End of the World on Sept. 10th
WAHOOOO I'M WITH HIM
08 September 2008, 10:21 PM
#212
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nobbering about...
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the name is the problem, it sounds powerful, sinister and scientific, if they had called it the "Big Freindly Particle Bumper" or "Atom Splat-em" the public would be so worried.
I like the idea of the black holes gradually eating the world, I can just imagine my dad reading the paper going "Wolverhampton's gone"
I like the idea of the black holes gradually eating the world, I can just imagine my dad reading the paper going "Wolverhampton's gone"
09 September 2008, 06:39 PM
#213
Umm.. this is an totally honest question because I'm baffled by it..
how do you design and build a detector to detect something you don't actually know exists or not?
how do you design and build a detector to detect something you don't actually know exists or not?
09 September 2008, 06:56 PM
#215
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 September 2008, 08:09 AM
#217
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop, just there. Before you mentioned "molecular state", below you mention "atomic state" and above you just mention "state". Can you please give me your definition of each of those terms (or confirm you actually mean the same thing in all 3 cases and give 1 definition) and can you do so without using the term you're trying to define?
I think what you're trying to describe is the break down of a fissle element in to other elements, particles and radiation. But that isn't a "state change" in any sense of the word I'm familar with. I will grant you my background is Chemistry and not Physics however.
In the beginning there weren't complex elements that disintegrated, it was sub atomic particles, much like they are trying to find in the LHC that "condensed" (for want of a better word) in to Hydrogen. The Hydrogen formed dense pockets and gravity took over bringing it together. As it compressed, it heated and eventually a fusion reaction started and the Hydrogen atoms are fused in Helium. As the star burns all its Hydrogen it can sometimes start to fuse Helium etc. This is the opposite of the nuclear fission atomic breakdown you were describing above.
Transmutation applies to change of 1 atom in to another. The LHC isn't using atoms, so it doesn't apply.
I know far more about Chemistry than Physics, but there are areas of overlap.
The question arose from you suggestion that things are "only a theory" or scientists haven't proved X. I'm trying to find out what you're definition of "proved" or "proof" is, it's different in Maths from other sciences for example.
I'm then trying then, to establish whether anything actually meets your definition of "proved".
I'm happy to give you my definition(s), but I'd be interested to hear yours.
I think what you're trying to describe is the break down of a fissle element in to other elements, particles and radiation. But that isn't a "state change" in any sense of the word I'm familar with. I will grant you my background is Chemistry and not Physics however.
In the beginning there weren't complex elements that disintegrated, it was sub atomic particles, much like they are trying to find in the LHC that "condensed" (for want of a better word) in to Hydrogen. The Hydrogen formed dense pockets and gravity took over bringing it together. As it compressed, it heated and eventually a fusion reaction started and the Hydrogen atoms are fused in Helium. As the star burns all its Hydrogen it can sometimes start to fuse Helium etc. This is the opposite of the nuclear fission atomic breakdown you were describing above.
Transmutation applies to change of 1 atom in to another. The LHC isn't using atoms, so it doesn't apply.
I know far more about Chemistry than Physics, but there are areas of overlap.
The question arose from you suggestion that things are "only a theory" or scientists haven't proved X. I'm trying to find out what you're definition of "proved" or "proof" is, it's different in Maths from other sciences for example.
I'm then trying then, to establish whether anything actually meets your definition of "proved".
I'm happy to give you my definition(s), but I'd be interested to hear yours.
I dont know why you are so concerned about the definition of the word proof. It is defined well enough. It you have a lot of facts which may or not point towards a fact it nevertheless is not a definite occurrence until it can be shown to have done so. To assume that it did happen in the way described could well be a mistake. The effects of the assumption may or may not be important of course. Absolute proof requires all the answers.
I want to ask you a few questions now.
You say they are going to hit protons with protons, one with one you said. How do they get those protons into the two accelerators, one in each direction in the first place, don't you have to split an atom or two first? Or do they just accelerate the air which is already in them?
I gather there are two accelerators operating in opposite directions so that the relative speeds are at a maximum before the particles enter the LHC. If they have not split the atoms up then you have the nuclei of the protons and neutrons which are held together by the gluons or the W and A bosons which provide a strong force. The electrons whizz around the outside held in the atom with what they call a weak force. The nucleus is also known as a Hadron.
The LHC stands for Large Hadron Collider which must therefore mean that they are aiming to hit nuclei together which is an appreciably larger mass than a proton or two! This of course is how one splits an atom but in this case it will be done with what they hope will be at close to the speed of light. Bearing in mind Einstein's formula of E=MC(squared) that is an enormous increase of the energy available and leads to my worries that it could lead to effects which no one can be certain about and thus is a possible problem as far as I am concerned, and I am not the only one as far as real eminent scientists are also concerned.
I do not think we are being told the whole truth about all this and I still question whether the risks involved are worth it to try to see a Higg's Boson if such a thing exists!
How did a collection of subatomic particles in the big bang as you say form the universe with all those different elements that we know about.
My memory is not perfect, but I was taught that many elements cannot exist as a single atom probably due to their valencies and therefore have to combine into more than one atom which is called a molecule. So a change in atomic state will follow with a change in the molecular state. As a chemist you must be able to put me right on that one.
Les
10 September 2008, 08:36 AM
#218
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,707
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
well!!! are we all still here then???? Only I was stuck in a traffic jam on the autobahn at 9am this morning heading away from Switzerland so wasn't sure if I missed the end of the world or not
Last edited by Wurzel; 10 September 2008 at 08:43 AM.
10 September 2008, 08:37 AM
#219
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cas Vegas
Posts: 60,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HTH
10 September 2008, 08:44 AM
#220
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Nobbering about...
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm watching it on the telly at the moment, all the science bods are looking very tense, then they all stand up and clap, then they look tense, then clap, then tense....
10 September 2008, 08:58 AM
#221
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Manchester ish
Posts: 18,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was not able to reply before.
I dont know why you are so concerned about the definition of the word proof. It is defined well enough. It you have a lot of facts which may or not point towards a fact it nevertheless is not a definite occurrence until it can be shown to have done so. To assume that it did happen in the way described could well be a mistake. The effects of the assumption may or may not be important of course. Absolute proof requires all the answers.
I want to ask you a few questions now.
You say they are going to hit protons with protons, one with one you said. How do they get those protons into the two accelerators, one in each direction in the first place, don't you have to split an atom or two first? Or do they just accelerate the air which is already in them?
I gather there are two accelerators operating in opposite directions so that the relative speeds are at a maximum before the particles enter the LHC. If they have not split the atoms up then you have the nuclei of the protons and neutrons which are held together by the gluons or the W and A bosons which provide a strong force. The electrons whizz around the outside held in the atom with what they call a weak force. The nucleus is also known as a Hadron.
The LHC stands for Large Hadron Collider which must therefore mean that they are aiming to hit nuclei together which is an appreciably larger mass than a proton or two! This of course is how one splits an atom but in this case it will be done with what they hope will be at close to the speed of light. Bearing in mind Einstein's formula of E=MC(squared) that is an enormous increase of the energy available and leads to my worries that it could lead to effects which no one can be certain about and thus is a possible problem as far as I am concerned, and I am not the only one as far as real eminent scientists are also concerned.
I do not think we are being told the whole truth about all this and I still question whether the risks involved are worth it to try to see a Higg's Boson if such a thing exists!
How did a collection of subatomic particles in the big bang as you say form the universe with all those different elements that we know about.
My memory is not perfect, but I was taught that many elements cannot exist as a single atom probably due to their valencies and therefore have to combine into more than one atom which is called a molecule. So a change in atomic state will follow with a change in the molecular state. As a chemist you must be able to put me right on that one.
Les
I dont know why you are so concerned about the definition of the word proof. It is defined well enough. It you have a lot of facts which may or not point towards a fact it nevertheless is not a definite occurrence until it can be shown to have done so. To assume that it did happen in the way described could well be a mistake. The effects of the assumption may or may not be important of course. Absolute proof requires all the answers.
I want to ask you a few questions now.
You say they are going to hit protons with protons, one with one you said. How do they get those protons into the two accelerators, one in each direction in the first place, don't you have to split an atom or two first? Or do they just accelerate the air which is already in them?
I gather there are two accelerators operating in opposite directions so that the relative speeds are at a maximum before the particles enter the LHC. If they have not split the atoms up then you have the nuclei of the protons and neutrons which are held together by the gluons or the W and A bosons which provide a strong force. The electrons whizz around the outside held in the atom with what they call a weak force. The nucleus is also known as a Hadron.
The LHC stands for Large Hadron Collider which must therefore mean that they are aiming to hit nuclei together which is an appreciably larger mass than a proton or two! This of course is how one splits an atom but in this case it will be done with what they hope will be at close to the speed of light. Bearing in mind Einstein's formula of E=MC(squared) that is an enormous increase of the energy available and leads to my worries that it could lead to effects which no one can be certain about and thus is a possible problem as far as I am concerned, and I am not the only one as far as real eminent scientists are also concerned.
I do not think we are being told the whole truth about all this and I still question whether the risks involved are worth it to try to see a Higg's Boson if such a thing exists!
How did a collection of subatomic particles in the big bang as you say form the universe with all those different elements that we know about.
My memory is not perfect, but I was taught that many elements cannot exist as a single atom probably due to their valencies and therefore have to combine into more than one atom which is called a molecule. So a change in atomic state will follow with a change in the molecular state. As a chemist you must be able to put me right on that one.
Les
(what does it mean
)
10 September 2008, 09:13 AM
#224
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You say they are going to hit protons with protons, one with one you said. How do they get those protons into the two accelerators, one in each direction in the first place, don't you have to split an atom or two first? Or do they just accelerate the air which is already in them?
'Splitting the atom' usually refers to breaking apart the nucleus of a heavy element to form two or more lighter elements. Ionisation (ie. separating the nucleus from the orbiting electrons) is much easier, it happens in every spark plug, fluorescent tube, lightning strike etc.
Start with hydrogen, and once you've stripped off the electron, all you've got left is a proton.
The LHC stands for Large Hadron Collider which must therefore mean that they are aiming to hit nuclei together which is an appreciably larger mass than a proton or two!
Deuterium nucleus = 1 proton + 1 neutron
Helium nucleus = 2 protons + 2 neutrons
etc.
Not what you'd call 'appreciably' larger - it just depends which bit of the periodic table you're interested in.
My memory is not perfect, but I was taught that many elements cannot exist as a single atom probably due to their valencies and therefore have to combine into more than one atom which is called a molecule.
10 September 2008, 09:26 AM
#225
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you imagine the prosecution "well me lord we have no evidence that that he committed the crime, but we have faith that he did it". Absolute madness!
Getting back on topic this sounds like the first chapter from the Dan Brown novel Angles and Demons!
10 September 2008, 09:26 AM
#226
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 September 2008, 10:05 AM
#230
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 September 2008, 10:20 AM
#231
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 September 2008, 12:07 PM
#235
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From an interview with Mr ***, fairly unequivocal IMO
"
Cern have been confident in the prediction that there are no major risks associated with the LHC's operation. How robust is this prediction? In particular, how reliant is it upon unsupported theoretical assumptions? (Chris)
Okay, so how do we know this thing won't make planet Earth implode then? (Stephen)
A: Let me answer all of these at once.
The LHC has absolutely no chance of destroying anything bigger than a few protons, let alone the Earth. This is not based on theoretical assumptions.
It is, of course, essential that all scientific research at the frontiers of knowledge, from genetics to particle physics, is subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny to ensure that our voyages into the unknown do not result in unforeseen, perhaps dangerous outcomes.
Cern, and indeed all research establishments, do this routinely and to the satisfaction of their host governments. In the case of the LHC, a report in plain English is available here:
The safety of the LHC
For the record, the LHC collides particles together at energies far below those naturally occurring in many places in the Universe, including the upper atmosphere of our planet every second of every day.
If the LHC can produce micro black holes, for example, then nature is doing it right now by smashing ultra-high energy cosmic ray particles into the Earth directly above our heads with no discernable consequences.
The overwhelmingly most likely explanation for our continued existence in the face of this potentially prolific production of black holes is that they aren't produced at all because there are either no extra dimensions in the Universe, or they aren't set up right for us to see them.
If black holes are being produced, then next on the list of explanations for our continued existence is the broad theoretical consensus that sub-atomic black holes should fizzle back into the Universe very quickly, billionths of a second after they are created in a little flash of particles via a process known as Hawking radiation.
In other words, they evaporate away very quickly indeed. This process, which is perhaps Steven Hawking's greatest contribution to theoretical physics, is on significantly firmer theoretical ground than the extra dimensions theories required to create the little black holes in the first place.
Even if Hawking is wrong, and therefore much of our understanding of modern physics is also wrong, the little black holes would be so tiny that they would rarely come close enough to a particle of matter in the Earth to eat it and grow.
And even if you don't buy any of this, then you can still relax in the knowledge that we have no evidence anywhere in the Universe of a little black hole eating anything - not just Earth but the Sun and planets and every star we can see in the sky, including the immensely dense neutron stars and white dwarfs, remnants of ancient Suns that populate the sky in their millions and which because of their density would make great black hole food.
So - the only theoretical bit is in the proposition that you can make little black holes in the first place. From then on, observation tells us that these things either (a) don't exist - the most likely explanation; or (b) exist, but do not eat neutron stars and are therefore harmless, probably because they evaporate away very quickly indeed!
I am in fact immensely irritated by the conspiracy theorists who spread this nonsense around and try to scare people. This non-story is symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science, particularly in the US, which includes intelligent design amongst other things. The only serious issue is why so many people who don't have the time or inclination to discover for themselves why this stuff is total crap have to be exposed to the opinions of these half-wits. (BC) "
Geezer
"
Cern have been confident in the prediction that there are no major risks associated with the LHC's operation. How robust is this prediction? In particular, how reliant is it upon unsupported theoretical assumptions? (Chris)
Okay, so how do we know this thing won't make planet Earth implode then? (Stephen)
A: Let me answer all of these at once.
The LHC has absolutely no chance of destroying anything bigger than a few protons, let alone the Earth. This is not based on theoretical assumptions.
It is, of course, essential that all scientific research at the frontiers of knowledge, from genetics to particle physics, is subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny to ensure that our voyages into the unknown do not result in unforeseen, perhaps dangerous outcomes.
Cern, and indeed all research establishments, do this routinely and to the satisfaction of their host governments. In the case of the LHC, a report in plain English is available here:
The safety of the LHC
For the record, the LHC collides particles together at energies far below those naturally occurring in many places in the Universe, including the upper atmosphere of our planet every second of every day.
If the LHC can produce micro black holes, for example, then nature is doing it right now by smashing ultra-high energy cosmic ray particles into the Earth directly above our heads with no discernable consequences.
The overwhelmingly most likely explanation for our continued existence in the face of this potentially prolific production of black holes is that they aren't produced at all because there are either no extra dimensions in the Universe, or they aren't set up right for us to see them.
If black holes are being produced, then next on the list of explanations for our continued existence is the broad theoretical consensus that sub-atomic black holes should fizzle back into the Universe very quickly, billionths of a second after they are created in a little flash of particles via a process known as Hawking radiation.
In other words, they evaporate away very quickly indeed. This process, which is perhaps Steven Hawking's greatest contribution to theoretical physics, is on significantly firmer theoretical ground than the extra dimensions theories required to create the little black holes in the first place.
Even if Hawking is wrong, and therefore much of our understanding of modern physics is also wrong, the little black holes would be so tiny that they would rarely come close enough to a particle of matter in the Earth to eat it and grow.
And even if you don't buy any of this, then you can still relax in the knowledge that we have no evidence anywhere in the Universe of a little black hole eating anything - not just Earth but the Sun and planets and every star we can see in the sky, including the immensely dense neutron stars and white dwarfs, remnants of ancient Suns that populate the sky in their millions and which because of their density would make great black hole food.
So - the only theoretical bit is in the proposition that you can make little black holes in the first place. From then on, observation tells us that these things either (a) don't exist - the most likely explanation; or (b) exist, but do not eat neutron stars and are therefore harmless, probably because they evaporate away very quickly indeed!
I am in fact immensely irritated by the conspiracy theorists who spread this nonsense around and try to scare people. This non-story is symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science, particularly in the US, which includes intelligent design amongst other things. The only serious issue is why so many people who don't have the time or inclination to discover for themselves why this stuff is total crap have to be exposed to the opinions of these half-wits. (BC) "
Geezer
10 September 2008, 12:11 PM
#236
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 September 2008, 01:10 PM
#238
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**
i rather enjoyed that bit - the prof's right. to quote gerald warner's delicious phrase in today's telegraph, we really do live "in an era of unprecedented planetary hypochondria" - where some would rather believe hollywood disaster scripts, conspiracy theories and frenzied media claptrap than trust the careful, diligent and honest work of today's greatest scientific minds.
there are some priceless contributions on the BBC's 'have your say' page on this subject - not least a couple of absolute corkers from parents who are 'angry' at the 'trauma' their children have suffered in the firm belief that 'the world was going to end' today - and, naturally, want someone to blame. no doubt some cretin will begin a court case for compensation quoting infringement of their human rights.
[shakes head].
as the scientific backbone within education gradually calcifies [and bone-headed, toxic rubbish like creationism and ID are given the oxygen of teaching], so society collectively and incrementally starts to regress, seeking solace in cant and superstition. we'll be back to the ducking stool and witch-burning next ...
i rather enjoyed that bit - the prof's right. to quote gerald warner's delicious phrase in today's telegraph, we really do live "in an era of unprecedented planetary hypochondria" - where some would rather believe hollywood disaster scripts, conspiracy theories and frenzied media claptrap than trust the careful, diligent and honest work of today's greatest scientific minds.
there are some priceless contributions on the BBC's 'have your say' page on this subject - not least a couple of absolute corkers from parents who are 'angry' at the 'trauma' their children have suffered in the firm belief that 'the world was going to end' today - and, naturally, want someone to blame. no doubt some cretin will begin a court case for compensation quoting infringement of their human rights.
[shakes head].
as the scientific backbone within education gradually calcifies [and bone-headed, toxic rubbish like creationism and ID are given the oxygen of teaching], so society collectively and incrementally starts to regress, seeking solace in cant and superstition. we'll be back to the ducking stool and witch-burning next ...
Last edited by Holy Ghost; 10 September 2008 at 01:30 PM.
