Large Hadron Collider Creates Incredibly Dense Primordial Matter

[Wieke]

Can we sign a petition or something to get people to stop fucking with things that can decimate humanity?

Seriously. I'm actually a tad bit surprised this substance didn't do any damage to the world.

The substance was made when 2 lead ions collided. Which each weigh about 3.4*10^-25 kg each. No effin way such a substance would be able to "damage" the world.

Cern - The safety of the LHC [http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html] (In short each second 10 million cosmic rays of equal or greater power than the LHC experiments bombard the atmosphere. Any potential "damage" done by the LHC would be done by these rays literately billions of years ago.)

I'm pretty tired of all those ignorant anti-science scaremongers. You guys do realize that CERN invented hypertext (they made the first web page)? And now they got to halt their research just because you're to lazy to calm your fears with a bit of knowledge? They did the research. They know that it's absolutely safe. They even put up a nice web page (one of their own inventions) addressing each of these pathetic claims individually. But no, you gotta whine about how it isn't safe just because you failed to do a simple little google search [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lhc+safety&l=1].

 

[mistwolf]

Can we sign a petition or something to get people to stop fucking with things that can decimate humanity?

Seriously. I'm actually a tad bit surprised this substance didn't do any damage to the world.

Actually, I am not at all surprised, because as much as this is Big News and stuff to us laypeople, it is pretty well understood by the people doing the testing. Also, as scary as some of the comparisons are, there is the matter of scale. While a sugar cube sized block would be unpleasant for the world, the reality is they likely made something that would be less than a thousandth the size of one sugar /crystal/, and which lasted for less than a hundredth of a second.

Also, I am sure there were people who thought the same of fire. Messing with things is how we got from sleeping in caves hoping not to be eaten, to being able to talk about awesome things like subatomic particles. Go science, say I!

 

[fulano]

I'm not one making the claim, burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

You're making the claim there is no god(s) and Theists are making the claim there is. Agnostics are the ones making no claims and also therefore the only ones not needing to supply any evidence to support their position.

Wrong.

Atheism makes no claim. It is the absence of belief, not the belief in absence.
Agnostic and Gnostic are degrees of knowledge, not positions of belief.
If you do not ascribe to any belief you are an atheist because you lack belief in god. If you do not think it can be known you are agnostic. If you do not ascribe to any religion and claim that it can not be known you are an agnostic atheist.

Secondly, even if someone claimed 'there is no god', it's a negative claim. You can't prove a negative. In order to prove the non-existence of something we can't produce evidence because a non-existent entity would leave no trace. The burden on proof is on the positive claim, the assertion something is true. The opposite claim is a refutation.

And, to further extend, we have no need to 'prove' the non-existence of a deity until it evidence has been provided that one does exist.

Innocent until guilty, the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense.

Thank you, come again.

I find that rather sad.

I prefer an attitude of seeking knowledge to one of waiting for someone else to bring me something.

But...that is how seeking knowledge works. That's how science works.

If you think that's sad then too bad, but we've amassed mountains of evidence that serve as validation of that sort of thinking namely the shitloads of applications we have developed using those simple principle (PCs, Tv's, toasters, refrigerators, the Internet, etc.).

 

[Nikolaz72]

I'm not one making the claim, burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

You're making the claim there is no god(s) and Theists are making the claim there is. Agnostics are the ones making no claims and also therefore the only ones not needing to supply any evidence to support their position.

I could tell this to you as well as the other guy but you are off topic. Talk Religion in the very fitting thread on R and P forums. This is about the Large Hadron Collider, not Deities. This is going wayyy off topic. (Again, nothing aimed at you personally, just a general thing)

OT: They keep finding awesome stuff over there, who was the idiot that was against this in the first place?

 

[Valdus]

Does anyone else dislike the creation of this thing? So far we doesn't seem to be any use for it other than "Hey guys, look what we can do!" on the other hand any problems that arise with this thing could be quite disasterous. What exactly do they plan to do with this material?

 

[SinisterGehe]

Someone had better make a sugarcubed sized blob of this stuff and just drop it on the floor.

The results would be hilarious.

Yeah, like pull the moon slowly towards and smashing into the surface of the earth by its immense gravitational pull.

I was thinking more along the lines of, burns through to the centre of the earth and begins to slowly draw all of the earths matter into it's incredibly dense blob until nothing is left.

Isn't that in one Donal Duck comic? In the one done by Don Rosa?

On topic:

I don't know what that means but I bet it is something cool. I know lot about general science but I don't have any clues or hints about the in-depth stuff.

 

[fulano]

-

You seek knowledge by waiting for someone to bring their evidence to you? I'll stick to looking for it myself.

You either didn't understand or are purposefully mischaracterizing what the guy wrote to you.

The scientific method makes no ascertion about deities b/c they are untestable b/c they have shoddy definitions anyways, and so scientists try other venues for seeking knowledge, namely the natural world from whose roots all of our modern technology stems from.

It is you who is talking about considering god/gods/deity, or whatever, and it should be you and only you who should churn up the evidence.

Can you produce such evidence? Yes or no? If you think you can then get crackin' and show the world, b/c science doesn't concern itself with those assumptions unless they are properly defined.

Note: I'm not trying to be a dick, but I didn't spend years of studying actual physics for nothing.

 

[fulano]

-

You seek knowledge by waiting for someone to bring their evidence to you? I'll stick to looking for it myself.

You either didn't understand or are purposefully mischaracterizing what the guy wrote to you.

The scientific method makes no ascertion about deities b/c they are untestable b/c they have shoddy definitions anyways, and so scientists try other venues for seeking knowledge, namely the natural world from whose roots all of our modern technology stems from.

It is you who is talking about considering god/gods/deity, or whatever, and it should be you and only you who should churn up the evidence.

Can you produce such evidence? Yes or no? If you think you can then get crackin' and show the world, b/c science doesn't concern itself with those assumptions unless they are properly defined.

Note: I'm not trying to be a dick, but I didn't spend years of studying actual physics for nothing.

I don't see it that way.

I guess we will just disagree.

Allright, then. So how do you see it? because those guys at the LHC recognized the Quark-Gluon plasma thingie the first time they encountered it because they were expecting it. You know why? because they had a well defined theoretical framework model. Because there was just no way they were going to find that shit just lying around anywhere. I mean, that thing is even hotter that the center of our Sun.

Right now they're thinking that something might be iffy either with the experiment of with the theory b/c they expected for the Quark-Gluon plasma to show up at larger temperatures. But, hey, that's how science works, and they did find something that matched dead-on with the theory just not how they were exactly expecting it.

So, again, can you produce any kind of theoretical framework for the whole god/gods/deity concept? Yes or no? If the answer is no, then the concept has nothing to do with science and so whatever means of knowledge seeking you have must be based on an entire different set of fundamentals.

 

[ThisIsSnake]

I'm not one making the claim, burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

You're making the claim there is no god(s) and Theists are making the claim there is. Agnostics are the ones making no claims and also therefore the only ones not needing to supply any evidence to support their position.

Wrong.

Atheism makes no claim. It is the absence of belief, not the belief in absence.
Agnostic and Gnostic are degrees of knowledge, not positions of belief.
If you do not ascribe to any belief you are an atheist because you lack belief in god. If you do not think it can be known you are agnostic. If you do not ascribe to any religion and claim that it can not be known you are an agnostic atheist.

Secondly, even if someone claimed 'there is no god', it's a negative claim. You can't prove a negative. In order to prove the non-existence of something we can't produce evidence because a non-existent entity would leave no trace. The burden on proof is on the positive claim, the assertion something is true. The opposite claim is a refutation.

And, to further extend, we have no need to 'prove' the non-existence of a deity until it evidence has been provided that one does exist.

Innocent until guilty, the burden of proof is on the prosecution not the defense.

Thank you, come again.

I find that rather sad.

I prefer an attitude of seeking knowledge to one of waiting for someone else to bring me something.

so can we see your knowledge?

 

[Why do I care]

I can see this as becoming a new energy source...

But I can't help but think of what could go wrong if this was mistreated.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Someone had better make a sugarcubed sized blob of this stuff and just drop it on the floor.

The results would be hilarious.

Yeah, like pull the moon slowly towards and smashing into the surface of the earth by its immense gravitational pull.

No, more like instantly collapse our solar system into a black hole.

Its interesting to hear but somehow I doubt if many non-physicists are going to understand much beyond "We made this cool stuff that is super hot and dense, Whoooo!"

 

[Magikarp]

Alrighty, let me be the first to say this, so what?

I mean, does anybody gain anything from this hyperdense trash-compaction system?

We get...er......FOR SCIENCE!

 

[Tdc2182]

Can we sign a petition or something to get people to stop fucking with things that can decimate humanity?

Seriously. I'm actually a tad bit surprised this substance didn't do any damage to the world.

The substance was made when 2 lead ions collided. Which each weigh about 3.4*10^-25 kg each. No effin way such a substance would be able to "damage" the world.

Cern - The safety of the LHC [http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html] (In short each second 10 million cosmic rays of equal or greater power than the LHC experiments bombard the atmosphere. Any potential "damage" done by the LHC would be done by these rays literately billions of years ago.)

I'm pretty tired of all those ignorant anti-science scaremongers. You guys do realize that CERN invented hypertext (they made the first web page)? And now they got to halt their research just because you're to lazy to calm your fears with a bit of knowledge? They did the research. They know that it's absolutely safe. They even put up a nice web page (one of their own inventions) addressing each of these pathetic claims individually. But no, you gotta whine about how it isn't safe just because you failed to do a simple little google search [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lhc+safety&l=1].

I'm now gonna continue to ***** about this just to spite you.

Take your whiny three year old attitude out of here and learn to take humorous statements with a grain of salt. You seem like a smart person, but you may have missed a small subtlety class.

Here's a quick lesson. You're in a circle with a few friends and someone tells a joke but mispronounces a word or makes some sort of grammar mistake. You cut him off midstream, and then explain to him in every detail about what he did wrong.

Don't do that. I didn't think they were actually tampering with that dangerous of material. I'm also not the kind of tool that google searches and analyzes every small detail before I make an off hand comment about it.

This one was free of charge.

 

[fulano]

-

You seek knowledge by waiting for someone to bring their evidence to you? I'll stick to looking for it myself.

You either didn't understand or are purposefully mischaracterizing what the guy wrote to you.

The scientific method makes no ascertion about deities b/c they are untestable b/c they have shoddy definitions anyways, and so scientists try other venues for seeking knowledge, namely the natural world from whose roots all of our modern technology stems from.

It is you who is talking about considering god/gods/deity, or whatever, and it should be you and only you who should churn up the evidence.

Can you produce such evidence? Yes or no? If you think you can then get crackin' and show the world, b/c science doesn't concern itself with those assumptions unless they are properly defined.

Note: I'm not trying to be a dick, but I didn't spend years of studying actual physics for nothing.

I don't see it that way.

I guess we will just disagree.

Allright, then. So how do you see it? because those guys at the LHC recognized the Quark-Gluon plasma thingie the first time they encountered it because they were expecting it. You know why? because they had a well defined theoretical framework model. Because there was just no way they were going to find that shit just lying around anywhere. I mean, that thing is even hotter that the center of our Sun.

Right now they're thinking that something might be iffy either with the experiment of with the theory b/c they expected for the Quark-Gluon plasma to show up at larger temperatures. But, hey, that's how science works, and they did find something that matched dead-on with the theory just not how they were exactly expecting it.

So, again, can you produce any kind of theoretical framework for the whole god/gods/deity concept? Yes or no? If the answer is no, then the concept has nothing to do with science and so whatever means of knowledge seeking you have must be based on an entire different set of fundamentals.

I've explained how I see it and you clearly disagree. That is why I said we will just have to agree to disagree, rather than continue an off-topic debate that won't go anywhere.

Fine. Good luck to you.

 

[FeanortheBrave]

I like how this thread almost turned into another argument about deities. I fail to see how this has anything to do with that really, considering we aren't even sure as to what the repercussions of this discovery actually are, or what the scientists will learn from it.

This is all very interesting though. Interested in seeing how it all turns out.