here's their rap if you haven't seen it.
YouTube - Large Hadron Rap
as a geek I can't wait until 9/10 to see what we learn, but a lot of folks are saying we shouldn't meddle with this kind of stuff. Opinions?
Printable View
here's their rap if you haven't seen it.
YouTube - Large Hadron Rap
as a geek I can't wait until 9/10 to see what we learn, but a lot of folks are saying we shouldn't meddle with this kind of stuff. Opinions?
Objectively speaking (but, of course, I'm interested in other points of view) research into "pure science" starts out as innocent intellectual curiosity and ends up killing people. What have we gained from nuclear physics, so far, besides atomic bombs and nuclear reactors? These huge public science projects are work-fare for scientists so that they'll be available to build the next big weapon (if they don't blow us up by accident along the way).Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
First off you're rather quick to discount nuclear power... that's a huge step in clean energy. But ok, you want to discount that I'm game. What has nuclear physics done for us... it grew the ability for medical imaging by leaps and bounds allowing us to have a much more effecient diagnosis procedure in our medicine. The knowledge regarding half life allowed us to date ancient artifacts much more precicely which hugely helped archeologists. It led to the development of proton therapy for cancer which has saved my grandfathers life. and that clean energy thing, but we won't mention that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimensch
So yeah as you said science doesn't do anything for us.
OK, I stand corrected ... and I'm happy for your grandfather, but what's clean about nuclear energy? It's dangerous (Chernobyl) and leaves a lot of waste that we still don't know what to do with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
The CERN is only a few miles away from my place, and - besides tentacles - I look almost like you :roflmao
People from the CERN made this video - I don't like rap but this is cool - because there is some sort of "controversy": a few people and scientists are saying that the CERN will create a black hole and that the earth will be destroyed... I haven't made that much physics but that sounds a little far too stretch.The CERN has been created in 1954 and didn't had one major incident - I can't even remember of a small one (that doesn't mean there could not be one, but the people working there are the cream of the professional...) btw the WWW was invented there by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau...
When the train was invented, they were people and scientists saying that this was impossible because our body would never survive such a speed (If I remember well they wanted to go as fast as 30km/h) or that we will die suffocating because the speed of the air would not let us breathe... hopefully, we didn't stop at those considerations...
I will not enter the usual debate about what fundamental physics can bring us that is good... I think that if you have entered an hospital today the answer will be obvious. But if you are interested in reading more about the CERN and the use of basic science, there is a nice paper there: CERN - The use of basic science
True the waste is a problem, but at least it's containable. as for chernobyl yeah that was bad, but it was also built shoddily and barely maintained. compare the number of plants in extince to the number of disasters caused by them.
I live in an area surrounded by nuclear plants and have never had a problem.
PS: Sorry for the previous post btw, got a bit heated by the argument that science in general isn't good. I was prepared for arguments against the LHC but not science in general.
There are actually a lot of smaller colilders in existence, one not horribly far from me in central california. most scientists say a black hole probably won't form, but even if it does I won't care the next day :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ockham
I am a big fan of science for curiosity... or better: research for curiosity (I like to enlarge the vision to humanities for instance)... So I think that wanting to answer the questions a human mind can have (what make us what we really are is the fact that we can think and even ask question about our own thinking) is one of the better way to honor what we are - of course, when harm could be done, experimentation must be done with caution and ethic-.
I just wanted to add this to lighten my point:
The point (application of particle studies) was elegantly, if arrogantly, made by Bob Wilson (first Director of Fermilab, a large particle physics/accelerator laboratory near Chicago) who, when asked by a Congressional Committee "What will your lab contribute to the defence of the US?", replied "Nothing, but it will make it worth defending"
That's OK, my clothes were a little singed but no flesh. I'm not trying to say that nothing good comes from basic science but that it's a question of proportion. For example, on the negative side nuclear physics gave us the atom bomb (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), the cold war, tens of thousands of nuclear war heads and depleted uranium. If it were possible to draft a balance sheet of benefit versus harm, I think we'd be surprised by how negative it is. Your grandfather and the archeological artificats on the plus side and the War in Iraq (weapons of mass destruction), 200 Israeli nukes and Iran enriching uranium on the other... See where I'm coming from? I'm not saying that we shouldn't do science because no one's going to stop it, anyway. I'm just saying that I used to feel that "progress" was a good thing and now I'm beginning to see the dark side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
I lived near Fermilab for twenty years and I can honestly say that it didn't do me any harm except that, every now and then, I get this pain in my back...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
I see your point, but really the cold war would have happened with or without those weapons. It was even fought on many levels other than weapons... space, olympics, etc.
This really is a whole other thread though. so I'm gonna back off.
Sorry for hijacking your thread. Ciao!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
This type of research is not specifically for weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimensch
First of all, there is nothing bad about nuclear reactors. They're our cleanest source of energy right now.
But about the LHC: fundamental physics is about understanding the way the universe works. Quantum theory, relativity, and whatnot are giving us valuable stuff.
Take tunnel diodes. We wouldn't have been able to make them without QT at our disposal. And nowadays they;re part of lots of electronic equipment to compensate for electric resistance.
QT has also given us internet. every high speed backbone uses semiconductor lasers. I worked in a research lab where they invent these things. there are a handful of very smart people in every such lab, solving the QT for their lasers so that they know how to make lasers that do what is needed.
QT has given us a lot over the last years.
And while nuclear weapons are not the best idea ever, they have given use MAD, which kept the world stable at a time when WW3 would have been an option otherwise.
Yes, someone, somewhere might figure out how to build the next scale of weapon from theoretical physics.
But what is the alternative? Putting our fingers in our ears, singing lalalala and hoping that noone else is doing research?
In the end, that kind of knowledge is the only chance we will ever have of surviving the next couple of thousands of years as a species. Because one of these millenia there will be an asteroid hit, or a supervolcano, or some other extinction level event, and if we haven't made if off this mudball by then, it's all over.
Chernobyl is what happens if people do stupid things. Like manually disable all safety elements (by removing them or mechanically blocking them), driving the reactor knowingly beyond its design limits, ignoring anybody who argued against it, and then at the very last instant performing an action which was known to increase the reaction first before slowing it, rather than slowing it immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimensch
Chernobyl is a sad testament to what happens if people with authority violate every rule in the book, only to see what happens.
As the Americans say: Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
But bruno, there's still a point there despite a poor example. 3 mile island? these accidents do happen.
But then textile factories are a haven of fire, refineries explode, and tankers spill oil into the ocean. A nuclear plant is safe enough to be considered an acceptable risk at their current disaster rate in my opinion.
Brings back fond memories of what I like in rap, I'm not so big on what most make today.
PS: I can't be the only one thinking "Large Hardon Collider" am I?
Sounds kind of gay:roflmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Chady
I think that whatever comes from this thing will be pretty cool, since I highly doubt a black hole is going to pop out. My faith is enough to let me not worry about that. Here's hoping for some crazy cool technology that let's us have VR video game systems!:y
True. And though the actual pollution of the accident were not that significant, it ruined the image of nuclear power as a source of energy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
But nuclear reactor design has improved greatly over the last decades, and if it is safe enough for the nimitz type carriers and nuclear subs, then it can be safe enough for civilian use.
All I have to say is: HIGGS!!!!!!!!!
That d@*%^ little particle will be one of the biggest steps forward in understanding our existence, I for one CANNOT WAIT!!!!!!!!
Oh, did I mention they'll be able to recreate conditions analogous to those in the first billionths of a second after the birth of the Universe? Because they will.
And about the black holes; yes, it's a possibility, but they will be on the nano-scale or smaller and will not be stable enough to do any damage.
I'm kind of an amateur particle physics enthusiast, so this is more than a little exciting for me. :y
Just my 2 cents and then I'll be gone. The idea that science and research are bad is not new. Yet without it we wouldn't be having this forum or the computers, or for that matter even the straight razors. We would be grubbing for food.
For that matter I wouldn't be grubbing for food since without the basic science and research my cardiac bypass surgery would never have taken place.
I was working in the nuclear industry at the time of Three Mile Island. I was an uranium exploration geologist and the incident received quite a bit of coverage in the various trade journals. The amount of radiation released was insignificant. The dosage comparison was that it was similar to the radiation you would receive if you worked in a brick building. (How many people know that because of the clay, bricks give off radiation?? Potasium-40). I also recall that the press was severely censored for their coverage. In part that was due to set up photos such as asking everybody to get off the street so that a picture of the "deserted town" could be placed on the front page of the newspapers.
Anyway, science can and will be used for purposes that we might otherwise wish. However, much beneficial progress has been made as an offshoot of war; radar is but one example. Personally, I look forward to the results of the collider. I suspect and hope that breakthroughs in sub-atomic physics will bring radical improvements to our future selves.
OK, done venting - carry on ladies and gentlemen. :cool:
I find it odd that there is a rap, but I'm glad that the video has lead to a discussion of science in general.
For about two and a half years, I was working with simulation data from the LHC at FermiLab and by remotely accessing their computers from my university. It was quite interesting for the first year and a half or so, but later turned into a big software/bugtesting project and I subsquently gave up the work. (I'll not go into details about that because that would be in extremely poor taste.) But as a result, I know a fair bit about the accelerators at Fermi and CERN, as well as how the scientists work and what they are looking for.
I feel it is worth mentioning that black holes do form inside the accelerators, but since black holes are so widely misunderstood, this fact has aroused some concert. Black holes decay at a rate which is dependent on their mass; I don't have the equation on hand, otherwise I'd be happy to post it. As a result, the black holes that are created in the accelerators pose absolutely no threat to anybody. It is also worth mentioning that black holes are formed in out atmosphere by high energy particles colliding with the atmosphere, though those black holes don't seem to receive much press. Examining particles created from high energy collisions in the atmosphere was a precursor to man-made accelerators, and a number of useful experiments can still be performed with such observations. Not that I would consider it useful, but in an advanced laboratory course I took, one of the available experiments involved measuring the lifetime of the muons created by cosmic rays.
I would also like to add in that there have been quite a few spin-off technologies that have been developed from accelerators, most notably the microwave. There is also an area at FermiLab that treats cancer with neutrons.
Oh, one other thing; there are highly active (radioactive, that is) areas around any non-linear accelerator (I would say all accelerators, but I'm only certain about non-linear ones). The main area is where they "dump" the "beam" in case anything should go wrong. The beam is what the stream of particles going around inside the accelerator is called. Dumping is exactly what it sounds like; the beam is forced out of it's normal path and into the ground in a gives spot. An example of something that could go wrong: the beam somehow moves out of it's intended path and begins to run into any of the various things just outside its path (there are tons of electronics, magnets, cooling elements etc). If you think one bad stroke on a hone is bad, imagine a stream of particles upwards of 99% of the speed of the light even just grazing any material.
Oh, one more thing. Now that I've started watching the "rap," it's nice to see that my work is referenced, though I don't really want to say what it was, due to the above bit about bug-testing.
99.9999991% of the speed of light is the target speed for the hadron "bunches." (for those who don't know and are impressed by big numbers:p)
As for applicable scientific advancements; the LHC should expand our understanding of anti-matter which could advance medical imaging technologies. A PET scan uses positrons (anti-electrons) to make a 3-D map of some part of the body that needs to be inspected, so more sophisticated uses for anti-matter could be just as beneficial.
Wow, there's a ton of people here who actually know what the hell the LHC does. I know a little, but nothing intimate like you eggheads:shrug:
I won't make any pretenses, I'm an amateur egghead at best. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Orange
Holli4pirating, on the other hand, seems to be the real deal. :bow
I'm not really sure that our knowledge of anti-matter will be enhanced; at this point two of the largest interests are dark matter and "new physics," which is anything outside the Standard Model. Oh yea, and the Higgs boson...how could I forget that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
I suppose my head is a bit egg-shaped... In all honesty, I love the theory part and I hate the math. But I guess that's why I was in experimental physics and not theoretical:wQuote:
Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge
Unfortunately, I'm either not bright enough for physics grad school, or perhaps I just lack the motivation. Either way, I entered college knowing that I wanted to teach high school physics, so I never had any intention of entering a physics grad school; let alone pursuing a research or theoretical physics career.
But if anyone is interested in some reading that is on the accessible side, I'd be happy to make some recommendations.
In college, theoretical physics was my favorite class and I scored the all time high on the final exams. :D
It was also a hobby then, and I once solved the QT equations for finding the shape of the p orbital of an electron. I was pretty proud of this. I tried setting up the equations for the d orbital but that was too complex to consider solving during my summer holiday.
Well, watching the live feed on BBC is a strange mix -- like getting excited whilst watching paint dry. But it's pretty amazing as of a couple of minutes ago they've confirmed the LHC works -- the beam has gone around fully in both directions. Apparently they've achieved twice as much as they expected in a day.
So I guess we'll all be history by the end of the week when the God particles clump together and pull us all through our own kazoos? :eek: :roflmao
It's been nice knowing you fine gentlemen.
:rolleyes:
So how do they create a detector to look for something that they do not know if it even exists?
Photons-some sort of photonic detector
Heat- thermal detector
Higgs boson-????
Higgs boson detector :)
I guess there is just so much money floating around that the LHC seemed like a good project to spend some of it on :fim:
Sorry, but apparently we won't be learning anything today. Today they're just testing the beams. The particle colliding will happen later. Then it's happy doomsday!Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickelking
The idea is that the existence of the higgs boson implies certain measurable behavior if 2 particle beams collide at ludicrous speed. If they can make that collision, they can detect the scatter patterns and determine if that is in accordance with the predictions of the higgs boson existence.
The interesting is apparently that 2 belgian scientists predicted the higgs boson before higgs. even higgs always admitted this. but his name was published first so it got his name.
The really exciting thing is that people are actually talking on the radio and in the newspaper about the experiments and the particles. the things you hear are completely wrong (like, black holes are the size of a marble), but it is good to hear people talking about particle physics anyway.
Btw, the first collisions will be at 1/2 of the existing collider. There's a lot of equipment to finetune and calibrate etc. It will be some time before they will be up to the levels at which the higgs boson can possibly be detected.
And if we all disappear in a giant flush... well.. it was nice knowing you guys. well, most of you
I heard that if this succeeds, then they can go ahead with their plans to build a death star
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruno
Maybe black holes are the size of a marble?
Ever measure one?:shrug:
I dont know what all the fuss is about.I built one of these in 1985(mine accelerated particles to 117% light speed).I duplicated the big bang a couple of times,then got bored with it,and sold it for scrap.Ive been rewriting Einstine's work to correct the errors in his no faster than light theories.Everthing important happens in Texas first.I saved a big box of Higgs bosons,Ill send some to anybody who wants some ,you just pay the postage Best Regards Gary
The actual black holes in the universe vary in size, there's even a theory that the entire part of the uiverse that can't be seen by us (the combined speed of divergence is greater than the speed of light) is a colossal black hole (or something like that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim
But black holes in general do not have a fixed size, the size (and rate that they decay) is dependent on the amount of mass they have, which makes the ones that will occur in the LHC negligible.
To quote Holli4pirating in the above post: " It is also worth mentioning that black holes are formed in our atmosphere by high energy particles colliding with the atmosphere, though those black holes don't seem to receive much press."
You've already sent me a couple Gary, remember? I PMed you next month, and you shipped them off next year. They arrived yesterday.
James.
Warning from the future, don't take your kids to see the LHC! Mine are already grown now and asking for 18 years' worth of childhood expenses that they missed out on
Don't let the LHC go online last month - I mean, today