0
   

Atom Smasher - Death of Us All

 
 
Matthew phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 02:20 am
@Zetetic11235,
Well the strawberry analogy suggests this. Someone there said that if the elements they were experimenting with were strawberries and were collided together what do You get? The answer they offered was the entire fruit salad, but only for the shortest time. I do not readily know the people You refer to, other than Professor Roger Penrose. An analogy of fruit is a poor example, how about a bell. A ringing bell is annihilated what do you hear? Perhaps the entire frequency! So what is the purpose of this machine then? Learning about magic power source for a spacecraft to escape the problems of this world? Or to find certainty in an uncertain universe, and then what, boredom and predictably? We have had less than two hundred years of technological logic and we think we can know the mind of God? It might possibly be that God may wish to keep his own council on these matters. Okay they created networked computers and gave birth to the internet. But the billions they spent on this machine could have been put to use on other promising technology like the optical computer processor. I disapprove of CERN because media in this region speaks of recreating the big bang on a small scale through the machine high energy levels, but what if the universe is never ending with matter falling into a black hole and then Eons later evaporated in a field that condenses back in to matter. Agreed some of the fields work benefits man, synchrotron in the manufacture of medicine, detectors for MRI machines, but the ever increasing journey into the center of the atom may unset the balance in an exotic phenomena event that may not be controllable. My mantra is that we can learn from the environment while remembering that somethings are dangerous. Please remember history, when radiation was first discovered they put it in water an drank it. The moral of that story was that discoverer was not fully educated about what they were doing. But that's how will learn right, through mistakes! I may be totally wrong but we should wait until we have answer from other field subject found in the library like Dewy decimal subject 000-001.9 Now that's pop science in the non fiction section.
:a-thought::shifty:
validity
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Dec, 2009 03:55 pm
@Matthew phil,
Matthew;111729 wrote:
So what is the purpose of this machine then?
To answer questions with evidence.

Matthew;111729 wrote:
Learning about magic power source for a spacecraft to escape the problems of this world?
No, that would be technology derived from these answers.

Matthew;111729 wrote:
But the billions they spent on this machine could have been put to use on other promising technology like the optical computer processor.
Why is optical processing more promising?

Matthew;111729 wrote:
I disapprove of CERN because media in this region speaks of recreating the big bang on a small scale through the machine high energy levels, but what if the universe is never ending with matter falling into a black hole and then Eons later evaporated in a field that condenses back in to matter.
Yes, that is the point i.e. "What if the universe is" can be answered by such machines


Matthew;111729 wrote:
Please remember history,
and let us also not forget historical fact.

Matthew;111729 wrote:
when radiation was first discovered they put it in water an drank it.
When?, Who?
Pyrrho
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Dec, 2009 04:11 pm
@Victor Eremita,


You did not expect to live forever, did you? I am reminded of the immortal words of Seneca:

Quote:
We have sailed past life, Lucilius, as if we were on a voyage, and just as when at sea, to quote from our poet Vergil,
Lands and towns are left astern,[2]
even so, on this journey where time flies with the greatest speed, we put below the horizon first our boyhood and then our youth, and then the space which lies between young manhood and middle age and borders on both, and next, the best years of old age itself. Last of all, we begin to sight the general bourne of the race of man. 3. Fools that we are, we believe this bourne to be a dangerous reef; but it is the harbour, where we must some day put in, which we may never refuse to enter; and if a man has reached this harbour in his early years, he has no more right to complain than a sailor who has made a quick voyage. For some sailors, as you know, are tricked and held back by sluggish winds, and grow weary and sick of the slow-moving calm; while others are carried quickly home by steady gales.
4. You may consider that the same thing happens to us: life has carried some men with the greatest rapidity to the harbour, the harbour they were bound to reach even if they tarried on the way, while others it has fretted and harassed.
Moral letters to Lucilius/Letter 70 - Wikisource
0 Replies
 
Matthew phil
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2009 11:41 pm
@validity,
When radiation was first discovered they put it in water an drank it. Marie Curie was the one the first to discover radiation and by the time Curie made her first trip to the United States, radium was the glamour substance of high society and was added to products like face cream and lipstick. The Curie myth had its own rewards. She succeeded in raising money to continue the research of the Curie Institute, largely from those thinking she was seeking a cure for cancer. This product was sold by the Los Angeles based International Radium Company
What if the universe is can be answered by such machines? Perhaps but how about trying... "spotting the God particle with a telescope" new scientist 12 December 2009
Why is optical processing more promising? Well currently they are talking about a processor speed of about 6.8GHz as well as this kind of processor could work up and close to the magnet of a MRI machine possibly giving rise to a hand held device.
Spacecraft technology derived from these answers alone will not provide us with these vehicles. Someone has to turn a spanner and judging on the misinformation program around this subject of extra terrestrials the likelihood of getting money for a proper spacecraft project is about the same as winning lotto.
The Greeks thought the atom was undivisional. Could it be that detailed warnings about the inner workings of the atom were too large to afix to the atom itself? Energy levels increase the closer to the center. We should at least wait until we have made contact with cosmic neighbours because these issues just might affect them too., and there might be the remote chance they already know the answers on these answers. Humans, when they discover things often become over excited and sometimes fail to think properly. There are plenty of other projects worthy of the billions spent to find what You and I are really made of. The machine should be mothballed until at least i have the opportunity to leave the vicinity of dangerous human technology.
Selfish a?
Pyrrho
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Dec, 2009 11:52 pm
@Matthew phil,
Matthew;115474 wrote:
...
The Greeks thought the atom was undivisional. ...


Historically, the things that we moderns call "atoms" were called atoms because, at the time they were discovered, it was believed that they were the smallest constituents of matter, and so the name that the ancient Greek atomists had for the smallest constituents of matter was chosen for them. As it turns out, those who named them in the modern era were wrong. That, however, is not a reflection on the ancient Greek atomic theory, in which the smallest constituents of matter were postulated and called "atoms". They cannot reasonably be blamed for modern people getting things wrong.
Matthew phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 03:11 am
@Pyrrho,
Did the Greeks really get it wrong? The end of the second World war show cased the energy in atoms and the dictionary definition may be based on their anicent thoughts..."Atom the smallest unitary constituent of a chemical element composed of a less complex aggregate of protons, neutrons and electrons whose number and arrangement determine the element. A hypothetical particle so minute as to admit of no division."
Referring to the Greeks was a display of anidotal evidience that we should not be messing with the material that makes us and everything we see. What suprises me is that no one has mentioned the Physicist at CERN whom was arrested. In light of those events of October nine 2009 it seems America's foe can get some kind of access to the pinicale of mankinds technological endevours. Anicent people may not have been as uneducated as one might think. The pyramids have intrinsic properties built into them. The sides of the famous pryamids in Egypt are said to have the same curvature as our planet, amoung others things. Whatever the answer to that is, modern people can get things wrong by themselves. Car crashes, Rocket failures and product recalls, we are not perfect and it seems we are not truly happy with what we have either.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 05:34 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;115477 wrote:
Historically, the things that we moderns call "atoms" were called atoms because, at the time they were discovered, it was believed that they were the smallest constituents of matter, and so the name that the ancient Greek atomists had for the smallest constituents of matter was chosen for them. As it turns out, those who named them in the modern era were wrong. That, however, is not a reflection on the ancient Greek atomic theory, in which the smallest constituents of matter were postulated and called "atoms". They cannot reasonably be blamed for modern people getting things wrong.


That is perfectly true but a question that often occurs to me is, given that we now know what was called an Atom is divisible, the philosophy of 'atomism' does not seem supportable.

And if it is not, then what of materialism? If 'material' is not resolvable to an ultimate unit of some kind, then in what sense should we regard it as real (except for the pragmatic sense of dealing with it)?
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 03:19 pm
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;115522 wrote:
That is perfectly true but a question that often occurs to me is, given that we now know what was called an Atom is divisible, the philosophy of 'atomism' does not seem supportable.

And if it is not, then what of materialism? If 'material' is not resolvable to an ultimate unit of some kind, then in what sense should we regard it as real (except for the pragmatic sense of dealing with it)?
It would appear the smallest constituents of reality are vibrating strings some with closed loops and some with free ends existing in the resulting 11 dimensions of space time. Not only the smallest constiuent of matter but of space, time, and energy as well. Monism of a sort I suppose. The point particle theory of matter is incorrect. Probably the continous nature of time and space is an error as well. Truth stranger than fiction. I love it.
0 Replies
 
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Dec, 2009 03:39 pm
@Victor Eremita,
I have read about an interesting book by Lee Smolin called The Trouble with Physics which says that

Quote:
String theory-the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years-is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory-it's just a "conjecture." As Smolin reminds his readers, string theorists haven't been able to prove any of their exotic ideas, and he says there isn't much chance that they will in the foreseeable future. The discovery of "dark energy," which seems to be pushing the universe apart faster and faster, isn't explained by string theory and is proving troublesome for that theory's advocates. Smolin (The Life of the Cosmos) believes that physicists are making the mistake of searching for a theory that is "beautiful" and "elegant" instead of one that's actually backed up by experiments. He encourages physicists to investigate new alternatives and highlights several young physicists whose work he finds promising.


The math is all beyond me, and this is one book I will probably never read. But from a philosophical perspective, I think I share with you a certain sense of relief at the elusive nature of physical reality (although I guess many scientifically-orientated thinkers find it intensely annoying....)
Alan McDougall
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jan, 2010 12:15 am
@jeeprs,
Large Hadron (Proton) collider operational!
Wired Science News for Your Neurons
Large Hadron Collider Sets World Record

CERN announced early Monday that the Large Hadron Collider has become the world's highest-energy particle accelerator. The LHC pushed protons to 1.18 TeV (trillion electron volts), surpassing the previous record of 0.98 TeV held by Fermilab's Tevatron.
mechanical failure just a week after it fired up for the first time in September 2008. Now, 10 days after it turned on again, scientists are celebrating with their fingers crossed that the machine is safely on its way to the physics experiments they plan to begin next year when the LHC has reached its target energy of 7 TeV.

"We are still coming to terms with just how smoothly the LHC commissioning is going," said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer in a press release Monday. "However, we are continuing to take it step by step, and there is still a lot to do before we start physics in 2010. I'm keeping my champagne on ice until then."

The first beam was injected on November 20, and two beams sped around the 17-mile ring in opposite directions three days later. All four of the LHC's detectors recorded data from the collision of those two beams.

The first to announce the record may have been the scientists running the CMS detector through their Twitter feed:

@CMSexperiment: World Record!! Tonight at about 22:00 the LHC accelerated a beam of protons to 1180 GeV - a new record energy!
Next, the intensity of the beams will be increased for about a week, and then collisions to calibrate the machine will be carried out through December.
Image: CERN
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 08:13:40