Scientists in search of the God particle may find more than they bargained for!

[Sumguy]

Originally posted by: Quintox
need.....cliffs.....

Physicists were like "Dude, lets make a huge proton gun!" and then some guys were all like "But the Earth will un-assplode into a black hole!" and then some astronomers were like "Relax, brah. Theres a 1/50,000,000 chance of that happening."

Thats what I got, anyway.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I found this opinion using Goggle:

Originally posted by: Expert
SlickSnake is a trollish chicken little. The data has been showing us this for some time. It is best to ignore him

go goggle it yourself if you don't believe me.

What happened to debating the ideas and not attacking the posters, Zinny?

And yet we have to endure post after post of you attacking me, personally?

It's called self control. If you had any, you wouldn't be so concerned with what I might think, and worry more about yourselves.

The vast majority of you wouldn't have the nerve to say the shit to my face you post anonymously on this forum, and we all know that. Google smarts don't work so well face to face.

That's why weaponizing particle accelerators are good, huh? Better guns to keep the googtrogs under control in real life.

your joking, right? why should anyone else contribute to a rational debate with you when you consistently refuse to do so?

see, that's what I'm doing.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Sumguy

Originally posted by: Quintox
need.....cliffs.....

Physicists were like "Dude, lets make a huge proton gun!" and then some guys were all like "But the Earth will un-assplode into a black hole!" and then some astronomers were like "Relax, brah. Theres a 1/50,000,000 chance of that happening."

Thats what I got, anyway.

Actually, a large nucleus gun.

 

[natto fire]

Wow, it is like a double-decker all you can eat troll buffet in here. I guess I will add a tidbit.

So, if anyone that reaches from another source for news/facts is a "googtrog" then what does that make you exactly? I mean, unless you can back up some claim that you wrote that article by yourself.

While I agree with you that the personal attacks are unnecessary, that does not really make you a martyr for your credibility.

This whole thread went down the shitter long ago, and I am sure you will not admit that maybe you do not have your facts straight. If I could ask what you do for a living or study? The fact that you did not address Jeff7's point early on really hurts your credibility. Even though you are on a lambasting spree of OT, some of use that browse here actually read HT as well. The fact is that he is a highly respected member there, and the fact that you have not posted there (although the search might be broken, it is known to happen "every once in a while") would lead me to read and absorb his posts more.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Wow, it is like a double-decker all you can eat troll buffet in here. I guess I will add a tidbit.

So, if anyone that reaches from another source for news/facts is a "googtrog" then what does that make you exactly? I mean, unless you can back up some claim that you wrote that article by yourself.

While I agree with you that the personal attacks are unnecessary, that does not really make you a martyr for your credibility.

This whole thread went down the shitter long ago, and I am sure you will not admit that maybe you do not have your facts straight. If I could ask what you do for a living or study? The fact that you did not address Jeff7's point early on really hurts your credibility. Even though you are on a lambasting spree of OT, some of use that browse here actually read HT as well. The fact is that he is a highly respected member there, and the fact that you have not posted there (although the search might be broken, it is known to happen "every once in a while") would lead me to read and absorb his posts more.

Just look at the points I made about his articles that he used for support about 15 posts up. At least some of the "googtrogs" are capable of finding quality articles and not some crap written by someone who majored in journalism in college.

 

[dbk]

God.....particle?

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt
You don't respond to anything in a reasonable manner.

Prove me wrong. Show us how the any particle accelerator research has ever been weaponized?
Show us how CERN is a military experiment?

Once we move past those basics, perhaps we can get you to address the issues of Hawking Radiation on extremely small gravitational singularities.

DOOMSDAY FEARS SPARK LAWSUIT

Obviously some people are worried enough about it to sue over it.

I am not your physics professor. I posted an article you either agree with, or disagree with. Obviously most posters here disagree with it, including myself. I made my feelings quite clear on the matter. I do not have to repeat myself in every post. Read the entire thread.
I also do not have to respond to every poster who cuts and pastes google searches about it that I either A: Agree with or B: Know nothing about.

If someone posts a funny comment, I also have every right to respond to it, or not. I obviously don't carry a stick up my ass as far as most of you obviously do. That's a personal problem you have to deal with, not me.

Amusingly, you're accusing the people in here of relying on Google for all their information. I don't think such an accusation is fair, nor do I think that being able to find(and understand) information found on google is necessarily a bad thing. However, one thing is certain (and you admitted such) - you yourself are relying on Google. However, there appears to be one fundamental difference between you and the rest of us: those that do use Google at least read the articles. You apparently seem to get no further than the title of the article.

Case in point: the article you linked to in the above quoted post. It essentially says "the critics who filed this lawsuit are fearmongering morons." Nice job though, linking to an article that weakens your own position (as if it had any strength to start with.) Additionally, if you read the article in the OP objectively, it appears that the author is biased and is trying hard to make the case that there really is some level of danger. Fortunately, we are told

"A crusade against it is a danger,? he said of the new collider. ?It would not be based on rational argument.?

- a quote from the physics Nobel winner mentioned in the article. Let me translate for you. He's saying that YOUR little crusade, SlickSnake, is irrational. But, you're right, at least he did tell the folks at CERN 'don't take this too lightly, give it serious consideration.' He didn't say "oh nooooes! The earth is gonna blow up!" Perhaps you're misinterpreting the title "Might a Laboratory Experiment Destroy Planet Earth" as "the LHC might destroy the earth!" He didn't say that.

It's funny though - you seem to think less of someone capable of doing research on Google - perhaps it's because of your own inability to read and grasp the content that can be found. Or perhaps it's because you lack the skill to actually use Google to find scholarly, peer reviewed articles on the subject (you found a link to an msnbc article... lol. Great job doing some google research.) Nonetheless, Google often serves my needs just fine for learning about some of the most recent research done.

Here are a couple better articles to read, some of which have been peer reviewed and accepted:
peer reviewed
another
read this one; good articlejust at a glance, you might want to check out pages 15-16
[L = Not a doomsday article; simply about how easy it will be to discriminate BH's]http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0801/0801.3281v1.pdf[/L]
someone mentioned magnetic monopoles - article on the search for them

Unfortunately, I couldn't find much crap about there being a "danger", except at sites for whom sensationalism sells (i.e. MSNBC, CNN, etc.). I did find this:

Experiments at the Brookhaven National Laboratory will study collisions between gold nuclei at unprecedented energies. The concern has been voiced that ?strangelets? ? hypothetical products of these collisions ? may trigger the destruction of our planet. We show how naturally occurring heavy-ion collisions can be used to derive a safe and stringent upper bound on the risk incurred in running these experiments.

from here It's from Physics Letters B, Volue 470, Issues 1-4 from way back in Dec 1999. You can purchase it for $31.50 if you're really that concerned about the topic. However, looks to me like the intent of your thread is more about fearmongering and seeing how much of a reaction you can get out of the pro-science people in this forum. Thus, I doubt you're genuinely interested in the article.

Here's another journal article: here

We discuss speculative disaster scenarios inspired by hypothetical new fundamental processes that might occur in high energy relativistic heavy ion collisions... we find that they [chances of destruction] are absurdly small... Given minimal physical assumptions the continued existence of the Moon, in the form we know it, despite billions of years of cosmic ray exposure, provides powerful empirical evidence against the possibility of dangerous strangelet production.

Legitimate scientists say such concerns are nonsense. However, as science columnist Allan Boyle points out, for real scientists to say something is absolutely impossible doesn't come easy. Some scientists find it difficult to state categorically that such-and-such a theoretical catastrophe has no chance of happening.
So critics seize on a statement akin to "OK, there is a one in 10 trillion chance that we could blow up the Earth." In the real world, common sense is on the side of the scientists.

And, while I'm at it, one last thing: the moron bringing this lawsuit also brought the same lawsuit against the RHIC. His familiarity with court procedings doesn't stop there though; he's been indicted on charges of first-degree identity theft and attempted first-degree theft related to botanical gardens in Hawaii. There are already nearly a million dollars in civil judgements against him, his wife, and two others in the case. source Sounds to me like the guy is a scum bag. "Self-proclaimed physicist." Ha!

Perhaps next time you rely on Google to battle the rest of us "relying on Google", you can research more thoroughly and not use such dubious sources to support your side of the argument. Then again, without such sources, you actually don't have any support for your side of the argument.

DrPizza, you are grossly mistaken in your inane and puerile attempts at reasoning against me. But if you want to play the devils (or Pizzas) advocate against me, at least get it right. I have bothered to read all the articles I posted, and more I didn't post. I have read about particle physics for over 30 YEARS. In BOOKS. You know, the things with pages made of paper? No, no, not your porno mags, sheese. WAY before even the interwebys were even a wet dream in Al Gores pjs.

But thanks anyway for the complete lack of impartial MOD support anyhow. Rather than call out the trolls who post complete crap here and attack the poster not the ideas, you do the SAME EXACT THING. Nice job of MODing, really! I would never take a less than impartial view of a poster as an admin or MOD on the city forums and website I admin, but then I am not ATOT, going for the golden flame shot, either. And I have to deal with people who are really in important positions of authority every day, like mayors, councilmen, police chiefs, fire chiefs, that kind of thing. Unlike here...

I'm really touched and flattered you took the time to post all this googling and defense of googling googlers for me, though. but if you had read more of the posts in this thread, you would have learned that I mostly AGREED with most of the more intelligent posters, not completely disagreed with them. But that does not automatically infer that I might agree 100% with their posted statements.

And you knocked the quality of my Googling, now I'm really hurt. :frown: I simply posted top links with pics or videos for the ADD and reading challenged among you. Theoretical physics research papers is a little over the top for mostly teenage posters looking for PS3 tips and cheats, now isn't it?

As I stated already, I generally disagree with the original posted article I used for the topic. I was not under the impression I had to automatically agree with any article posted or linked for indigestion on here.

A few quotes from me:

Ok, let me be clear about this. No means NO. Unless they are going to save the world, and not risk destroying it, no means NO. This is the kind of misguided theoretical science that gave us the nuclear arms race. Does anyone think the findings of this research are going to be used to help us, or rather to find a new way to destroy us? Based on historical precedents, I would say destroy us. We don't need a fancy new strangelet ray to destroy each other. This is the kind of risky research that should be conducted on the Moon or on a large asteroid or on some distant planet like Mars or even on a space station, not on Earth. You can't just turn potentially destructive particles OFF like you can the machine that makes it. This was the same fear that griped the first atomic scientists who gave us atomic warfare. There was no off switch then, and there is no off switch now. And a stupid "Opps!" from the scientists if it triggers some unforseen accident, won't be sufficent, I'm afraid.

Of course, if most of us starve to death or die of disease first, the black hole they create won't matter too much.

THANKS SCIENCE!

(note the obvious sarcasm peppered throughout this statement, and the funny tonge thingy at the end, to reinforce this fact.)

We are not just talking about the possibility of making a black hole here, obviously. But that is what the article was inferring. What they are hunting for is theoretical hypothetical particles. The author is inferring a black hole as a possible result. Personally, I wasn't really worried about that aspect.

It's the possibility of weaponizing this research that really bothers me. But the fact remains they may stumble upon particles or forces that they can not control, whatever the outcome might be. You can't just turn off the machine if things get out of control. And they obviously have no backup plan if things go awry, except to turn it off, and get the hell out of there.

(note how I wasn't really worried about the black hole aspect. I was at this stage more worried about the black holes forming in OT, though.)

But if you insist about debating with me in the future, please feel free to read the previous posts I might have made about the issue before automatically assuming you know what I am talking about. And I found your unsolicited advice at the end particularly poignant, since it appears you don't know what side of the argument I am even on, in the first place.

I certainly hope this post clears up a few things you might have obviously overlooked in the sheer excitement of group cluster******* me, but I do look forwards to debating issues with you in the future! And if not, I have plenty to keep me entertained and busy elsewhere.

And pizza gives me gas.

But I love it, anyhow. :heart:

Go figure.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: everman
There are maybe a handful of people in the world actually qualified to debate this and know what they're talking about, the rest of us are just blowing hot air.

Exactly right!

Bravo!

:beer:

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: Sumguy

Originally posted by: Quintox
need.....cliffs.....

Physicists were like "Dude, lets make a huge proton gun!" and then some guys were all like "But the Earth will un-assplode into a black hole!" and then some astronomers were like "Relax, brah. Theres a 1/50,000,000 chance of that happening."

Thats what I got, anyway.

kthx

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: Born2bwire

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
The vast majority of science research is funded by the military in whatever country that has one worth funding. Just because professor Peabody don't tell you were the funding comes from for science research projects, don't stupidly assume it isn't from the military. And he would most likely be under orders not to divulge that fact.

The NSF is NOT the military. They are no more related than any other federal agencies. There is a spiderweb of links between any two major organizations if you care to dig deep enough, but these links aren't forged out of raw titanium. The military does NOT dictate to the NSF what to fund and what not to, and the NSF certainly doesn't tell the military how to fight wars. I could probably find a link between Al Qaeda and the Boston Poodle Fanciers' Club if I followed tenuous enough strands, but only a true oddball would think that this was proof of some greater conspiracy.

As for "under orders"? Don't make me laugh. Have you ever WORKED in an academic research setting? They post the source of their funding EVERYWHERE! Everyone knows what teat to suck on, and what in-vogue terms to use to start the milk flowing. It's not some shadowy world of secret drops, codephrases, and banned research...you watch too many movies.

Your worldview is a combination of depressing naivety and outlandish conspiracy theories.

While I hate to reference WIKI on debates like this, the fact is even numerous WIKI posters acknowledged the close association of the military to science funding, particularly in physics. Huh, go figure. So much for all those heavily salted conspiracy nuts. The NSF is just operating as another arm of the military industrial complex. That's why they call it a complex. Part of why homeland security was so darned important, was so the military could step in during a crises and take control of all civilian forces from one command facility. Including the NSF. To deny that the NSF is working outside the military branches and control is a frivolous debate at best. NSF = DARPA = military funding and research.

The government also has thousands of ways to disguise military grant money through sham private enterprises and unrelated funding sources that are next to impossible to trace back. And the top research scientists who get the government and "private" enterprise grants and work at universities, know this already. But if they spill the beans about it, they might lose the grants, so they don't talk about it. And the college students doing the research certainly are not privy to this. But if they are smarter than a can of beans, they would suspect it.

What's so bad about military funding?

Oh, I dunno.

The fact they use it to kill you?

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
Ok, let me be clear about this. No means NO. Unless they are going to save the world, and not risk destroying it, no means NO. This is the kind of misguided theoretical science that gave us the nuclear arms race. Does anyone think the findings of this research are going to be used to help us, or rather to find a new way to destroy us?

Originally written by a Nobel prize winning physicist
"A crusade against it is a danger,? he said of the new collider. ?It would not be based on rational argument.?

Note: I did notice the little tongue thingy at the end of the rest of the statement by you that I've quoted above. Nonetheless, that seemed to apply to the latter half of the paragraph that I've chosen not to quote. "No means NO" certainly doesn't sound sarcastic. But as far as " I generally disagree with the original posted article I used for the topic" - that statement above certainly doesn't make it seem that way. Back-peddle much?

In light of your rebuttal, and to clarify my above post, I simply attacked the information you provided as not being credible. If your purpose for making this thread was to support the LHC, it certainly doesn't seem as such. Especially after reading about your first 10 posts in the thread. I provided plenty of quality sources to cast doubt upon the two articles that you linked to. Of course, you've changed your opinion to "oh no! They'll make weapons out of it!" Out of curiousity, where are all the weapons that they developed in the past decades of having these particle colliders? On the other hand, they have TONS of information supporting quantum mechanics, the standard model, and our understanding of the universe. Our knowledge isn't, of course, complete; the new collider will certainly add to our vast wealth of knowledge though. That is, if people will stop making irrational arguments against the LHC and allow scientists to get on with their work.

Also, you mentioned books. It's usually a few years before cutting edge research is published in books. So you read books, big deal. I prefer to read science journals. 20 minutes and I can learn something new. And, if I'm particularly interested in a certain topic, my "googletrog" abilities are capable of finding peer reviewed research.

Y

 

[Brainonska511]

I feel like this thread warrants this: http://xkcd.com/231/

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: dbk
God.....particle?

I think they're talking about the Higgs boson. If I remember right, it's some theoretical thingamajig that is the reason that a bunch of massless subatomic particles can have mass. Something like that. It would be a path to answering the question, "Why does matter have mass?"

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Wow, it is like a double-decker all you can eat troll buffet in here. I guess I will add a tidbit.

So, if anyone that reaches from another source for news/facts is a "googtrog" then what does that make you exactly? I mean, unless you can back up some claim that you wrote that article by yourself.

While I agree with you that the personal attacks are unnecessary, that does not really make you a martyr for your credibility.

This whole thread went down the shitter long ago, and I am sure you will not admit that maybe you do not have your facts straight. If I could ask what you do for a living or study? The fact that you did not address Jeff7's point early on really hurts your credibility. Even though you are on a lambasting spree of OT, some of use that browse here actually read HT as well. The fact is that he is a highly respected member there, and the fact that you have not posted there (although the search might be broken, it is known to happen "every once in a while") would lead me to read and absorb his posts more.

wha? you mean Jeff7 or SlickSnake are respectable members in HT? I haven't been into HT forum in a few weeks with any regularity, but the last posts by SS in there were of the same trollish, unfounded, biased, illogical flavor that we see here.

SS hates:

1. Sony
2. The Military

doing a forum search, you will find a wealthy supply of highly biased and non-factual tirades directed at those institutions via SS's vile fingers. the internet makes him invincible; he even uses that comfort he feels to turn it around on others, by suggesting real life threats, as exhibited on this page of the thread....

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: dbk
God.....particle?

I think they're talking about the Higgs boson. If I remember right, it's some theoretical thingamajig that is the reason that a bunch of massless subatomic particles can have mass. Something like that. It would be a path to answering the question, "Why does matter have mass?"

Yes, it's the Higgs boson. It's the last piece of the puzzle in the standard model (although there are a couple variations to the theory which would be "higgsless." Prior to that, the top quark was the tough one to find. One of my college profs had a call between 2 and 3 in the morning from a former student working with Fermilab when it was finally discovered (mid 90's)

 

[LongCoolMother]

i was under the impression that a small black hole will do next to nothing. In fact, even if the entire Earth's mass were somehow compressed so much as to become a black hole, it would barely be noticeable unless some spaceship had an extraordinarily close fly by...

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: Captain Howdy
Wow, it is like a double-decker all you can eat troll buffet in here. I guess I will add a tidbit.

So, if anyone that reaches from another source for news/facts is a "googtrog" then what does that make you exactly? I mean, unless you can back up some claim that you wrote that article by yourself.

While I agree with you that the personal attacks are unnecessary, that does not really make you a martyr for your credibility.

This whole thread went down the shitter long ago, and I am sure you will not admit that maybe you do not have your facts straight. If I could ask what you do for a living or study? The fact that you did not address Jeff7's point early on really hurts your credibility. Even though you are on a lambasting spree of OT, some of use that browse here actually read HT as well. The fact is that he is a highly respected member there, and the fact that you have not posted there (although the search might be broken, it is known to happen "every once in a while") would lead me to read and absorb his posts more.

wha? you mean Jeff7 or SlickSnake are respectable members in HT? I haven't been into HT forum in a few weeks with any regularity, but the last posts by SS in there were of the same trollish, unfounded, biased, illogical flavor that we see here.

SS hates:

1. Sony
2. The Military

doing a forum search, you will find a wealthy supply of highly biased and non-factual tirades directed at those institutions via SS's vile fingers. the internet makes him invincible; he even uses that comfort he feels to turn it around on others, by suggesting real life threats, as exhibited on this page of the thread....

I never said I hated the military, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

I just can't support endless weapons research just for the sake of making more of them. Unless there really are aliens out there, then go for it. Otherwise, the weapons industry is just eating up endless tax dollars with no good return for the tax payers. An old nuke is just as good at going boom as a new nuke is, isn't it? And the delivery systems are pretty much a moot point, if you can pack one on a burrow and ride it over the border.

You mean this post, oh innocent and delicate flower?

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: zinfamous
I found this opinion using Goggle:

Originally posted by: Expert
SlickSnake is a trollish chicken little. The data has been showing us this for some time. It is best to ignore him

go goggle it yourself if you don't believe me.

What happened to debating the ideas and not attacking the posters, Zinny?

And yet we have to endure posts of you attacking me, personally?

It's called self control. If you had any, you wouldn't be so concerned with what I might think, and worry more about yourselves.

The vast majority of you wouldn't have the nerve to say the shit to my face you post anonymously on this forum, and we all know that. Google smarts don't work so well face to face.

That's why weaponizing particle accelerators are good, huh? Better guns to keep the googtrogs under control in real life?

Are your tender feelings hurt now? LOL. What feelings.

And I told you I already put in my order for a new Strangelet Death Ray Bug Zapper at Amazon. I just can't wait to try it out. I just have to wait another 100 years before it's shipped. But the preorder was half price!

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: LongCoolMother
i was under the impression that a small black hole will do next to nothing. In fact, even if the entire Earth's mass were somehow compressed so much as to become a black hole, it would barely be noticeable unless some spaceship had an extraordinarily close fly by...

As I understand it, a black hole with the mass of Earth would have the same gravitational attraction as Earth. For example, take Earth and compress it to a point-singularity. The Moon's orbit would be unaffected, save for the sudden lack of tidal forces due to the absence of any fluid oceans. Or let's say the Sun were to suddenly, magically collapse into a point singularity while remaining at the same mass. Besides the sudden absence of the light we all know and love, the orbits of the planets would be unaffected.

It's that equation for gravity, which I never did memorize.
Here we go:
F = GMm/R²
Attractive Force = (constant G, * Mass1 * Mass2)/distance^2
Nowhere in that equation are the dimensions of the bodies, only their masses, and the distance between their centers. 100km wide, 0.001 nanometers wide - so long as the mass is equal, the gravitational attraction will be equal.


The black holes that LHC might, though is unlikely to, produce would have the mass of the objects which created them, they'd be smaller than a proton, and would disintegrate almost instantly by way of Hawking Radiation.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
I never said I hated the military, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

I just can't support endless weapons research just for the sake of making more of them. Unless there really are aliens out there, then go for it. Otherwise, the weapons industry is just eating up endless tax dollars with no good return for the tax payers. An old nuke is just as good at going boom as a new nuke is, isn't it? And the delivery systems are pretty much a moot point, if you can pack one on a burrow and ride it over the border.

Remind me again: exactly how is the LHC going to produce weapons?

I honestly would like to hear your logic for coming to this conclusion.

 

[SlickSnake]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
I never said I hated the military, but thanks for putting words in my mouth again.

I just can't support endless weapons research just for the sake of making more of them. Unless there really are aliens out there, then go for it. Otherwise, the weapons industry is just eating up endless tax dollars with no good return for the tax payers. An old nuke is just as good at going boom as a new nuke is, isn't it? And the delivery systems are pretty much a moot point, if you can pack one on a burrow and ride it over the border.

Remind me again: exactly how is the LHC going to produce weapons?

I honestly would like to hear your logic for coming to this conclusion.

Do you honestly think they are spending 8 billion plus massive operating and maintenance expenses to build you a better microwave oven? WTH else are they spending all this scratch for, huh? If it's not obvious to you now, you certainly won't notice the results from the research in black box projects later, either. Since they are secret and stuff. So there you go.

Or are they just bored and a little curious and scientists just want to know and stuff? Yea, that MUST be the only reason. "So here's that 8 bill in Euros you wanted, now go play in the sandbox and leave us adults alone now, sonny. Just play nice, and don't fire any strangelet ray guns at each other, umm kay? And keep that black hole in your pants, where it belongs! I'm not going to tell you again!"

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
If I really knew FOR SURE about the weaponization of particle physics, I wouldn't claim knowledge of it here, to a forum full of arm chair physics googlers, now would I? You think a new military Star Wars beam technology just appears out of thin air? And yet with this collider, they are kind of hoping this very thing will happen, in a sense.

Bwahahahahaaaaa, so some strange future beam technology that doesn't exist is your proof that PA's are militarized?

Please save yourself the trouble, just admit that you cannot back up your ridiculous statements.
And now you're frantically back-paddling in a vain attempt to save face.

FAIL


"Of course I can prove it, I just don't want to"

I'm not back-paddling. You arbitrarily decided to put me on the spot due to the fact you disagreed with my opinions. So why not prove me wrong, instead, pointless thread troll?

Shit or get off the pot already.

FAIL

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.mkaku.org/articles/become_a_physicist.php">From: So You Want to Become a Physicist?

You have come to the right place

by Michio Kaku</a>

After a Ph.D: Three sources of jobs

a) government

b) industry

c) the university

Government work may involve setting standards at the National Institute for Standards and Technology (the old National Bureau of Standards), which is important for all physics research. Government jobs pay well, but you will never become wealthy being a government physicist. But government work may also involve working in the weapons industry, which I highly discourage. (Not only for ethical reasons, but because that area is being downsized rapidly.)

So you are both right and wrong. Where's that cat?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: MrPickins
Remind me again: exactly how is the LHC going to produce weapons?

I honestly would like to hear your logic for coming to this conclusion.

Do you honestly think they are spending 8 billion plus massive operating and maintenance expenses to build you a better microwave oven? WTH else are they spending all this scratch for, huh? If it's not obvious to you now, you certainly won't notice the results from the research in black box projects later, either. Since they are secret and stuff. So there you go.

Or are they just bored and a little curious and scientists just want to know and stuff? Yea, that MUST be the only reason. "So here's that 8 bill in Euros you wanted, now go play in the sandbox and leave us adults alone now, sonny. Just play nice, and don't fire any strangelet ray guns at each other, umm kay? And keep that black hole in your pants, where it belongs! I'm not going to tell you again!"

Summary:
"Science research is designed to produce weapons, because science research costs a lot of money, (all costly projects are designed to produce weapons), therefore science research is designed to produce weapons."

If you honestly think that this is a logically consistent train of thought, then there's nothing more that I or anyone else can tell you. You've built your entire argument on a VERY questionable assumption!

You may find this very hard to believe, but Bill Gates has given away over $30 BILLION dollars over the years. I bet he has some kick-ass ray guns.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
I just can't support endless weapons research just for the sake of making more of them. Unless there really are aliens out there, then go for it. Otherwise, the weapons industry is just eating up endless tax dollars with no good return for the tax payers. An old nuke is just as good at going boom as a new nuke is, isn't it? And the delivery systems are pretty much a moot point, if you can pack one on a burrow and ride it over the border.

Particle accelerators have been around for decades - since the 1930's, I believe. Actually, since the very end of the 19th century if you want to include cathode ray tubes. Particle accelerators have just gotten larger and more energetic since. The goal of this research is for a fundamental understanding of particle physics and ultimately, the universe, not weapons research.

There have been many spin-off benefits for the public due to this pursuit of pure scientific knowledge: radioisotopes for use in treating cancer, lasers, solar cells, CAT scans, PET scans, x-ray lithography, superconductors... These particle accelerators give us a much better understanding of the universe. No one really knows what new applications may be found from this research. Who could have imagined many of these applications only a few decades ago (very insignificant amount of time, compared to how long mankind has been around.)

Last time I was at Cornell, they had experiments in biology going as an off-shoot of their particle accelerator (harvesting the x-ray radiation from the accelerator). A student I had three years ago has been doing research at Cornell's acclerator the last two summers related to a project in ceramic engineering (she's at Alfred University).

But, you're right, just maybe there will be some application from these super-colliders that can be harvested as a weapon. Just like in the movie Real Genius, we can now aim giant lasers at enemies and vaporize them. Lasers can be used as weapons, oh no! Of course, the weapon application came much much later than: laser printers, lasers used in surgery, CD's and DVD's, cool laser light shows...

It was only a little more than a 100 years ago that the electron was discovered. And, that was from the first "particle accelerator." Do you have any clue how much of today's technology owes its existence entirely to our understanding of the atom and sub-atomic physics? It's not a hunt for weapons, it's a hunt for knowledge. We don't even have a clue what sorts of applications we may stumble upon along the way. However to help alleviate your fears of a strangelet gun - it certainly wasn't a concern with much smaller colliders - they were too small! You can't shrink this technology down - it takes bigger and bigger colliders to achieve these energy levels.

Your position that LHC's goal is weapon's research is nothing short of fearmongering to the general public who knows little about science and isn't interested in pure science. Of course, that's the same general public who benefits from applications derived from this purely scientific endeavor.

 

[Fritzo]

OK OK....Slicksnake wins. They're using particle acceleration experiments to build super zapper weapons to fight off aliens of whatever you would do with such a thing. All those experiments on "what is the nature of matter" and "how did the universe come to be" are just silly fronts so that darn "government" can make X-Wing fighters with lasers that go "ptew ptew ptew".

Thanks for enlightening us Slick.

 

[SuperjetMatt]

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: SuperjetMatt

Originally posted by: SlickSnake
If I really knew FOR SURE about the weaponization of particle physics, I wouldn't claim knowledge of it here, to a forum full of arm chair physics googlers, now would I? You think a new military Star Wars beam technology just appears out of thin air? And yet with this collider, they are kind of hoping this very thing will happen, in a sense.

Bwahahahahaaaaa, so some strange future beam technology that doesn't exist is your proof that PA's are militarized?

Please save yourself the trouble, just admit that you cannot back up your ridiculous statements.
And now you're frantically back-paddling in a vain attempt to save face.

FAIL


"Of course I can prove it, I just don't want to"

I'm not back-paddling. You arbitrarily decided to put me on the spot due to the fact you disagreed with my opinions. So why not prove me wrong, instead, pointless thread troll?

Shit or get off the pot already.

FAIL

I don't need to, you're the one making outlandish claims.
You said PA research is militarized.
Proof? (Other than your non-existent particle beam weapon babble)