stuff.
Highly doubtful that this will destroy he world. That is about the same likelihood that my taking a **** on some guy's head will cause a nuclear explosion. As for creating another universe, a) the amount of energy required to do such a thing is not something we could get if you took all the power generators in the world and fed them into one point in space. Not with our current state of technology. th only way we could even come close to that amount of energy required to do so is currently speculated to be produced in a matter-antimatter annihilation reaction. and B) any creation of another universe would have to take place outside our own spacetime. In any case, those sorts of questions are the one this thing is designed to help answer.

[DuSt0fF]

Why can it never be resolved? Because something always has to exist before the beginning of existence.

Then that something by definition is part of existence, since it exists, and thus is part of our model.

[Pyrus]

Then that something by definition is part of existence, since it exists, and thus is part of our model.

hence the old conundrum: if god created everything, who created god?

[Kerberos2002]

I didn't even know such a project existed until now.

http://forum.hardmob.com.br/images/bubblerolleyes.png http://forum.hardmob.com.br/images/bubblerolleyes.png

Where have you been living ? Saturn ?

Didn't you see latest news ? Project was postponed till December 21, 2012 :o

[Agamemnus]

Because something always has to exist before the beginning of existence.

Even if it does, the beginning of existence would wipe out whatever was there "before", by definition. So, by definition, "creationism" can never be proved, or disproved. On the other hand, invisible pink horsies that whisper in liberals' ears can also never be proved, or disproved. :(

[Widows Peak Oz]

$8 billion? Are they insane? :bored::down:

What would be insane is possessing the funding to combine technology and discover our very universe's origins...........and simply not doing so, if this experiment succeeds, a new chapter of human discourse could be closed.

You didn't know this thing existed? :bulb:
Its been in the news for months, the people funding it even got sued because idiots are jumping to the "its the end of the world" conclusions.

Granted, I would be pissed if this thing fires up next month and makes me miss my birthday. :mad:

I apologise for my lack of media coverage. :(

I doubt the possibility for judgement day from this experiment is really much of a concern but.

This project has been in the news for years. However, I think the writers of this article took a bit of an artistic license in describing it. I think they have unrealistic expectations of what exactly this thing can do.

They overestimated 8 Billion dollar worth of potential do you think??

Well, at this stage they are merely testing, fulfilling entry-level parameters, I'd say discovering time after the Big Bang may be a little ambitious, but mini-blackholes??
It's a start. :up:

You do raise a valid point though. Religious groups could see this as a threat to their beliefs and try to destroy it on one form or another. Especially if exaggerations and/or statements like the one Widows said are made.

Haven't had an old-fashioned righteous mob in years...........we should give them directions to the inside of the device at just the time it is activated. :)

As for creating another universe, a) the amount of energy required to do such a thing is not something we could get if you took all the power generators in the world and fed them into one point in space. Not with our current state of technology. th only way we could even come close to that amount of energy required to do so is currently speculated to be produced in a matter-antimatter annihilation reaction. and B) any creation of another universe would have to take place outside our own spacetime. In any case, those sorts of questions are the one this thing is designed to help answer.

Well put, though I hope the result from this does not generate more of such questions.

[Loki]

What would be insane is possessing the funding to combine technology and discover our very universe's origins...........and simply not doing so, if this experiment succeeds, a new chapter of human discourse could be closed.

Yeah, we all know that coming closer to figuring out how our universe began is far more important than such minor problems like AIDS, malaria, TB, and cancer, for which $8 billion would probably lead to major breakthroughs.

[Nessus]

Yeah, we all know that coming closer to figuring out how our universe began is far more important than such minor problems like AIDS, malaria, TB, and cancer, for which $8 billion would probably lead to major breakthroughs.
Don't be daft; cures don't make money, treatments do.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Yeah, we all know that coming closer to figuring out how our universe began is far more important than such minor problems like AIDS, malaria, TB, and cancer, for which $8 billion would probably lead to major breakthroughs.

Well, it would shelve all the meaningless debates, museums and other rubbish that humanity has had to endure for centuries, thus freeing up bandwidth, space in the vatican and funding from the removal of religious education. :up:

[']['ear]

I have no problem with funding the occasional big science project like this.

As for "Creationists," this wouldn't prove crap even if it were an easily understood smoking gun (which it won't be.) If they can ignore evolution, which has more data supporting it than any human concept in history and has been demonstrated many times in the lab, they can ignore any theologically inconvenient science.

[Loki]

Well, it would shelve all the meaningless debates, museums and other rubbish that humanity has had to endure for centuries, thus freeing up bandwidth, space in the vatican and funding from the removal of religious education. :up:

Are you serious? Fundies don't believe science that's far more obvious than this. This isn't going to convince anyone who's not already convinced.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Peanuts compared to the costs of some skirmish in Iraq.

With the money used to free Iraqis they could have saved many more lives if that money was directed at curing various diseases. Because throwing money at a problem makes the problem go away.

[Loki]

Peanuts compared to the costs of some skirmish in Iraq.

With the money used to free Iraqis they could have saved many more lives if that money was directed at curing various diseases. Because throwing money at a problem makes the problem go away.

Except these $8 billion were taken from the science budget.

[Nessus]

Which of course gets its money from the magic well, and not the same budget as the war budget

:bulb:

[Ziggy Stardust]

Those 500 something billion would have been better of in the science budget wouldn't you say? Or at least a big chunk of it.

Saves more lives, which was the point of the Iraqi war, right?

edit: Oh dang, it was a defensive pre-emptive war. Shot through the foot, blast!

[Nessus]

Those 500 something billion would have been better of in the science budget wouldn't you say? Or at least a big chunk of it.

Saves more lives, which was the point of the Iraqi war, right?

edit: Oh dang, it was a defensive pre-emptive war. Shot through the foot, blast!
I really don't understand Loki's logic here.

Wars generate profits, and help increase capital.

Permanent cures for diseases cut on profits, and restrict growth of capital.

Particle accelerators are profit-neutral, or possibly slightly profit-increasing, since various industries do eventually benefit from the raw science performed.

Out of these three, only the cures for AIDS and cancer are bad from the capitalist POV. What gives? :confused:

[Loki]

Those 500 something billion would have been better of in the science budget wouldn't you say? Or at least a big chunk of it.

Saves more lives, which was the point of the Iraqi war, right?

edit: Oh dang, it was a defensive pre-emptive war. Shot through the foot, blast!

Whether it would or not is irrelevant; the fact is that the science budget is a certain amount, and this ate into the science budget. And as far as I could tell, this is an EU project anyway, so the US military budget is really not relevant.

I really don't understand Loki's logic here.

Wars generate profits, and help increase capital.

Permanent cures for diseases cut on profits, and restrict growth of capital.

Particle accelerators are profit-neutral, or possibly slightly profit-increasing, since various industries do eventually benefit from the raw science performed.

Out of these three, only the cures for AIDS and cancer are bad from the capitalist POV. What gives? :confused:

Um, diseases decrease population and cut down productivity. :bored: Instead of the workers producing something, the government has to pay ill people money.

[Nessus]

Um, diseases decrease population and cut down productivity. :bored:

Diseased people have to buy loads of expensive treatments, medicine, insurance, etc. And in order to afford said insurance, or to qualify at all, their spouses family members etc will take on extra jobs, so they're twice as productive! Yay! Even the young kiddie-winks might feel obligated to work at the local stores or fast food joints, earning both money and valuable workplace experience! Everybody wins!

Instead of the workers producing something, the government has to pay ill people money.

That's socialism :mad:

Whether it would or not is irrelevant; the fact is that the science budget is a certain amount, and this ate into the science budget. And as far as I could tell, this is an EU project anyway, so the US military budget is really not relevant.


See? Like you always say, the dirty Euros just ride on your coat-tails! You go, Team America, cure cancer! Then you can feel morally superior when we come over hats in hand, asking 'please sir, may we have some more?' Yay!

[']['ear]

Which of course gets its money from the magic well, and not the same budget as the war budget

:bulb:

Don't you have that backwards? I think it is the war that is the "magic well" (i.e. Chinese credit card, with interest). Science budgets are generally fairly consistent from year to year, usually with only inflational increases (except under Bush, which has flatlined NIH, effectively cutting research dramatically over 7 years of science inflation, which runs around 7% due to technology increases)

Just to put things in perspective, the annual NIH budget is $29 billion per year. That's EVERYTHING. So basically, the war has cost about 18 years of our entire health research budget. It's fair to say that we could probably cure a few major diseases with that. HIV vaccine, tuberculosis, malaria, bigger, new antibiotics to counter resistance, better HPV and related vaccines, etc. Could probably have saved millions of lives with that money, and guaranteed another 20 years of the US being completely dominant in the biomedical market, which would more than pay for itself.

Oh well. Halliburton comes first! Gotta have your priorities straight. :up:

Whether it would or not is irrelevant; the fact is that the science budget is a certain amount, and this ate into the science budget. And as far as I could tell, this is an EU project anyway, so the US military budget is really not relevant.

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC the US contributed money.

And I think big ticket items like this are generally not taken from general pools, but instead are earmarks on other bills. So it's not robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Flixy]

['ear;10324279"]

Don't hold me to this, but IIRC the US contributed money.

They did.

It does cost a lot of money, but an accelerator like this is used for plenty of years, for a multitude of purposes, and payed by a lot of countries.

It's not just to prove the big band once and for all :confused:.

[GGT]

['ear;10324279"]Oh well. Halliburton comes first! Gotta have your priorities straight. :up:

:mad:

People with lots of pins on their lapels, or titles, seem to garner lots of money. Hence, the "WAR against drugs" or the "WAR against terrorism"?

Maybe that's why the appointed health official is called the Surgeon General, and Koop was the last dude I recall who wore a military type uniform with lots of ribbons.

[pedxing]

(edit: snipping out the dead horse of military spending vs basic research)

on the subject of "what created all the particles?" and "what happened before the start of time?" there are two excellent answers for this that do not involve magic invisible grandfathers in the sky:

first one: asking what happened before the beginning of time may be like asking "what happens to the north of the north pole?" i think Hawking's excellent popular book was where i first heard this one...

once you go all the way to the north pole, continuing on in any direction only leads you away from it again.

similarly, if you could go all the way back to the beginning of time, trying to continue further may just lead you back "south" again.

yeah... that one needs a burning fatty to go along with it, i think?

second one: the universe may be eternal. it could either be cyclic, going through periodic contraction and then re-expansion, or there could be multiple sub-universes and when they collide it looks like a big bang from the point of view of the sub-universe that has been hit, or existing universes could spawn off baby universes that look (from the mama universe's point of view) like black holes on the outside.

all this aside, the big point of this experiment is to answer the question "why is there mass? why isn't everything massless?"

it's much easier to make theories where everything is massless. adding a reason for some things to have mass, and some of those to have more than others, takes great cleverness, and it can be done in several different ways.

each of these different ways makes different predictions about what the LHC will see in its experiments, so in a few years, we should know which of the current predictions are wrong, which theories may be discarded...

this is a very exiting time for theoretical physicists! :heart::up:

[Widows Peak Oz]

Are you serious? Fundies don't believe science that's far more obvious than this. This isn't going to convince anyone who's not already convinced.

I disagree, science and scientists have rarely caught the general (degenerative) public's eye on the religious angle for some time, but this experiment is broadcasted and hardly something even the most hard-headed fundie can ignore.

Since this could undermine essentially centuries of stern-faced righteousness commanding belief in creationism, there really isn't anywhere for fundies to escape to, the Big Bang can be proved, which practically means that Religion is a human construct with NO outside influence.

How can they not take notice??

all this aside, the big point of this experiment is to answer the question "why is there mass? why isn't everything massless?"

it's much easier to make theories where everything is massless. adding a reason for some things to have mass, and some of those to have more than others, takes great cleverness, and it can be done in several different ways.

each of these different ways makes different predictions about what the LHC will see in its experiments, so in a few years, we should know which of the current predictions are wrong, which theories may be discarded...

this is a very exiting time for theoretical physicists! :heart::up:

Really??
So is it essentially discovering why everything is as it is?? Or if everything is actually as we have thought??

Im fascinated but totally stranded by the path I've chosen, I did physics in high school so I have a rough inkling as to what's involved, but what theories apart from universe inception are they waiting to confirm/disprove??

[teclis]

I disagree, science and scientists have rarely caught the general (degenerative) public's eye on the religious angle for some time, but this experiment is broadcasted and hardly something even the most hard-headed fundie can ignore.

Since this could undermine essentially centuries of stern-faced righteousness commanding belief in creationism, there really isn't anywhere for fundies to escape to, the Big Bang can be proved, which practically means that Religion is a human construct with NO outside influence.

How can they not take notice??

Um, just because we are sure something happened, doesn't mean God didn't have a hand it it. :noob:

[Loki]

I disagree, science and scientists have rarely caught the general (degenerative) public's eye on the religious angle for some time, but this experiment is broadcasted and hardly something even the most hard-headed fundie can ignore.

Since this could undermine essentially centuries of stern-faced righteousness commanding belief in creationism, there really isn't anywhere for fundies to escape to, the Big Bang can be proved, which practically means that Religion is a human construct with NO outside influence.

How can they not take notice??

Um, the same way fundies refuse to believe in evolution? :bored:

[BalticSailor]

Since this could undermine essentially centuries of stern-faced righteousness commanding belief in creationism, there really isn't anywhere for fundies to escape to, the Big Bang can be proved, which practically means that Religion is a human construct with NO outside influence.

How can they not take notice??


EEEEEEeeeeasy!

"Well, yeah, but god made big bang, lol!"

[Pyrus]

Really??
So is it essentially discovering why everything is as it is?? Or if everything is actually as we have thought??

Im fascinated but totally stranded by the path I've chosen, I did physics in high school so I have a rough inkling as to what's involved, but what theories apart from universe inception are they waiting to confirm/disprove??

Well. String Theory for one.

If you want to understand more about what these experiments are all about, i reccomend doing a little reading. here are two books I can come up with off the top of my head:
The Elegant Universe by Brian Green
The Theory of Everything by Steven Hawking

[pedxing]

yeah, standard model, string theory, super-symmetry, super-gravity, E8-theory, etc... as i recall, all of them predict at least slightly different things that we will see when the LHC fires up.

when we see what we actually see, we'll know which of those ideas we don't need to keep asking grad students to work on. :haha:

i'm also waiting for the results from when the next generation Microwave Background Anisotropy satellite goes up...

it should be able to tell the difference between smoothing due to big-bang inflation, and smoothing due to initial conditions left over from the previous cycle of a cyclic universe. :up:

[Mack_Tien]

A waste of $8 billion dollars, especially on this nonsense. This is the only thing I truly love about science, they fail all the time and use their "theories" to keep hope alive. Bravo.

[BalticSailor]

A waste of $8 billion dollars, especially on this nonsense.
As if you understand anything about particle physics. Tell us, please, how exactly is this "nonsense"?

Also, "fails all the time and uses their "theories" to keep hope alive" - that's not what science does. That is what YOU do. The description's so accurate I can almost taste the irony...

[Widows Peak Oz]

The Holy Grail of the experiment is to detect a particle that exists only in theory - the Higgs particle. Named after the Scottish scientist Peter Higgs who theorised it must exist, it is a particle that existed for a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang and is responsible for all other particles having mass.

For that reason it's also been dubbed the God Particle, a term scientists such as Dr Varvell sniff at. "That's an expression I don't like," he said.

"In theory a Higgs could be created in the extreme conditions of the collision. But it will exist for only a fraction of a second and we will follow its traces in our detector."

I suggest everyone simply ignore Cain, since he didn't even read the article in the first place. :o

[Dattu]

Sounds like a huge waste of money.

To you it does, but it does provide an exciting opportunity for scientists worldwide to better their understanding of particle physics. Judging from the comments, this is the accelerator that has people panicking over whether a miniature black hole will be formed. IIRC, it's only a practically infinitesimal possibility.

I wonder what kind of results CERN will yield and how they may apply to us in the future.

I disagree, science and scientists have rarely caught the general (degenerative) public's eye on the religious angle for some time, but this experiment is broadcasted and hardly something even the most hard-headed fundie can ignore.

Since this could undermine essentially centuries of stern-faced righteousness commanding belief in creationism, there really isn't anywhere for fundies to escape to, the Big Bang can be proved, which practically means that Religion is a human construct with NO outside influence.

How can they not take notice??

You underestimate the faith of the super-religious. I think that the people who flat-out refuse to consider the possibility of evolution will also denounce any results this may have.

[XopePoquar]

Didn't microprocessors come out of quantum mechanics which was discovered from "stupid wastes of money" like this?

[simtanic8]

Im with Bitter Jeweler on this one, It sounds like a waste of money. That money could go to more important research like how to cure cancer or going and feeding the poor. Im sorry but I just dont think its right seeing how the universe was made. We have no clue how big the universe is and how many galaxies, stars, and planets there are. I am just saying why question whats out there when we dont even know half of what is here infront of us.

~Simtanic8

[Dattu]

Actually, IIRC, it's not even mathematically possible, because there's a lower limit on the amount of mass required to create a black hole, but even if it was possible...

A) Such a black hole would have an event horizon many times smaller than a single sub atomic particle (and as such would have a lot of trouble growing in size, or "sucking" anything else in.)

B) Would evaporate almost instantaneously due to "Hawking radiation" and other quantum effects (Basically, even matter has wavelengths.. "vibrate," so to speak, and all the tiny particles in this mini black hole would eventually vibrate into a position beyond the event horizon, and escape... leaving nothing behind.)

And there we go. No reason to employ fear to prevent progress now.

[Steely Glint]

Im with Bitter Jeweler on this one, It sounds like a waste of money. That money could go to more important research like how to cure cancer or going and feeding the poor. Im sorry but I just dont think its right seeing how the universe was made. We have no clue how big the universe is and how many galaxies, stars, and planets there are. I am just saying why question whats out there when we dont even know half of what is here infront of us.

~Simtanic8

Many important discoveries and breakthroughs have come because of 'wastes of money' like this. Increasing the general body of knowlage is a Good Thing.

Plus, presumably, the Particle Accelerator they built won't be demolished after the conclusion of the experiment. It can run all kinds of experiments with which we could learn all kinds about physics and enable practical breakthroughs 10 or 20 years down the road which might well revolutionise society as much as the automobile or the microprocessor.

[pedxing]

That money could go to more important research like how to cure cancer or going and feeding the poor.
should all money go to these purposes? is any money spent on anything else wasted? or can some money be used for other things than these noble goals?

Im sorry but I just dont think its right seeing how the universe was made. We have no clue how big the universe is and how many galaxies, stars, and planets there are.
actually, we have a pretty good clue, because we've "wasted" a lot of money and time, building telescopes and putting up satellites.

as a result, we've got a good idea of how old the universe is, how fast it has been expanding, how much luminous matter (aka stars) it contains, how clumpy that matter is, and how long the oldest stars have been shining.

in the last two decades, we've started detecting planets in orbit around other stars, and continue to increase our abilities to do so faster and more accurately. we should be able to observe the atmospheric composition of earth-sized planets around other stars, in not too many more years.

so, really, what you are saying is, you have no clue?

I am just saying why question whats out there when we dont even know half of what is here infront of us.
why question? why question?!? :mad:

with that attitude, we would still think that the Earth is the center of the universe, that the Sun goes 'round it, and that the stars are attached to a celestial sphere that encloses the whole thing. :rolleyes:

is that really what you think? that it's "not right" to try to escape the shackles of such ignorence? :weird:

[Nessus]

Gnosis is the greatest heresy, and the greatest sin.

[ShipperS7]

Their?? Should be "there" little matey, and you should know better than to propose that question, because believe it or not, there is such a thing as implosion, and if there was an entity who spawned the particles, I doubt it'd sit around for billions of years before figuring out that hydrogen and nitrogen need to exist.

"Years," or anything else that we've created, for that matter, as a measure of time is relative; you know that, right?

The fact that you expect this "holy grail of science" to resolve some debate which already exists arbitrarily is laughable. One side will laud its results as supportive of their position, and the other side, whose argument is not truly based in what is commonly accepted as logic anyways and hasn't really ever been, will just find some other way to justify their beliefs.

And they will; the reason your expectation is laughable is because what are colloquially referred to as "science" and "creationism" are by no means mutually exclusive. "Science" has become as much a religion as Christianity. Yes, for example, while perhaps unrelated to the thread, evolution is obviously supported by tangible evidence; no, the presence of a process like evolution does not preclude the existence of a god or gods, and asserting that it does have that implication is just as baseless and illogical as asserting that a god definitely existed to create the universe, or exists now.

As an agnostic, do you want to know what I find horribly ironic about this entire public dialogue of "evolution" versus "creationism?" Most religious people I meet - who I'm personally acquainted with - are not at all imposing in their beliefs, whereas most fellow non-religious atheists and agnostics - that I am personally acquainted with - are overbearing, arrogant, self-absorbed in their reasoning, and incredibly zealous in attempting to show dissenters why they are wrong. Some of the most distasteful conversations I've ever had have been with such people.

Yes, on the other hand, people like Lewkowski do exist, but they are in the minority. If you want to appeal to logic, you must allow for the fact that making a hasty generalization about all religious people based on whatever you see in the media or on this board, or lining the streets of your local community is an informal logical fallacy, and while we're on that topic, so is concluding the existence or non-existence of a thing which has been assumed to exist or not exist by your premises. It's called, predictably, an existential fallacy.

Before someone makes an accusation of pedantry, come now, that's logic 101. It is a basic knowledge and understanding of the principles of inductive and deductive logic and their respective fallacies, and you can attain that level of understanding by taking a six-week summer course at your local community college, or, more simply, opening a wikipedia search for "logical fallacies." Further, based on informal observations I find that a sizable portion of the people who so desperately cling to and extrapolate some sort of belief regarding the non-existence of god as evinced by evolution, at least in my experience, are unconsciously employing their belief as either a means by which they conform with a desirable social norm or as a compensatory mechanism to degrade or devalue something (religion) which they perceive seeks to degrade or devalue them, just as religious zealots tend to quite obviously identify with religion because of fear.

Sorry, but you're absolutely delusional if you think that we're going to have anything close to resembling a shred of understanding about the mechanics of our universe because of the LHC. It could certainly allow us to progress in that direction, but I very, very seriously doubt that it is "the holy grail of science."

And on the topic of waste, no, this apparatus is not a waste of money, because I would be willing to bet that the $8bn slated for its construction would have gone to fund that field anyways, or, given the nature of western society, something that did not include solving the world's practical problems.

Besides, Widow, what of the massive amounts of energy, time, and perhaps money that are wasted attempting to logically disprove something that few of its proponents or opponents actually believe is based in logic? How is that logical?

I don't think anyone has any idea what the **** is going on, churchgoers in Kansas as equally as technicians at JPL. Let's stop pretending Charles Darwin conclusively disproved the existence of a god.

[pedxing]

yeah, the intent of the LHC isn't to resolve some science vs religion debate, and the outcome is indeed likely to be ignored by most humans.

it's intended to resolve a science vs science question, about what the rules of nature look like, at the energy scales at which the device will operate.

see, the way the rules of nature appear to work is that they depend on the energy level of the system involved.

and what has happened is that we have several different models that predict different behavior at high energies, but if you plug in lower and lower energies into each model, they all start to look the same, and predict the same behavior.

it's like Einstein vs Newton. if you let take Relativity's equation for energy, and let velocity get very close to zero, eventually you find that it approaches an unexpected constant (mc^2) plus the Classical formula for Kinetic Energy (1/2 mv^2).

while it is comforting to know that Netwon's Mechanics emerge naturally as a low energy approximation to Einstein's relativity, figuring that out exposed the unexpected relationship between mass and energy, which has drastically altered the course of human history!

but right now, we have several competing theories, each of which has Quantum Mechanics + Relativity as their low energy approximation.

if we can discard most, and hopefully all but one, and focus on the ones that aren't wrong, where will it take us?

of course, trying to predict that now would be like people in the 1850s, trying to predict our modern uses of electricity. :haha:

edit: returning to a semi-unrelated topic i touched on earlier...

Nessus? are you hip to the polarization anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background? or are you more star-oriented than cosmos-oriented?

[Nessus]

Heard about it, but not really my field.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Caught me. It's old news, and I read it last year instead, when the rumor was going around that the big American collider discovered the Higgs Boson.

http://www.slate.com/id/2167563/

But I'm glad that you're finally aware of this exciting new project, years after everyone else.

Anyway, I didn't mean to interrupt you trying to look smart or thinking you got the better of me or something. Carry on. :downcast:

You could ride a bike backwards up a hill for all that backpedaling, listen mate, you stated that the article had failed to list the Higgs particle, then stated that I had no knowledge of it myself.
= d*ckhead behaviour. :)

After everyone else?? You must have compiled a tireless, determined survey to ask everyone whether they'd heard of the LHC before Widows Peak Oz of Atari Forums in April of 2008.
How about simply pissing off instead of being a complete arse, there are real posts here for people to respond to without having to scroll past your garbage.

Vomit up something else if you wish, it will be duly noted and dismissed for the rest of this discussion, unless it is actually on-topic. :downcast:

You underestimate the faith of the super-religious. I think that the people who flat-out refuse to consider the possibility of evolution will also denounce any results this may have.

Faith?? Will their faith cause them sudden blindness if headlines appear "The Big Bang Confirmed!" ??

Evolution, despite my utter conviction of it's validity, has unfortunately never been totally convincing from an 'average joe' perspective, in that it is not set in concrete and dropped on their heads from great heights.
This experiment however, is happening NOW, it exists now and is worth 8 Billion, you simply cannot ignore that, that would border on delusional paranoia. :mad:

Awesome

Woh, well I'll definitely approach that again when I have more free time, it looked to be a compelling and worthwhile pursuit. :up:

[Mack_Tien]

As if you understand anything about particle physics. Tell us, please, how exactly is this "nonsense"?

Also, "fails all the time and uses their "theories" to keep hope alive" - that's not what science does. That is what YOU do. The description's so accurate I can almost taste the irony...

I know not a thing about particle physics, but, it doesn't make you any smarter than me, it doesn't make me any dumber, and it doesn't make me any less of a man for not knowing "particle physics". Sorry I'm not a science guy.

I don't have theories, just common sense. You and Infedel relate everything I post to racism.:up:

I only meant that $8 billion bucks COULD be spent on other things, I just didn't mention that ok.

[Khendraja'aro]

"Common sense" doesn't work if you really want to participate in a thread about particle physics, y'know.

What is this obscure common sense, anyway?

[pedxing]

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert E.

[BalticSailor]

I know not a thing about particle physics, but, it doesn't make you any smarter than me, it doesn't make me any dumber,
When the topic is this closely related to particle physics, it actually does.


I don't have theories, just common sense. You and Infedel relate everything I post to racism.:up:
Well, let's see.
"White house is called so because it is meant only for white people" - a theory. Nothing to do with common sense.
"White man created AIDS" - a theory, nothing to do with common sense.
"White man created gangsta rap so black people would kill each other" Ok. You didn't think this one up yourself, yet you seemed to agree completely with that singer. Again, theory, and it's again miles away from common sense.

And, guess what, blaming all these things on white people, portraying them as oppressor race is racism. Like it or not, it's all over your face.

I only meant that $8 billion bucks COULD be spent on other things, I just didn't mention that ok. Of course it COULD. Would you preffer funding war?

[']['ear]

A waste of $8 billion dollars, especially on this nonsense. This is the only thing I truly love about science, they fail all the time and use their "theories" to keep hope alive. Bravo.

What exactly did you type that message on? A computer keyboard, attached to a computer, connected to the internets? None of that would exist without big government-funded projects that took decades to come to fruition. Ditto with your cell phone, anything that depends on satellites, and a large chunk of modern medicine.

But I will admit that one small part of me regrets the existence of the internet, primarily because it gives you someplace to spew your idiocy.

[pedxing]

well, it should be obvious that particle physics and cosmology get my gonads all a-quiver, but that's just me.

i mean, if Ness had come back reporting a deep affection for the multipole moments of the B-mode polarization anisotropy of the CMB, i probably would have had to mutter "i'll be in my bunk" to my co-workers, and sought out the nearest privacy i could find. :heart:

[']['ear]

polarization anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background

Gesundheit.

[pedxing]

['ear;10329527"]Gesundheit.
hey, the CMB is nothing to sneeze at! :haha:

here's the brochure for the Plank satellite, which is going up this year, and which i am only slightly less excited about than i am about the LHC:

http://www.rssd.esa.int/SA/PLANCK/docs/Bluebook-ESA-SCI(2005)1.pdf

[Nessus]

well, it should be obvious that particle physics and cosmology get my gonads all a-quiver, but that's just me.

i mean, if Ness had come back reporting a deep affection for the multipole moments of the B-mode polarization anisotropy of the CMB, i probably would have had to mutter "i'll be in my bunk" to my co-workers, and sought out the nearest privacy i could find. :heart:
I'm actually a fan of multipoles, but on a smaller scale; I was sooo disappointed that people in my dept. took it upon themselves to **** all over this rather neat model about quadruple and higher magnetic moments in the Sun, but their math was right, so elegance had to be defenestrated :(

[Widows Peak Oz]

"Years," or anything else that we've created, for that matter, as a measure of time is relative; you know that, right?

Ah but then wouldn't years simply be a construct of a construct if teh zealots are correct??
If we based our system on anything else apart from solar activity, which we pretty much have no other point of reference, then our species would be essentially numb to the numerical analysis of evolution and any other progressive/historical movement for that matter.

The fact that you expect this "holy grail of science" to resolve some debate which already exists arbitrarily is laughable. One side will laud its results as supportive of their position, and the other side, whose argument is not truly based in what is commonly accepted as logic anyways and hasn't really ever been, will just find some other way to justify their beliefs.

I used that expression to esteem some level of magnitude and irony to the LHC, this experiment does indeed have the potential to resolve debates, whether they exist arbitrarily or not is inadmissable. THE debate, the one of global significance has the potential to be resolved after the parameters and limitations of the LHC are established, either the Higgs particle is discovered and it behaves in the Big Bang fashion, or it fails and the debate continues.

As I said earlier, if the conclusion is affirmative, fundies would be delusionally paranoid to attempt to dismiss it.

And they will; the reason your expectation is laughable is because what are colloquially referred to as "science" and "creationism" are by no means mutually exclusive. "Science" has become as much a religion as Christianity. Yes, for example, while perhaps unrelated to the thread, evolution is obviously supported by tangible evidence; no, the presence of a process like evolution does not preclude the existence of a god or gods, and asserting that it does have that implication is just as baseless and illogical as asserting that a god definitely existed to create the universe, or exists now.

Now this, I dont like seeing, to meld together creationism and science into any kind of framework is laughable itself, as is the tired abstract of "science as a religion".
The elemental undertone of science is that it does not REQUIRE your belief, in fact, it only requires that which can be tested and either proved or disproved.
Time is no fixed construct in science, in religion, it's simply "duh, the beginning of stuff" or "on the first day", which according to them is about what, 3 thousand years ago??

I'd really like to establish the crux and principle boundaries between science and religion, but perhaps later.

As an agnostic, do you want to know what I find horribly ironic about this entire public dialogue of "evolution" versus "creationism?" Most religious people I meet - who I'm personally acquainted with - are not at all imposing in their beliefs, whereas most fellow non-religious atheists and agnostics - that I am personally acquainted with - are overbearing, arrogant, self-absorbed in their reasoning, and incredibly zealous in attempting to show dissenters why they are wrong. Some of the most distasteful conversations I've ever had have been with such people.

Is it that horrible is it?? That's entirely contextually subjective and could very well be the polar opposite for many others, myself included. Im still asking them [religious people] the same questions as I was 5 years ago, some of the answers have been very creative, but a fair shade away from substantive, rational and convincing. But underpinning their reasoning is always that echo of self-righteous delirium..............

However, I will admit the tenacity of @theists at times, even to the point of screaming "**** god" just to elicit a reaction, however, I cannot shake my own contempt of religion when I've read much better fantasy sagas in my time.

Yes, on the other hand, people like Lewkowski do exist, but they are in the minority. If you want to appeal to logic, you must allow for the fact that making a hasty generalization about all religious people based on whatever you see in the media or on this board, or lining the streets of your local community is an informal logical fallacy, and while we're on that topic, so is concluding the existence or non-existence of a thing which has been assumed to exist or not exist by your premises. It's called, predictably, an existential fallacy.

People like Lewkowski are running your country, if the most powerful nation has a minority that thinks like him amidst a legislative partition that allows them to attain positions of power, numbers are not the issue.
I've been through enough religious quagmire to know that their informal nature has a precedent boundary to a shiny area in which they all degenerate.
Eg: "The spirit is poignant and our saviour is forgiving" leads to "I know things because I had an experience".

I may generalise at times against the rushing tide of whimsical sooth-sayers, but at least it grabs their attention, that being said, I have mates from numerous faiths, I respect them in all areas of their life that their religion does not affect, but when it directly influences something that may enhance their life experience, I tend to become a little more vocal.

Before someone makes an accusation of pedantry, come now, that's logic 101. It is a basic knowledge and understanding of the principles of inductive and deductive logic and their respective fallacies, and you can attain that level of understanding by taking a six-week summer course at your local community college, or, more simply, opening a wikipedia search for "logical fallacies." Further, based on informal observations I find that a sizable portion of the people who so desperately cling to and extrapolate some sort of belief regarding the non-existence of god as evinced by evolution, at least in my experience, are unconsciously employing their belief as either a means by which they conform with a desirable social norm or as a compensatory mechanism to degrade or devalue something (religion) which they perceive seeks to degrade or devalue them, just as religious zealots tend to quite obviously identify with religion because of fear.

That, is an extremely long sentence.
Anyway, yes, some atheist warmongers are just beating their chests in tune with the 'cool crowd', socially acceptable to listen to music too loud, think about the suffering in the world and develop self-indulgent existentialism in response to what their peer group has deemed to be utter garbage.

I know for a fact that many atheists are 'preaching' disbelief because they generally envision humanity as chained to what it cannot know and almost certainly wasting it's time on, religion as a disease if you will.
The carat coffers of catholicism full of fear and weakness in monetary form, the history stained with religious exaction and a modern world where uncertain trepidation leads to the toppling of contemporary institutions leading to a red-tape conflict of debt and debilitating incompetence.

..............uh, sorry about that. ;)

Sorry, but you're absolutely delusional if you think that we're going to have anything close to resembling a shred of understanding about the mechanics of our universe because of the LHC. It could certainly allow us to progress in that direction, but I very, very seriously doubt that it is "the holy grail of science."

Thats cynical to the point of depressive, all the LHC has now is the potential, the date, and the technology to attempt things never before attempted.
I'd be inclined to call you extremely jaded if the purpose that the LHC was painstakingly created for, was simply unattainable even before operation, and that is what you truly are certain of.

Besides, Widow, what of the massive amounts of energy, time, and perhaps money that are wasted attempting to logically disprove something that few of its proponents or opponents actually believe is based in logic? How is that logical?

I don't think anyone has any idea what the **** is going on, churchgoers in Kansas as equally as technicians at JPL. Let's stop pretending Charles Darwin conclusively disproved the existence of a god.

That's fine, the LHC is different though, it's perhaps the most intensive and collective effort to enhance cosmological human knowledge in the last 2 decades, if any religious nay-sayers say nay for any reason other than "I have proof this experiment will fail", then they are, well, morons.

[Pyrus]

Actually, IIRC, it's not even mathematically possible, because there's a lower limit on the amount of mass required to create a black hole, but even if it was possible...

A) Such a black hole would have an event horizon many times smaller than a single sub atomic particle (and as such would have a lot of trouble growing in size, or "sucking" anything else in.)

B) Would evaporate almost instantaneously due to "Hawking radiation" and other quantum effects (Basically, even matter has wavelengths.. "vibrate," so to speak, and all the tiny particles in this mini black hole would eventually vibrate into a position beyond the event horizon, and escape... leaving nothing behind.)
I admit I am a little surprised you know anything about this, but then again everyone has some little scientific fascination, well most everyone it seems. there does seem to be at least one post in this thread that refutes that absolute.


Didn't microprocessors come out of quantum mechanics which was discovered from "stupid wastes of money" like this?

umm, not quite.
while there are current projects that are trying to produce a quantum computer, they did not begin until well after microprocessors.

studies in quantum mechanics have largely been made possible by the advent f microprocessors, more so than the other way around. mostly what made microprocessors possible was research into solid state electronics ans semiconductors.
EDIT:
hey, the CMB is nothing to sneeze at! :haha:

true, but I have to admit the the images returned from the WMAP spacecraft do seem to resemble the particulate matter expectorated during a sneeze:noob:

[Pyrus]

Erroneous preconceptions based on past posts.

[pedxing]

true, but I have to admit the the images returned from the WMAP spacecraft do seem to resemble the particulate matter expectorated during a sneeze:noob:
touche.

so... the COBE results were "like looking at the Fingerprints of God" for some, but the Handkerchief of God might be a better analogy for the more recent data? :haha:

edit: following this further, i wouldn't be surprised to find that the Plank mission gives us insight into the Monitor Crud of God, quite possibly the result of attempted ambrosia consumption while coming across something particularly lol-worthy?

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/funny-pictures-agnostic-cat-shadows-window.jpg

there, i think that finishes the mixing between the religion and physics threads, yes?

[Pyrus]

touche.

so... the COBE results were "like looking at the Fingerprints of God" for some, but the Handkerchief of God might be a better analogy for the more recent data? :haha:

:haha::haha::haha:

something like that :up:

[Khendraja'aro]

Well, if we find evidence for the Handkerchief of God, then that means that the Great Green Arkleseizure has already happened.

Whew. One less thing to worry about. :)

[Pyrus]

Well, if we find evidence for the Handkerchief of God, then that means that the Great Green Arkleseizure has already happened.

Whew. One less thing to worry about. :)

how did i know we were going to take a Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy detour?

[ShipperS7]

Ah but then wouldn't years simply be a construct of a construct if teh zealots are correct??
If we based our system on anything else apart from solar activity, which we pretty much have no other point of reference, then our species would be essentially numb to the numerical analysis of evolution and any other progressive/historical movement for that matter.

I have to prefix a disclaimer to this section: I have zero formal education in physics, and as such there is a decent chance that I misunderstand the currently accepted model of relativity.

What I was really getting at is that, assuming a god did exist, applying our relative standard of time to its actions is probably irrelevant at best, since such a force is likely to ignore any sort of conception that we have of time, and thus it is irrelevant to say the actions of a god creating the universe are illogical within that construct; you also assume that a god of this dimension, if he exists, exists inside of it. Not to mention the fact that, now, then, and ever more, each seperate point in the universe was experiencing, is experiencing, and will experience time in a differentiated manner from every other conceivable point. So, assuming the universe is infinitely large, there is infinitely relative time; therefore, there is no absolute time; therefore any singular entity (god) will experience time differently than another entity (human), and thus, we cannot accurately describe the work of a god in terms of seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, or years, since these constructs accurately apply, at most, to one conceivable point in the space-time continuum.

In summary, to say "god would not have waited x number of years to create hydrogen and nitrogen" is irrelevant because:
A) There is no absolute time, and thus time is experienced differently by man and god, and
B) Any collective measure of time is inaccurate because by definition it must be held by multiple entities, and thus multiple points in space which experience relative time, and
C) To expound further on premise A, based on this relativity, what we qualify as a "long time" is not necessarily a long time to what we assume is god. In fact, we could still be undergoing the process of creation at this moment, for all we know: as posited by the CTMU, which asserts that human beings are co-creators of the universe.

I used that expression to esteem some level of magnitude and irony to the LHC, this experiment does indeed have the potential to resolve debates, whether they exist arbitrarily or not is inadmissable. THE debate, the one of global significance has the potential to be resolved after the parameters and limitations of the LHC are established, either the Higgs particle is discovered and it behaves in the Big Bang fashion, or it fails and the debate continues.

As I said earlier, if the conclusion is affirmative, fundies would be delusionally paranoid to attempt to dismiss it.

It is admissible, because as I meant to point out, you and I are both apparently in agreement that the fundies are already delusional and paranoid, and you wouldn't have to be delusional or paranoid to continue holding religious beliefs in the face of whatever evidence the LHC could provide, because I maintain that the presence of any natural process in this dimension, from evolution to the Big Bang, does not preclude the existence of a god or gods as we understand them.

Now this, I dont like seeing, to meld together creationism and science into any kind of framework is laughable itself, as is the tired abstract of "science as a religion".
The elemental undertone of science is that it does not REQUIRE your belief, in fact, it only requires that which can be tested and either proved or disproved.
Time is no fixed construct in science, in religion, it's simply "duh, the beginning of stuff" or "on the first day", which according to them is about what, 3 thousand years ago??

The concepts of science and religion both exist. There, I melded them into the same construct. "Science as a religion" is just as plausible an abstract as "religion as a religion," "religion as science" or "science as a science." Really, though, it was just a simile for the attitude that the public at large seems to hold about science: infallibility. It is the same dogma that plagues certain interpretations of religion, and that is why I compared science to religion.

And, as the son of a man who currently holds doctorate in divinity, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the academic religious community is not prone to interpreting religious text literally; indeed, I've heard my father and his colleagues denounce that sort of interpretation many times. It is not even a subject of debate amongst them; the bible, especially the old testament, ought to be treated as allegory or poetry, not literal fact. The supposedly eyewitness accounts of the gospel are treated differently, but the passage that you refer to is in Genesis, which, as I'm sure you know, is in the Old Testament.

I think you'd also be surprised at how different translations have different meanings. For example, the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill -- in the oldest Hebrew text, I believe, the word used for "kill" has a meaning that does not preclude capital punishment.

The phrase "a day is like a thousand years in the lord" is a simile. A day is like a thousand years, not is a thousand years. When you interpret something that uses such a poetic device literally, well... I'm in agreement with you.

In the same vein though, would you read Homer's Odyssey and interpret what you read as literal fact? I am assuming not, and in the same way, religious text ought to be treated.

My point is that there are moderate, reasonable religious people who do interpret the bible in this poetic sense. My father pastors a church that appears to me to be full of them. I think that much of the literal interpretation of the Christian bible comes from the literary regression of the post-Roman dark age and medieval era, when, well, the vast majority of people could not read and thus not only had no clue what a simile was, but also were more susceptible to being indoctrinated by the Catholic church in such an interpretation, which was obviously advantageous to the Catholic church.

You can't fault people for being taken advantage of in that sort of situation, and the "political inertia" if you will, of that church's influence is still affecting us today. We are essentially entering a post-Christian era, and I think what we will begin to see is religion being moderated and becoming synthesized with science, because it certainly is not going to die any time soon, and I don't see how it would survive any other way. People aren't - that - "weak" or "stupid."

Is it that horrible is it?? That's entirely contextually subjective and could very well be the polar opposite for many others, myself included. Im still asking them [religious people] the same questions as I was 5 years ago, some of the answers have been very creative, but a fair shade away from substantive, rational and convincing. But underpinning their reasoning is always that echo of self-righteous delirium..............

You're right, it is entirely subjective. What you define as "rational" is also subjective, and so is the psychology of you versus a religious person. Some people are simply intrinsically holistic, others are intrinsically rational.

Psychologically, some people are simply not constructed to be rational. They are meant to be holistic and intuitive, and frankly, it's the ultimate arrogance to expect them to be any other way. The only way you are going to remove religion from the world is by killing religious people or fundamentally transforming the human psyche. It's here to stay, and it isn't based on what you or I would necessarily define as reason. It is a feeling for most; although men such as C.S. Lewis (a Christian) or, incidentally, Albert Einstein (agnostic I believe) did believe there was a rational basis for god.

However, I will admit the tenacity of @theists at times, even to the point of screaming "**** god" just to elicit a reaction, however, I cannot shake my own contempt of religion when I've read much better fantasy sagas in my time.

Well, to each their own.

People like Lewkowski are running your country, if the most powerful nation has a minority that thinks like him amidst a legislative partition that allows them to attain positions of power, numbers are not the issue.
I've been through enough religious quagmire to know that their informal nature has a precedent boundary to a shiny area in which they all degenerate.
Eg: "The spirit is poignant and our saviour is forgiving" leads to "I know things because I had an experience".

They were elected for a reason; indeed, I would say that the very fact of their election is a proof for the necessity of it happening; but regardless of that (and I - really - don't want to get into that), what happens will happen. This country, like all countries, is inevitably going to collapse anyways, and I have my say in government whereever I can (being a minor). Power has concentrated where it has for a reason, and it decides what happens. It is not "stupid," it is reality. There is nothing I can do to influence it except what I am allowed to do, and that I do.

That, is an extremely long sentence.
Anyway, yes, some atheist warmongers are just beating their chests in tune with the 'cool crowd', socially acceptable to listen to music too loud, think about the suffering in the world and develop self-indulgent existentialism in response to what their peer group has deemed to be utter garbage.

I know for a fact that many atheists are 'preaching' disbelief because they generally envision humanity as chained to what it cannot know and almost certainly wasting it's time on, religion as a disease if you will.
The carat coffers of catholicism full of fear and weakness in monetary form, the history stained with religious exaction and a modern world where uncertain trepidation leads to the toppling of contemporary institutions leading to a red-tape conflict of debt and debilitating incompetence.

..............uh, sorry about that. ;)

No need to apologize. That was accurate in my perception.

Again, though, I can't view "religion" in its entirety as a disease, as I don't pretend to know much of anything about any other religion except the western monotheistic ones, which I assume that both you and them are referring to anyways. The eastern experiential religions are more philosophical than anything else.

If you want an interesting read, try The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley. It is essentially a synthesis of western and eastern religious philosophy, and I think you would appreciate it.

Thats cynical to the point of depressive, all the LHC has now is the potential, the date, and the technology to attempt things never before attempted.
I'd be inclined to call you extremely jaded if the purpose that the LHC was painstakingly created for, was simply unattainable even before operation, and that is what you truly are certain of.

I'm not saying it is definitely unattainable, I am saying that the LHC is simply one small step in a very long and arduous series of them to attain that goal if we can. I'm not of anything, but I believe that what we currently know of the universe is simply too limited at this time for any singular event to be the harbinger of anything near what I would describe as the "holy grail" of the science.

That's fine, the LHC is different though, it's perhaps the most intensive and collective effort to enhance cosmological human knowledge in the last 2 decades, if any religious nay-sayers say nay for any reason other than "I have proof this experiment will fail", then they are, well, morons.

And I appreciate it. It's brilliant, and it's a step in the right direction.

[ShipperS7]

Well, if we find evidence for the Handkerchief of God, then that means that the Great Green Arkleseizure has already happened.

Whew. One less thing to worry about. :)

Ah, I can't believe I missed this. :up:

how did i know we were going to take a Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy detour?

Because you saw my user title? :p

[Dattu]

Faith?? Will their faith cause them sudden blindness if headlines appear "The Big Bang Confirmed!" ??

Evolution, despite my utter conviction of it's validity, has unfortunately never been totally convincing from an 'average joe' perspective, in that it is not set in concrete and dropped on their heads from great heights.
This experiment however, is happening NOW, it exists now and is worth 8 Billion, you simply cannot ignore that, that would border on delusional paranoia. :mad:

There are some very conservative people around me who believe that anything that could possibly challenge their religious beliefs is heretical. It's not to the point that it creates issue for other people, but I think that anything like this (no matter how convincing) will either be ignored or refuted with Bible-evidence from these very people. It's not common for someone to be so orthodox here, but they exist. Don't think that this is widespread, though. The state test I took just yesterday openly discussed evolution in its questions.

The difference between this and evolution is that evolution has been floating around for quite a long time in public knowledge. This, however, is totally new to most (including you when this thread was created). You embraced it, but it's not hard to imagine others keeping their distance if it threatens to encroach upon "God's territory."

Unfortunately, I can't think of anybody here who has a similar perspective, but I know of a couple examples at my school.

[BalticSailor]

Faith?? Will their faith cause them sudden blindness if headlines appear "The Big Bang Confirmed!" ??

Evolution, despite my utter conviction of it's validity, has unfortunately never been totally convincing from an 'average joe' perspective, in that it is not set in concrete and dropped on their heads from great heights.
This experiment however, is happening NOW, it exists now and is worth 8 Billion, you simply cannot ignore that, that would border on delusional paranoia. :mad:


Dude, you underestimate their will to ignore/twist anything that goes against their faith. Should headlines "The Big Bang Confirmed" appear, I bet within a week you'd see headlines like "Bible Describes Big Bang Centuries Before LHC Was Built, Says [someone in authority within church]".

[pedxing]

"let there be light" is obviously the big bang. :rolleyes:

and separating the waters above from he waters below (http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com/2007/10/separating-waters-above-from-waters.html) is clearly the decoupling of radiation from matter.

there has to be something in there that could be a metaphor for matter acquiring mass, due to the Higgs field? hmm, although it would have to happen between the bang and the separation, to keep the timelines consistent...

[BalticSailor]

http://jesusandmo.net/strips/2008-05-01.jpg

[pedxing]

"let there be light" is obviously the big bang. :rolleyes:

and separating the waters above from he waters below (http://primordial-blog.blogspot.com/2007/10/separating-waters-above-from-waters.html) is clearly the decoupling of radiation from matter.

there has to be something in there that could be a metaphor for matter acquiring mass, due to the Higgs field? hmm, although it would have to happen between the bang and the separation, to keep the timelines consistent...

[Pyrus]

identical posts 6 hours apart?

WTF?

[pedxing]

identical posts 6 hours apart?

WTF?
whoa... that is weird. :confused:

[Widows Peak Oz]

Goddamn (;)) I'm tired, but I'd like to keep this thread going, I will reply, I pwomise.

[pedxing]

hey, Alber?

when you were talking about all the possible worlds that can come from string theory, were you talking about the Landscape?

i know it was over in the religion thread where we were talking about it, but this seems like a better place to take the conversation!

[']['ear]

Another very belated comment:

A lot of people were against the "big science" of sequencing the human genome as well. In hindsight, it was probably some of the best spent scientific dollars in history.

[Timbuk2]

UPDATE

Cern Large Hadron Collider machine restarts
Auntie's Boobies (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8371662.stm)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44999000/jpg/_44999391_atlas_cerncmarcelloni_226.jpg

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment has been restarted after a hiatus of 14 months.
Engineers working on the machine achieved a stable, circulating proton beam just after 2100 GMT on Friday.
The LHC is housed in a 27km-long circular tunnel about 100m beneath the French-Swiss border.
The experiment is designed to smash together beams of protons in a bid to shed light on the nature of the Universe.
The LHC has been shut down for repairs since an accident in September 2008.
Operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern), the LHC will create similar conditions to those which were present moments after the Big Bang.
"It's great to see beam circulating in the LHC again," said Cern's director-general Rolf Heuer.

"We've still got some way to go before physics can begin, but with this milestone we're well on the way."
Engineers sent their first beam all the way round the LHC's 27km circumference after 1930 GMT on Friday.
The beams themselves are made up of "packets" - each about a metre long - containing billions of protons. But they would disperse if left to their own devices.

Electrical forces had to be used to "capture" the protons. This keeps them tightly huddled in packets, for a stable, circulating beam.
There are some 1,200 "superconducting" magnets which form the LHC's main "ring".
These magnets bend proton beams in opposite directions around the main "ring" at close to the speed of light.

At allotted points around the tunnel, the proton beams cross paths, smashing into one another with enormous energy. Large "detector" machines located at the crossing points will scour the wreckage of these collisions for discoveries that should extend our knowledge of physics.

Among other things, scientists will search for signs of the Higgs boson, a sub-atomic particle that is crucial to our current understanding of physics. Although it is predicted to exist, scientists have never found it.
Engineers first circulated a beam all the way around the LHC on 10 September 2008.

But just nine days later, an electrical fault in one of the connections between superconducting magnets caused a tonne of liquid helium to leak into the tunnel.
Liquid helium is used to cool the LHC to its operating temperature of 1.9 kelvin (-271C; -456F).
The machine has been shut down ever since the accident, to allow repairs to take place.

Professor Norman McCubbin from the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, added: "I'm sure every particle physicist has been feeling just a little bit impatient as the 're-start' of the LHC has drawn nearer. It's great to see beams circulating again."

The damage caused to the collider meant 53 superconducting magnets had to be replaced and about 200 electrical connections repaired.
Engineers have also been installing a new early warning system which could prevent incidents of the kind which shut down the experiment.
Cern has spent some 40m Swiss Francs (£24m) on repairs to the collider.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46769000/jpg/_46769498_cern466x415.jpg

1 - 14 quadrupole magnets replaced
2 - 39 dipole magnets replaced
3 - More than 200 electrical connections repaired
4 - Over 4km of beam pipe cleaned
5 - New restraining system installed for some magnets
6 - Hundreds of new helium ports being installed around machine
7 - Thousands of detectors added to early warning system

[pedxing]

i'm all a-quiver with anticipation again. :D

[Chaloobi]

if the world disappears into an artificially generated black hole, consider this my goodbye

[Widows Peak Oz]

Is it bad if I'd totally forgotten making this thread?

[Chaloobi]

Is it bad if I'd totally forgotten making this thread?

Simply human. This reality underlies somewhat my reasons fore creation the What Is Memory thread and the Human Condition thread.

[Widows Peak Oz]

Your theories damn us all.

[Chaloobi]

Your theories damn us all. I'm just looking, not damning.

[pedxing]

first collisions were today!

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/11/23/first-particles-collide-in-the-large-hadron-collider/

my nether regions shudder with joy! :heart:

[pedxing]

nice video showing the various stages of the accelerator:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1125472

seems like it would be very accessible to non-technical folk, who may have no idea how the thing works... but also has some interesting details for the non-specialist techie.

[Nessus]

first collisions were today!

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2009/11/23/first-particles-collide-in-the-large-hadron-collider/

my nether regions shudder with joy! :heart:
Why is it that chicks only dig guys with MeV equipment :( Size isn't everything!

[Flixy]

Why is it that chicks only dig guys with MeV equipment :( Size isn't everything!
I am controlling a 30 MeV toy right now, but I can't say that mentioning that in a bar ever got me a chick..

[Timbuk2]

Muuuuh wots an MeV innit?

[Nessus]

Muuuuh wots an MeV innit?
A mega-electron volt, ie a million volts used to accelerate electrons

[Timbuk2]

Well my fine friends, if I were a chick in a bar and one of you approached me and started wibbling on about mega-electron volts, I would drop my knickers there and then.

[Nessus]

Alas you are horribly ugly and have a horrid arse

[Timbuk2]

... but ... but ...

:sour:




might be hairy

but t'aint horrid

[pedxing]

MeV? that energy range is soooo last century. :rolleyes:

the LHC is supposed to run at something like 14 TeV.

[Spawnie]

I know literally zero hot chicks who would be interested in this. Thats sooo sad.

I did once explain how words in english can often be traced to their linguistic roots via the class of word they come from - the nobles (french), the commoners (german) and the clergy (latin) and still pulled though... must have been a fluke.

[pedxing]

i was out a bar for a friend's birthday, sitting next to a mutual friend, who was talking to some ladies.

they asked what he did, and he said "computer science". things went a bit quiet. really, they looked like he had just told them about a neat insect he found once under a log. it's not that they weren't intelligent professionals, just that their interests were more along the lines of Health and Public Policy...

i sighed deeply, explained that he was Doing It Wrong, and informed our drinking partners that my friend made cars that would drive themselves, and robots that played soccer.

the conversation improved markedly from there. :rolleyes:

[Chaloobi]

i sighed deeply, explained that he was Doing It Wrong, and informed our drinking partners that my friend made cars that would drive themselves, and robots that played soccer.

the conversation improved markedly from there. :rolleyes: Robots that play soccer? Really?

[Widows Peak Oz]

He sounds like some kind of wild bachelor.

[Chaloobi]

He sounds like some kind of wild bachelor. He probably shaves and oils his chest.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Robots that play soccer? Really?

It's real

DV5h_6T_J0A

[Flixy]

Robot football is pretty cool :)

[pedxing]

Robot football is pretty cool :)

ok, two things. first, those looked like they had human operators, with remotes. the future has fully autonomous robotic football overlords.

second, there seemed to be a lot of diving. i expected to see one of them rolling around holding it's leg at any moment, and a roomba scooting out wielding a can of the Magic Spray. :mad:

He probably shaves and oils his chest.

i must say that i didn't check, and he wasn't flaunting any of the latest "heavage (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125980303001573939.html)" styles. :eek:

[Veldan Rath]

... but ... but ...

:sour:




might be hairy

but t'aint horrid

proof is in the pics...

[Flixy]

ok, two things. first, those looked like they had human operators, with remotes. the future has fully autonomous robotic football overlords.

Depends on the class, there are also fully autonomous ones. I know my university also competed in that class.

[Chaloobi]

It's real

[QUOTE=Flixy;11631974]Robot football is pretty cool :)

ok, two things. first, those looked like they had human operators, with remotes. the future has fully autonomous robotic football overlords.

second, there seemed to be a lot of diving. i expected to see one of them rolling around holding it's leg at any moment, and a roomba scooting out wielding a can of the Magic Spray. :mad:


Depends on the class, there are also fully autonomous ones. I know my university also competed in that class. Wow. That's cool as hell, even if they are remotes. That's a big step, btw, from remote to anything like an effective autonomous bot. Once they get at that level, they won't be playing games, they'll be hunting the remnants of humanity.... :(

[Flixy]

Wow. That's cool as hell, even if they are remotes. That's a big step, btw, from remote to anything like an effective autonomous bot. Once they get at that level, they won't be playing games, they'll be hunting the remnants of humanity.... :(
Well, there is already AI for football for games, how hard can it be to adapt it to robots? ;)

[Khendraja'aro]

i sighed deeply, explained that he was Doing It Wrong, and informed our drinking partners that my friend made cars that would drive themselves, and robots that played soccer.

the conversation improved markedly from there. :rolleyes:

I tell them that I'm inventing new and spectacular ways to electrocute pupils. And I make things go boom, though that's usually an accidental part of my work. Also, sometimes there are holes where none were before.

[Chaloobi]

Well, there is already AI for football for games, how hard can it be to adapt it to robots? ;) Then put a gun in their hand and let them loose in the streets! :eek:

[Flixy]

Robot football is rather slow, and the IFF is a bit simpeler ;)

[pedxing]

Then put a gun in their hand and let them loose in the streets! :eek:
there already AIs for bot opponents in FPS games, as much as there are for sports games. :devil:

more seriously, i expect the main the obstacle to the extermination of all flesh-beasts is mostly in perception; in-game, the bots can have direct access to clean and structured world-state, rather than needing to construct a tentative model of their surroundings from sensory data of uncertain quality.