Large Hadron Collider Creates Incredibly Dense Primordial Matter

Recommended Videos

Bloody Loon

New member
Oct 23, 2009
14
0
0
HankMan said:
perpetual motion= perpetual energy= Suddenly those stars don't seem so far away anymore.
However, perpetual energy does not equal infinite energy. Those stars are just as far away as they always were.

(einsteinian relativity requires infinite energy to go the speed of light, because of the increase of mass that faster something goes.)
 

DasDestroyer

New member
Apr 3, 2010
1,329
0
0
crop52 said:
so perpetual motion can exist? but not perpetual energy? what?
Without friction or air resistance, given an endless surface, an object can move forever, yet have limited, perhaps even low energy. But as soon as you try to convert that into other forms of energy, you take away energy from the object, and it starts to slow down, and eventually stop.
 

Gnikhcil

New member
Dec 19, 2010
27
0
0
look i have nothing good to say about the hadron collider but i understand that some people want to know things that badly but my question is why do they need more then one? thats just asking for a problem one miss-hap or terrorist and bam! nothing.... it scares me i don't care how careful they are.
 

Gerard Sjollema

New member
May 26, 2011
9
0
0
....great chat for impressing the lady's but does it make a decent cup of coffee :p
naa just kidding,this is trully amazing, never thought they would get something of scientific importance in such a short time.
 

RedDeadFred

Illusions, Michael!
May 13, 2009
4,891
0
0
theheroofaction said:
thaluikhain said:
But nothing can be learned from this, it's just like high water pressure, only more so.
Right NOTHING can be learned from this. How could you possibly know that. Are you one of the scientists working on LHC?
No. Obviously not because scientists don't think like this.
Where would we be if people just never did experiments and instead said: "guys there's no point. We aren't going to learn anything from this."
 

Lullabye

New member
Oct 23, 2008
4,424
0
0
A Pious Cultist said:

So, uhh, this stuff then?
Nice.
OT: soooo, they basically made some thing denser than a heavy star? The gravity created by that would be freaking terrifying. I hope they keep it to a manageable minimum.
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
Science: 647 God: 0

Yet more then half of population of earth still believes in deities.
 

Twilight.falls

New member
Jun 7, 2010
676
0
0
While I enjoy science, I can't say I understand all of it. So I will simply assume this discovery will lead to more science-y advances in the future that will make life better for everyone.

Go science!
 

Firehound

is a trap!
Nov 22, 2010
352
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
cool, so if we can make lead travel nearly the speed of light, theres hope for traversing the universe after all.

and err, well done to them who made 'dark matter'

V8 Ninja said:
If we can somehow find a way to use this thing-a-majig as a resource for power, we can officially say that we're living in a new era.
dude, everytime i read your post's i cant take them seriously, i imagine them all in batman's voice.
OH GOD NOW I'M DOING IT! MAKE IT STOP!
 

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
Wait gluon is an actual word? It isn't something Valve made up to make a weapon sound deadly and experimental?

OT: Now all we need to do is find a use for this stuff and we'll be set.
 

Mike the Bard

New member
Jan 25, 2010
108
0
0
now thats cool. but what i find to be even better is the fact that the thing isn't even at full operation capacity. just makes you wonder what kind of crazy nonsense they will come up with next.
 

DasDestroyer

New member
Apr 3, 2010
1,329
0
0
Dana22 said:
Science: 647 God: 0

Yet more then half of population of earth still believes in deities.
Don't forget that the [Insert Holy Book Here] says that God created everything, and therefore anything science discovers is merely rediscovering God's work or a lie.

archvile93 said:
Wait gluon is an actual word? It isn't something Valve made up to make a weapon sound deadly and experimental?

OT: Now all we need to do is find a use for this stuff and we'll be set.
What better way to make a high-energy weapon sound deadly and experimental than by using the name of a powerful and exotic elementary particle in it?
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,930
0
0
Abandon4093 said:
Someone had better make a sugarcubed sized blob of this stuff and just drop it on the floor.

The results would be hilarious.
crack the earth down the middle, lol
 

tthor

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,930
0
0
aldt said:
It's important to note that in order to create a sugar-cube-size volume of quark-gluon plasma, you'd need to already have 40 billion tons of uncompressed matter, or the equivalent energy. Plus, a particle accelerator large enough to smash it all together.

And if you already have that much matter, all the insane gravitational consequences (Sun crashing into Earth, et cetera) would already have happened. Thermodynamics, baby - you can't get something from nothing.

It's like a system's orbit. If a star of mass greater than 20 solar masses was instantly compressed to its schwarzchild radius, the planets orbiting that star wouldn't get sucked into the black hole. The gravitational effects would still be more or less the same at great distances. Of course, the star would really have to go supernova first, either melting or pushing away its orbiting planets, so such a scenario would never actually happen.
god damn thermodynamics have to ruin EVERYTHING >_>
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
Dulcinea said:
Dana22 said:
Science: 647 God: 0

Yet more then half of population of earth still believes in deities.
The real issue is: can you disprove any deity (or deities)? Until someone can disprove the existence of any and all gods, I will remain Agnostic. It'd be just as foolhardy to jump on the Atheist wagon and claim there is no deity with no evidence to back you up, right?
You are slightly confused. Atheists dont claim there is no god, they dont believe that there are gods, based on lack of evidence supporting Theistic claims.

Of course you cant disprove existence of deities (like plenty of things I can make up right now), but why would I want to do that ? Im not one making the claim, burden of proof doesn't lie on me.
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
Dulcinea said:
Dana22 said:
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.
Except im not making a claim that there is no god. Im making a claim, that claim that gods exists, is (most likely, of course) false. Thats not the same.
 

Optimystic

New member
Sep 24, 2008
723
0
0
I don't want them to report anything else out of that facility until they've either doomed us totally or unraveled the secrets of existence. All this foreplay is driving me insane.

"Hey everyone, we just discovered something ELSE that could kill you all, if only we could make enough of it!"