Author Topic: Has the LHC destroyed the world yet? (Read 46939 times)

KenR · « **Reply #25 on:** September 12, 2008, 01:46 PM »

Sorry - it just annoys me when tolerance is all meant to be one way. I have frequently been criticised and threatened by fundamentalist christians. If people want to live a bronze age life style (which is what fundamentalist should do to follow the biblical rules correctly) that is fine with me I just object to it being pushed on the majority of society which seems to be a growing trend in the US and UK.
-Carol Haynes (September 12, 2008, 01:16 PM)

Yeah, I get it Carol. Apart from just the intellectual understanding, my Buddist wife is often impacted by the same issue.

Ken

mahesh2k · « **Reply #26 on:** September 12, 2008, 02:10 PM »

Being Atheist, i always hunt for superstitious things arround..

i've observed that when science comes up with something,people use it for their religions advntg or add more superstitions...

In my country, one teen-girl commited sucide coz fear of blackholes,all such rumour things that spread by Worst News TV media..

I'm just feeling sad for this
incident that i unable to break this rumour for society arround myself..

mahesh2k · « **Reply #27 on:** September 12, 2008, 02:12 PM »

So read authentic sites & dont trust tv always..

40hz · « **Reply #28 on:** September 12, 2008, 03:09 PM »

It has. You are now in a parallel alternate universe exactly like the one you were in before they fired up the LHC.
-40hz (September 11, 2008, 10:47 AM)

Not fair, that was going to be my answer

-Lashiec (September 12, 2008, 01:26 PM)

Sorry. I quasi-stole it from Douglas Adams.

nosh · « **Reply #29 on:** September 12, 2008, 03:13 PM »

So, if these slippery sub-atomic thingummies are found to exist, how will that help us?

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #30 on:** September 12, 2008, 03:31 PM »

It may or may not help us. Who would have thought that 50 years of arguments and rivalry about the structure and meaning of quantum mechanics (surely one of the most esoteric theoretical models ever produced) would lead to the development of mobile phone technology?

Actually come to think of it if Neils Bohr and co. hadn't bothered maybe there wouldn't so many hours spent arguing over where to put the aerials and life would be slower and quieter. Mind you we would still be doing sums with slide rules and have TVs that take a lot of time to warm up

Maybe there is an alternative reality without mobile phones - it is just a question of how to get there ....

Grorgy · « **Reply #31 on:** September 12, 2008, 04:58 PM »

Its one of the great things of science, and all intellectual pursuits really, that some things are just done, investigated, tried whatever, just because someone is curious enough. A bit of pure research can lead to all sorts of things which seems to be something which has been forgotten in this lets make a buck world.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #32 on:** September 12, 2008, 05:44 PM »

Have you noticed that non-scientists never really ask questions like:

Why bother putting on plays at the theatre (which hardly anyone goes to) or making films
Why write a book (hardly anyone will read it)
Why learn a foreign language (most of the world speaks English)
Why compose a symphony (only a tiny minority listen to modern music)
Why produce a painting (if its good it will be bought and locked away in a safe as an investment)

None of these things 'acheive' anything other than pleasure (with the possible exception of learning a language) and the amount of money spent (particularly on the first in the list) makes science budgets pale into insignificance. I bet Hollywood spend more money in a single year than the entire global budget for science teaching and research (including medical research).

In comparison a surprising amount of pure scientific research leads to practical solutions to problems even from the most unexpected sources. For example the space race led to a whole new area of material science that affects practically everybody's life on a daily basis - not that NASA and the other researchers actually get the credit.

fenixproductions · « **Reply #33 on:** September 12, 2008, 07:13 PM »

2Carol Haynes
Your words reminded me a story about NASA's research for ballpoint able to write upside down (in space) while Russians used to use simple pencils

PS. Recently I am going to much off topic... sorry.

nosh · « **Reply #34 on:** September 12, 2008, 07:36 PM »

Uh, ok. I realise that science/knowledge is one large game of fill in the blanks, one thing leads to another, yaddi yaddi ya. I wasn't being cynical (though I see how easy it is to assume that) and was hoping for specific, scientific answers, rather than philosophical/pedagogic ones.

Grorgy · « **Reply #35 on:** September 12, 2008, 07:52 PM »

I think thats it though nosh, it isn't going to help us in any particular way at present. It will add to the sum of knowledge and at some point someone in a more applied research effort will find a use for it. Though in the meantime people interested in the origins of the universe may discover further insights. Who knows, me I'm going for lunch!

Lashiec · « **Reply #36 on:** September 12, 2008, 07:53 PM »

I think that is one of the biggest issues with science together with how difficult is to raise funding for even the most basic research. Scientists should try to communicate better what's the ultimate outcome of their projects, as small as they could be, and what's the ultimate benefit for the public, even if it's something purely economical in the short-term (creation of jobs and such).

Of course, press these days will only pick the biggest projects out there, so they're mostly on their own.

e712 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 12, 2008, 09:18 PM »

The LHC cannot destroy the world. The attempted domestication of the cat destroyed it ages ago.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #38 on:** September 13, 2008, 05:25 AM »

I think that is one of the biggest issues with science together with how difficult is to raise funding for even the most basic research. Scientists should try to communicate better what's the ultimate outcome of their projects, as small as they could be, and what's the ultimate benefit for the public, even if it's something purely economical in the short-term (creation of jobs and such).
-Lashiec (September 12, 2008, 07:53 PM)

But that is the problem - pure research doesn't have a goal other than to find answers to questions or to test an idea.

The LHC is built primarily to test theories in particle physics. Who know whether it will have any long term economic or commercial benefit. That really isn't the point.

Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Rutherford and the rest spent decades (some their whole professional lives) theorising and arguing to build an understanding of the subatomic world - there was little or no economic or commercial motivation (not even political kudos as it was a broad international collaboration). As far as I know none of them ever saw a practical outcome to their research but now our entire life style is based on quantum theory. Without it we wouldn't have computers, digital television, mobile phones, modern cars, robot controlled factories and most large scale medical equipment in centres around the world to name a handful of practical applications.

Who would have expected the Curie's discovery and theory of radioactivity to have such a remarkable impact on medicine and power generation? Radioactivity was indirectly responsible for the death of Marie Curie after all but during her own lifetime 'little curie' radiography units were used to treat wounded soldiers in World War I.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #39 on:** September 13, 2008, 06:39 AM »

Who would have expected the Curie's discovery and theory of radioactivity to have such a remarkable impact on medicine and power generation? Radioactivity was indirectly responsible for the death of Marie Curie after all but during her own lifetime 'little curie' radiography units were used to treat wounded soldiers in World War I.
-Carol Haynes (September 13, 2008, 05:25 AM)

True, But what about experiements like "Anti-Matter", rather than solving questions of Religious beliefs & Energy Alternative, if it falls in Wrong Hands what will happen? Scientist who will work on "Anti-Matter" will not be remebered for good like marrie curie.

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #40 on:** September 13, 2008, 06:51 AM »

I don't know - Marie Curie will always be remembered for radioactivity and where did that lead ultimately - the arms race, cold war and Hiroshima and Nagasaki (plus fears of weapons getting into the hands of religious nuts ... tongue in cheek comment ... Palin?)

mahesh2k · « **Reply #41 on:** September 13, 2008, 06:59 AM »

Have you noticed that non-scientists never really ask questions like:

Why bother putting on plays at the theatre (which hardly anyone goes to) or making films
Why write a book (hardly anyone will read it)
Why learn a foreign language (most of the world speaks English)
Why compose a symphony (only a tiny minority listen to modern music)
Why produce a painting (if its good it will be bought and locked away in a safe as an investment)

None of these things 'acheive' anything other than pleasure (with the possible exception of learning a language) and the amount of money spent (particularly on the first in the list) makes science budgets pale into insignificance.
-Carol Haynes (September 12, 2008, 05:44 PM)

Agree, The point is that: There is divide between people who look at Science as Curiosity, Thirst to solve problems or Quest to find answers or innovation with that those of people who look at science just for getting things done & forget about the problems in the world, its just the intellectual divide between people due to Social quotient.

One person not related to science asked me Question : "When pluto was made DWARF planet ,did it make any difference to Pluto or earth,But considerable funds were spent on "BRAINSTORMING"?I could have given example of failed Rockets or rocket that cost millions but failed to take off...But reasonably I would not associate failure as waste BUT the fact still remains FUNDS burnt in failure "

For this Question even i'm confused on how to react to such questions? $:-\$

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #42 on:** September 13, 2008, 07:11 AM »

The debate over 'what constitutes a planet' is a fair question when there are large numbers of scientists world wid looking for evidence of planets orbiting other stars. I can't imagine 'considerable funds' were spent on the question - the scientists and amateur astronomers involved in the debate would have had the argument come what may. Interestingly astronomy is really the only remaining area of the sciences where total amateurs can make a full and important contribution to research. Not to mention SETI which allowed millions of non-scientists to contribute computer power.

Money burns in failure constantly in all walks of life ... just take a look at your local government budget?

If it comes to that anything that is ephemeral (such as any performance) could be considered a waste of resources but do we really want a world devoid of everything that isn't useful? I certainly don't.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #43 on:** September 13, 2008, 07:33 AM »

The debate over 'what constitutes a planet' is a fair question when there are large numbers of scientists world wid looking for evidence of planets orbiting other stars. I can't imagine 'considerable funds' were spent on the question - the scientists and amateur astronomers involved in the debate would have had the argument come what may. Interestingly astronomy is really the only remaining area of the sciences where total amateurs can make a full and important contribution to research. Not to mention SETI which allowed millions of non-scientists to contribute computer power.

Money burns in failure constantly in all walks of life ... just take a look at your local government budget?

If it comes to that anything that is ephemeral (such as any performance) could be considered a waste of resources but do we really want a world devoid of everything that isn't useful? I certainly don't.
-Carol Haynes (September 13, 2008, 07:11 AM)

Exactly,Its just the perspective of those people who don't care for science domain.They want to push their domain over it, knowing the fact that science is connected to them one way or the other.

Something in the Newspapaer realted to LHC that strikes me,it was something like this : "The outcome of the experiment is obivously Study. If the experiment fails ie when the experiment does not give desired output or does not support the fact then the scientist claim they need to re-write the theories of matter/anti matter in the Universe.One of the scientist commented "This project is Our Civilisation Answer to the Egyptian Civilization"

Again Do you think CERN made such Comments? I think Media is exaggerating,Many Reporters commented that Answer to Older Civilisation came very late,

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #44 on:** September 13, 2008, 08:42 AM »

Personally I think CERN has done as much as possible to feed the media frenzy - they want the WOW factor and public interest. From that perspective it is good for science. At least people who had never heard of Hadrons and Higgs Bosons are aware of the scientific debate. Granted not many people will understand the arguments but does that matter - how many people really understand art or art music - it doesn't stop them thinking it is interesting and worthwhile.

KenR · « **Reply #45 on:** September 13, 2008, 11:17 AM »

Well it's clear that this thread will end up in the next newsletter.

mahesh2k · « **Reply #46 on:** September 17, 2008, 06:49 AM »

Press is something that needs to be controlled than any LHC or simmilar scientific experiment

Take a look, Irrational Height of Media

http://www.telegraph...oying-the-world.html

fenixproductions · « **Reply #47 on:** September 17, 2008, 07:07 AM »

Geez... Even if same situations happen all the time I can't still simply believe how someones stupid fears can grow and rule other people's minds. And the biggest opponent is not even physician. I thought there is no one more ridiculous than people trying to push in into already filled space (i.e. train) before anyone leaves BUT I was wrong

Carol Haynes · « **Reply #48 on:** September 17, 2008, 07:24 AM »

I don't know about that Telegraph article - but this is a truly terrifying prospect ...

http://www.telegraph...to-be-published.html

Gothi[c] · « **Reply #49 on:** September 17, 2008, 08:06 AM »

Here's an interesting video showing a tour of the LHC computer infrastructure:

http://video.google....rgLG6tXJAg&q=lhc