This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

TommieV
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:53 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Chalnoth, yet they don't exclude the fact that it might happen, according to their risk analysis reports iirc.
But what if a black hole really was created? Just a tiny one. Theories say the black hole won't swallow up any matter because it would be too small. But really, have these theories ever before have been proved to be true?
To be honest I'm a bit afraid of this research and the researchers. All these physicists, it feels like they have so much confidence and are so eager to see results. But what if one of the theories doesn't totally work in the situation here on earth in the LHC?
Shouldn't they also consider this? Even if the chance is so small it's almost 0, it would still be a major risk, wouldn't it? If it concerns earth? I mean, how small was the chance life would exist on some planet, the chance was extraordinary small, but life is here on earth. Even if the chance is so small it doesn't mean it has to occur. However then the question is is where to draw the line of what is an acceptable risk for the destruction of earth - but that seems like an impossible task.

Also, hi I'm new here and this were just some things I were thinking. If you could clarify a few things or errors in my reasoning please do ^^.

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

The problem with the "The chance is small, but nonzero, so since the Earth is at stake we shouldn't do it" argument is this:

There is a chance that something that we haven't detected will destroy the world tomorrow. It's an absurdly small chance, but it's not zero. Now, there is a chance that something to do with your car is a part of what will destroy the world tomorrow... and if you don't drive your car, and take the bus instead, then it won't happen. This chance is even more absurdly small, but it's still nonzero. However, noone would ever consider this a reason to avoid driving your car tomorrow (especially since it's also possible, though also absurdly unlikely, that not driving will destroy the world, but driving will save it).

So, as you say, what you need is a place to draw the line, and say that this is a negligible chance of geocide, but that isn't.

Conceptually, I think the answer is to figure the chance that the Earth will be destroyed if we fire the LHC, and the chance that the Earth will be destroyed if we don't, and compare the two. While there are ways that the LHC could potentially destroy the Earth, there are also ways it can potentially save it. So you have to weigh up the chance that several parts of theoretical physics are completely wrong, versus the chance that the information we learn from the LHC can be used to, I dunno, deflect an incoming comet that would destroy the world, or something.
Now, the former chance is very low, since we have every reason to believe that the currently-established theoretical physics is correct... that's why it's the currently-established theoretical physics. It could be wrong, but it's unlikely that it would be sufficiently wrong for LHC to pose a threat. The latter chance is also very low, simply because the chance that a comet will destroy the world is very low... and the chance that a comet would destroy the world except we can prevent it with LHC-knowledge must be much lower than that.

However, neither of these chances are really measurable... since the first is basically "What's the chance that Science is wrong?" (which isn't really a question Science can answer), and the second is "what is the chance that an as-yet-unknown piece of information could help in some unspecified way, in a situation that's rather unlikely, but noone knows by how much?"... which has way too many variables to be useful.

So then you have to come back to the point that both these chances are absurdly small... Small enough to be called "negligible"? Well, I haven't looked into enough to declare myself as having an informed opinion, but I believe so.

 Holy crap, did I really type all of that? Man, I really do ramble when I'm tired...

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

Denizen
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:43 am UTC
Location: Finland
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

"What's the chance that Science is wrong?" (which isn't really a question Science can answer)

I have ot say, even if I'm being a smart ass, that chance is 100 %. And every beginning scientist knows this. And when concerning particle physics, it's really wrong (look at how they discover little problems, like, i don't know, the mass of everything is too small, and then make up some theory, that becomes an enormous part of everything (and dark matter wasn't even enough, so they added dark energy))...

So... Compare: If you were driving a car, and there's a red light for you, and it stays and stays and stays, and there is no one anywhere. You are sure, that no one will be hurt by you driving against red light, but even if you are sure, there is some tiniest possibility, that you just missed someone coming...

Of course, with the black holes it's a smaller possibility, but there can always be something we have missed, and there are things we have missed, and it has already been suggested that theoretically turning LHC on could do something bad. So, who has the right to pull the lever/push the button?

And no, I don't really think they will destroy the world, and I'm waiting to see what happens (and just for a good laugh, hoping that they won't find Higg's boson).. But people should never be too sure (nothing is as scary as people who say that nothing can go wrong with nuclear plants or something like that...)
"Minä osaan lentää, jos vain tahdon. Sinä voit odottaa alhaalla, ja mopata jäljet, mutta minä en tiedä olleeni väärässä. Kumpi meistä on onnellisempi, minä joka lensin, vai sinä jolle jäi jäljet siivottavaksi?"

Näkökulmista elämässä on kyse.

GCM
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Seriously, hasn't Black Mesa taught you anything?

Denizen wrote:And no, I don't really think they will destroy the world, and I'm waiting to see what happens (and just for a good laugh, hoping that they won't find Higg's boson)..

Well, it's not so funny if you're the one footing the bill. Oh wait. It IS funny!!
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here.

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Denizen wrote:I have ot say, even if I'm being a smart ass, that chance is 100 %.

Yes, but I don't mean wrong as in "Newtonian gravity is wrong, general relativity is a much better fit for the real world...", I mean wrong as in "Newtonian gravity is wrong, heavy objects can fall upwards if you wave your magic wand and say the right words."

Denizen wrote:So... Compare: If you were driving a car, and there's a red light for you, and it stays and stays and stays, and there is no one anywhere. You are sure, that no one will be hurt by you driving against red light, but even if you are sure, there is some tiniest possibility, that you just missed someone coming...

Yes, but situations where running a red light with noone apparently around will somehow save a life are much more contrived and unlikely than the situations where running a red light with noone apparently around could take one. With the LHC this is less obvious, and may not actually be the case.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

ld50
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:17 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Denizen wrote:And no, I don't really think they will destroy the world, and I'm waiting to see what happens (and just for a good laugh, hoping that they won't find Higg's boson).. But people should never be too sure (nothing is as scary as people who say that nothing can go wrong with nuclear plants or something like that...)

You are trying to trap me, and it has worked

They're not looking for Higg's boson. Higg doesn't have a boson - and never lost one either. They're hoping to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.

Other than that, phlip's answer was good.

In any case, I think it much more likely that a bunch of religious nutters break in, direct the beam to the earth's core and manage to pour hundreds of tons of liquid helium down the hole, thereby resulting in a explosion which throws the earth out of orbit to die a slow death as it passes Pluto... All in an attempt to "save the earth" from the evil scientists.

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

ld50 wrote:In any case, I think it much more likely that a bunch of religious nutters break in, direct the beam to the earth's core and manage to pour hundreds of tons of liquid helium down the hole, thereby resulting in a explosion which throws the earth out of orbit to die a slow death as it passes Pluto... All in an attempt to "save the earth" from the evil scientists.

Cool!

Quite literally, what with all the liquid helium, I guess.

stewie
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:48 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

scarletmanuka wrote:
ld50 wrote:In any case, I think it much more likely that a bunch of religious nutters break in, direct the beam to the earth's core and manage to pour hundreds of tons of liquid helium down the hole, thereby resulting in a explosion which throws the earth out of orbit to die a slow death as it passes Pluto... All in an attempt to "save the earth" from the evil scientists.

Cool!

wha? funny, but completely insane. i can't think of a possible way you could point the beam downwards. i suppose you could use the ATLAS toroids to bend it a bit, but you'd need to rewire pretty much the whole detector first so you can control the toroids individually. then you'd have to be using Pb+ ions to do any actual damage, and you'd have to burn through the whole detector before you got anywhere. even with Pb+ ions, it would take you centuries to get anywhere. Plus i think even with the toroids working full tilt you couldn't get the beam to point anywhere near the core, you'd just end up with a really thin hole going through the outer crust.

Seriously though, the whole black holes thing is probably not going to happen, and even if they do create microscopic black holes, they're in a vacuum, there's no matter to pull in! So they would simply decay in moments, producing some funky results in the process. Also, cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere have a lot more energy than the LHC, and to current scientific knowledge they have never created black holes, and if they have, geocide has not yet happened.

For people who asked, switchon (first beams) is expected end of this month/early August, first collisions are expected in October. If you're wondering why I know this stuff, i'm currently doing work experience at Lancaster University, working for/with a guy who is on the ATLAS experiment B-physics team. I've read, produced and watched enough particle physicsy stuff in the last two weeks to probably take the A-level module at 15.

Interestingly, they are currently shooting Angels & Demons between LA, Rome and Boston, and they've recently had a camera crew in the ATLAS cavern, shooting footage to produce a view from Dr. Vetra's laboratory for the film. Anyone who knows a lot about ATLAS and particle colliders in general will realise that being next to the detector when they start colliding will be about as fun as being raped with the wide end of a rake, (they radiate a massive amount of particles which are tracked through the detector but not absorbed) but this has never stopped hollywood. also, the fact that antihydrogen is not being produced in the LHC has flown straight past them. But thats what they're doing.
fishyfish777 wrote:Turns out, when someone's high, they just lack coordination and can't play badminton for shit

TommieV
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:53 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

I'm not totally digging this stuff about that these things happen in the upper atmosphere. How can you be certain the same will happen in the particle accelerator as in the upper atmosphere? Still seems like a big guess to me...

stewie
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:48 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Can you explain why you think they would be different? The upper atmosphere has matter in it; thin as it is, a considerable amount compared to the vacuum (10^(-23) bar) inside the LHC. Black holes are a lot of hyperdense matter; matter is energy, so a large amount of energy in a collision can, on a quantum level, produce a lot of matter. We don't exactly know how much energy would be needed to create a black hole, but we are reliably informed by cosmology studies that it's about the energy of a star collapsing, which is what happens to create 'normal' black holes. As mentioned, the energies in cosmic ray collisions are millions of times more energetic than LHC collisions. So if there is enough energy to create a black hole in the LHC, there is certainly enough (and there will, presumably, be more of them due to random factors of collision energies and precise impact angles, but basically there will be more energy, therefore more black holes) in cosmic ray events. Because of the amount of matter available, a black hole in the upper atmosphere is also more likely to 'commit geocide' than one in the LHC. The more matter is available, the more likely a black hole is to start absorbing matter and destroy us all. More matter is available in the atmosphere than in the LHC, so if black holes created in the LHC could destroy us, we should already be dead.

If you can think of a reason geocide is more likely in the LHC, please, explain it.
fishyfish777 wrote:Turns out, when someone's high, they just lack coordination and can't play badminton for shit

Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:58 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

stewie wrote:Can you explain why you think they would be different? The upper atmosphere has matter in it; thin as it is, a considerable amount compared to the vacuum (10^(-23) bar) inside the LHC.

There is absolutely no way that the vacuum in the LHC beamline is 10^-23 bar. That's almost 10 orders of magnitude better than the best achievable laboratory vacua.

RAPTORATTACK!!!
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:48 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

No, see what will actually happen is they'll press all the buttons and stuff, and it'll be like "arr" and a muskrat will fall out!

Team 246 OVERCLOCKED!

stewie
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:48 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

stewie wrote:Can you explain why you think they would be different? The upper atmosphere has matter in it; thin as it is, a considerable amount compared to the vacuum (10^(-23) bar) inside the LHC.

There is absolutely no way that the vacuum in the LHC beamline is 10^-23 bar. That's almost 10 orders of magnitude better than the best achievable laboratory vacua.

Shit, sorry, i got my figures confused, i was a bit tired last night. its 10^(-13) bar. BTW pressure on the moon is about 10^(-12) bar. something else is 10^(-23), can't remember what.
fishyfish777 wrote:Turns out, when someone's high, they just lack coordination and can't play badminton for shit

Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:58 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

stewie wrote:Shit, sorry, i got my figures confused, i was a bit tired last night. its 10^(-13) bar. BTW pressure on the moon is about 10^(-12) bar. something else is 10^(-23), can't remember what.

That's more reasonable. 10^-23 could be intergalactic space, which, IIRC, has a density of roughly one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.

GCM
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:28 pm UTC
Location: Metropolis City, Planet Kerwan, Solana Galaxy
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

stewie wrote:Seriously though, the whole black holes thing is probably not going to happen, and even if they do create microscopic black holes, they're in a vacuum, there's no matter to pull in! So they would simply decay in moments, producing some funky results in the process. Also, cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere have a lot more energy than the LHC, and to current scientific knowledge they have never created black holes, and if they have, geocide has not yet happened.

Really? I didn't know that black holes decay in vacuum. Come to think of it, yeah, there's no matter to suck in, so they can't really grow anyway, but I didn't think that they'd decay.

By the way, can someone confirm to me about strangelets? So, essentially, they're weird matter that transforms anything they touch into more of themselves, yes? Like tiberium or something.
All warfare is based on heavily-armed robotic commandos.
~Sun Tzu

Notes: My last avatar was "Vote Robot Nixon", so I'm gonna keep a list here.

Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:58 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

GCM wrote:Really? I didn't know that black holes decay in vacuum. Come to think of it, yeah, there's no matter to suck in, so they can't really grow anyway, but I didn't think that they'd decay.

TommieV
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:53 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Hawking's analysis became the first convincing insight into a possible theory of quantum gravity. However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed, nor are there currently viable experimental tests which would allow it to be observed. Hence there is still some theoretical dispute over whether Hawking radiation actually exists.
Fun stuff.

stewie
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 6:48 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

GCM wrote:Really? I didn't know that black holes decay in vacuum. Come to think of it, yeah, there's no matter to suck in, so they can't really grow anyway, but I didn't think that they'd decay.

Most of the matter has like charges, and the strong force can't hold it all together because the charges are too strong, so they would decay. Unfortunately all we have ATM is simulations of what will happen. does anyone else think 'gluon' is an awesome name for the gauge boson which sticks things together when they have like charges?

Today i helped with some wiring on the T2K ND280 Ecal. Or for those who don't speak high energy physics, the Tokai to Kamioka Near Detector (280m) electromagnetic calorimeter, which is currently in about infinity pieces in a workshop in Lancaster, UK
fishyfish777 wrote:Turns out, when someone's high, they just lack coordination and can't play badminton for shit

scarletmanuka
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 4:29 am UTC
Location: Perth, Western Australia

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

stewie wrote:which is currently in about infinity pieces in a workshop in Lancaster, UK

When I saw this, I thought immediately that it had to be rephrased in more scientific language: infinity +/- 12%.

xicubestza
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:48 am UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

I'm not sure if this is even close to in the realm of possibility I read this whole thread and my brain melted a little.

BUT

If this thing could show us anti matter or new dimensions couldn't it pull a Metriod Prime echos and create a whole new earth that was all nega-earthy?
and if i creates so much radiation how would the earth around it survive? would it just kill everything for miles around off?

as for the grilled cheese.
I have never had super-collided grilled cheese but i imagine it would be the greatest thing to come along since white cheddar cheeze-its.

stewie wrote:Seriously though, the whole black holes thing is probably not going to happen, and even if they do create microscopic black holes, they're in a vacuum, there's no matter to pull in! So they would simply decay in moments, producing some funky results in the process. Also, cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere have a lot more energy than the LHC, and to current scientific knowledge they have never created black holes, and if they have, genocide has not yet happened.

Isn't space a vacuum and, as far as we know, blacks holes still exist there... right?

ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

xicubestza wrote:Isn't space a vacuum and, as far as we know, blacks holes still exist there... right?

If you look at the section "Black hole evaporation" in Wikipedia's article on Hawking radiation, it has a predicted evaporation time as a function of initial mass:

$t_\mathrm{ev} = 8.407\,16 \times 10^{-17} \left[\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{kg}}\right]^3 \mathrm{s} \ \ \approx\ 2.66 \times 10^{-24} \left[\frac{M_0}{\mathrm{kg}}\right]^3 \mathrm{yr}$

The minimum mass for an object to form a traditional Schwarzschild black hole is around 10 solar masses (the TOV limit) which, if I've done my Google calculator tricks right, is in the ballpark of 10^70 years. Given that the universe is believed to be around 10^10 years, it's not actually too surprising there are still black holes around. It's been suggested that the conditions of the Big Bang could have created some small black holes (in a similar manner to the LHC), which would have evaporated much more quickly.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

SolkaTruesilver
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:30 am UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Do you realise that many scientists have received death treaths over this collider? Makes you wonder at humanity's retards ratio.

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

One would think they wouldn't need to send death threats to the people who're going to be standing right next to the evil black-hole factory... they're going to be the first to die anyway, what's the point? Grow some sense, people!

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

SolkaTruesilver
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:30 am UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

phlip wrote:One would think they wouldn't need to send death threats to the people who're going to be standing right next to the evil black-hole factory... they're going to be the first to die anyway, what's the point? Grow some sense, people!

well, they want to bully these scientists into not doing the experiment (because they believe it's going to cause the end of the world). And thu, wasting the time and money it took the build the darn thing. And also they want to revert to middle age, make us all convert back to extremist religion and ignorance, and kill the heretics/gay/abortionists.

xicubestza
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:48 am UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Ohh okay that makes more sense. The guy who said physicists didn't know how to deal with regular people was very wrong.
That was easy to understand as long as I didn't try to do the equation xD

Thank you conman

YoungStudent
Posts: 127
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:14 am UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

xicubestza wrote:Ohh okay that makes more sense. The guy who said physicists didn't know how to deal with regular people was very wrong.
That was easy to understand as long as I didn't try to do the equation xD

Thank you conman

Yes, they make up theories that will exclude the possibility of danger...but regular people has no idea how to check if that theory is true .
Okay, quote me - We try to explain magic, presence of spirits and supernatural with science, which only explains 'the physical world' that we observe. It's like blind earthworm declaring that there is no light.

Kaiyas
Posts: 459
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:57 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

THE EARTH HAS BEEN DESTROYED. Not by the LHC, but related nonetheless.

clintonius wrote:This place is like mental masturbation

kash98
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

I like to meat the guy that thot to flip the switch because if the big bang is true witch its not, don’t you think if the first one made the universe don’t you think it may do the same. so that means no more earth so the guy that flipped the switched should me smacked up side the head so if it dose work you better get really close with god.

GrandPubah
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:09 am UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

kash98 wrote:I like to meat the guy that thot to flip the switch because if the big bang is true witch its not, don’t you think if the first one made the universe don’t you think it may do the same. so that means no more earth so the guy that flipped the switched should me smacked up side the head so if it dose work you better get really close with god.

I must say this post is utterly incomprehensible. First, misspelled words and homophones. Let's count together shall we?

meat => meet
thot => thought
witch => which
its => it's
switched -> switch
me => be
up side => upside
dose => does

Now, let's add some punctuation, remove some redundancy, and change a few words for understandability

kash98 wrote:I like to meet the guy that thought to flip the switch. Because, if the big bang is true (which it's not), and the first one made the universe, don’t you think it may happen again. So that means no more earth, and the guy that flipped the switch should me smacked upside the head. So, if it does work, you better get really close with god.

But even this is poorly composed. Allow me to offer the following as an alternate version of the original post. This new version is much easier to understand, and better expresses the author's initial sentiment:

I would like to meet the person who initially decided to implement the LHC project. I believe he made a mistake in his assumptions regarding the project, and that the following should be considered: the experiments that are being conducted at the LHC are designed to recreate conditions similar to those believed to have followed the original "Big Bang", which also resulted in the initial creation of the universe as we now know it. Thus, if these experiments succeed, and those original assumptions regarding the creation of the universe were correct, we run the risk of also recreating those results. In other words, our universe, and specifically Earth itself, will be infinitely expanded and life as we know it will cease to be.

These thoughts being considered, I feel it is my obligation to meet with the original designers of the LHC, and express to them my discontent by assaulting them physically. I also recommend that anyone that believes in the "Big Bang" abandon his or her beliefs based on this argument. The same should instead convert to my religion, Christianity. By doing so, you forfeit any and all belief that the "Big Bang" ever took place, which leads to the argument that the LHC cannot create another such "Big Bang", and thus cannot destroy the universe. However, I will use the fear of this pending destruction to convince you that if you do not convert, you will be made to suffer upon said impossible destruction: a contradiction.

Or more concisely:

I don't understand anything about the science surrounding this topic, or how it may or may not be dangerous, nor any idea of the rules of a convincing argument, but I will gladly push my belief system on anyone who I believe to, in any way, contradict that belief system. I will also be happy to conveniently ignore that same belief system when it comes to matters of personal desire, including, but not limited to, threatening violence against those individuals.

Although this is somewhat a paraphrase of the initial post, I believe it still conveys the same message in a more obvious way.

-Summer Glau

Disclaimer: Please conveniently disregard any typographical or grammatical errors. My belief system said it was OK for me to use them in this argument.

kash98
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

lol wow you are an ass hole. and no one cares about you so go away

kash98
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Ok plus if the LHC project works that shows the knowledge it takes to crate the universe so that shows that there had to be a curator. And also the "Big Bang" is ONLY A THERY SO NOT TRU. There are more and more scientists going to creationism because it takes more faith to believe in evolution then Christianity so I bow to those that believe in evolution because of how blind and dumb they are.

PS. piss off and don’t change any thing on this paragraph like you did on my last one adding things I didn’t say.

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

kash98 wrote:And also the "Big Bang" is ONLY A THERY SO NOT TRU.

I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "theory".

A "theory" in science has a specific meaning. It's impossible to absolutely prove that something is true without any doubt (there's always a chance that something completely unexpected will happen tomorrow that won't fit), it is possible to be very close to certainty. It is only when something has been tested repeatedly (ie people have tried to disprove it, and failed), that a hypothesis is granted the title of "theory".

For instance... if I was to hold a rock out at arm's length, and let it go, you would claim that it would fall to the ground. We don't know that'll happen for sure - I haven't tried it yet... sure, I've dropped similar rocks, but I haven't dropped that particular rock in that place at that time. This rock could very well be the odd one out that disproves everything by falling upwards, or sideways, or suddenly disappearing and being replaced by a bowl of petunias. But the scientific theory (specifically, the theory of gravity) says that it will almost certainly fall.

For the Big Bang, we need look no further than the COBE space mission (as immortalised yonder). They made predictions based largely on the existence of the Big Bang, and then tested them with a space probe... and the numbers matched to something like 6 decimal places. If they got that right just by chance, it'd be like guessing the distance between 2 places that are around 16 miles apart, and being accurate to the nearest inch. That's an incredible amount of precision, and all but proves that the Big Bang happened. It's because of results like this that we call it a "theory".

In short: "Thoery" doesn't mean that it's untrue. "Theory" means we're as close to being sure that it is true, as we could possibly be, short of suddenly becoming omniscient.

kash98 wrote:don’t you think if the first one made the universe don’t you think it may do the same.

Here, I blame the media for your misunderstanding. The LHC doesn't intend to recreate the Big Bang... they're not going to create a new universe here. And even if they did, it'd be on a much smaller scale... it wouldn't replace the current universe any more than a toy train set will replace the real train network. It'd just be a small handful of atoms in a tube, that'd just act the same as any other atoms in the tube.

What's important are the conditions of those atoms. Very shortly after the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe was very densely packed, very highly-pressured, and very hot. It only lasted like that for tiny fractions of a second before some very interesting things are hypothesised to have happened. We don't know for sure yet whether they happened or not, or how they happened... so it is only a hypothesis as yet, and not a theory. And we can't go back to the Big Bang to watch it happen. But we can, in carefully-controlled situations such as the LHC, get some matter and smash it together, so that it's very densely packed, very highly-pressured, and very hot, for a tiny fraction of a second, and watch it to see what happens. And the information we get from that could advance these hypotheses to the status of "theory". Or it could disprove them altogether. We won't know until we do the experiment... and once the experiment is done, either way, we'll have learned more about the nature of the universe.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

Ctta0s
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:25 am UTC
Location: Various

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

kash98: Look, Summer Glau could kick your ass (and the ass of everyone in your immediate family) in the time it would take you to write one of your woefully uneducated, misspelled, grammar-less posts. Moral: Don't contradict Summer Glau.

Now, just a few follow-up questions:
1. Do you actually read xkcd?
2. Do you understand it?
3. Do you know the sort of people that read xkcd?
4. Assuming you know the answer to question 3 (which is dubious), what sort of response did you expect to your posts?

Please do get back to me with the answers to all of those questions as soon as you've read and comprehended them.

GrandPubah: Beautiful application of 406. I applaud you.
P.S. Dammit, now I wanna watch Serenity again. Or maybe those last few episodes of Firefly. Maybe I'll do that tonight.

EDIT: Philip, a noble effort, but I think, largely wasted in this particular case. On the other hand, it will be useful for clearing this up for others who may stumble upon the posts.

kash98
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

LOL you guys are so fucking Rtarded #1 Summer Glau is a little girl my 80yr grandma that is blind in one eye can kick his ass #2 with the universe was densely packed I can agree but NO MACHEANE CAN HOLD IT DUMB ASS!!!

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

kash98 wrote:#1 Summer Glau is a little girl my 80yr grandma that is blind in one eye can kick his ass

There's a scene in Serenity where Summer Glau (well, to be more accurate, her character River Tam) beats up an entire room full of huge tough guys and hardened criminals. It's that scene (and a similar one later in the movie) that people are referring to when they make those claims.

kash98 wrote:#2 with the universe was densely packed I can agree but NO MACHEANE CAN HOLD IT DUMB ASS!!!

But the point is it doesn't need to be the entire universe.

If we take, say, a small handful of atoms and compress them heavily in the LHC, then we can get all the information we need about what it was like shortly after the Big Bang... but when it expands, it'll still only be a small handful of atoms, it'll fit perfectly fine in the machine.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

kash98
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

Ok all set aside they are not compressed atoms they are colliding molecules maybe you should read up a little more about this thing then come back.

ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

I don't think he's the one that should be reading up. The largest thing being collided in the LHC is lead ions. Definitely no molecules, and mostly only individual protons.

I think we can see where this thread is going.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.

NMcCoy
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 4:25 pm UTC
Location: Portland, OR

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

I hate to be the one to say it here, but... obvious troll is obvious?
<cute Usenet ASCII-art sign, circa mid-90s, goes here>

That said, applause for GrandPubah's masterful paraphrasing, and phlip's earnest and well-written explanation of scientific theory and COBE results.

And kash98? In the eloquent words of one of our most esteemed members of this fine community here,
kash98 wrote:lol wow you are an ass hole. and no one cares about you so go away
Why, I couldn't have said it better myself.

phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

NMcCoy wrote:I hate to be the one to say it here, but... obvious troll is obvious?

Yeah, I know... but I figured I'd answer it seriously anyways, just in case he was somehow serious, or if someone else happened to come through later with similar misconceptions (though maybe I'm too optimistic to think that if that were to happen, they'd actually read the thread...).

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

ConMan
Shepherd's Pie?
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 11:56 am UTC
Location: Beacon Alpha

### Re: "Large Hadron Collider" Discussion

I was fairly sure myself (hence my comment), but I decided to treat it like a modern-day Platonic dialogue - one side plays the idiot, asking dumb questions about something, and the other side uses it as an opportunity to educate other readers.
pollywog wrote:
Wikihow wrote:* Smile a lot! Give a gay girl a knowing "Hey, I'm a lesbian too!" smile.
I want to learn this smile, perfect it, and then go around smiling at lesbians and freaking them out.