I read this and it made me very sad

AV1611VET · Nov 11, 2010

Nabobalis said:
The two particles are heavy ions and are very very fast, so when they collide on such a small scale, they produce a lot of energy which is density packed and should be similar to how the universe was just milliseconds after the big bang.

Okay, now this post made sense -- thank you.

AV1611VET · Nov 11, 2010

trunks2k said:
Because they want public to know the results of their experiments.

Well, I've got a better idea -- keep their mouths shut until they're all finished.

Then when everything is done, and they turn out the lights for the last time, they can then give the press what they want; along with a new slinky or silly-putty or whatever by-products their research produced.

Upisoft · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Oh, well -- this conversation is going nowhere.

I guess scientists need the press, so they can convince us plebeians they're actually doing something.

Exactly, now you believe there are particles. You never saw them, no one saw them, but you believe. How sad.

Psudopod · Nov 11, 2010

Okay, now this post made sense -- thank you.

You see how different this is to the original article? This is probably what you'd get from a scientist or a good press release. The article is what you get from sloppy journalism, which isn't the fault of scientists.

trunks2k · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Well, I've got a better idea -- keep their mouths shut until they're all finished.

Except you are rarely ever totally finished. There are always potentially more experiments that can be done. Even when an experiment is completed and published, science journalism is still just as bad. In the case of the OP, my issue wasn't so much with the poor description what CERN is doing, rather, the poor description of what the Big Bang is. Where they got what they wrote, I don't know.

Also, in terms of huge, cool experiments like the LHC, there's a good portion of people who WANT to know what's going on. I don't want to wait several years to see what the results were. I want to know what they're doing right now and what they think they've observed so far. It's just damn cool, so I'm impatient.

AV1611VET · Nov 11, 2010

trunks2k said:
Also, in terms of huge, cool experiments like the LHC, there's a good portion of people who WANT to know what's going on.

Ya -- I just can't sleep at night wondering what's going on up there at CERN.

More like the publish-or-perish principle being exercised.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
And how do they know what the Big Bang ever looked like?

With crystal balls and the spilled entrails of a virginal goat.

AV1611VET said:
All they are doing is supposedly seeing the aftermath of two particles that collided -- nothing more.

And all people are doing by administering vaccines is curing disease - nothing more.

AV1611VET said:
As far as I know -- (and that's only a Planck's length, as one poster said) -- but as far as I know, no two particles collided to cause the Big Bang, so why should colliding two particles simulate conditions after the Big Bang?

Because that's what happened after the Big Bang. Particles collided with very high energy densities. We want to see what happens during said collisions. So, we collide them.

AV1611VET said:
That doesn't even make sense.

It's like saying: let's recreate a balloon expanding by colliding two marbles together.

Or, let's see what the [immediate] aftermath of a balloon expanding looks like by colliding two marbles together.

That you think your analogy is apt probably explains why you don't see the connection between particle physics and cosmogony.

1) Shortly after the Big Bang began, the universe's constituents were hot and energetic.
2) To see how things behaved during that era, we need to recreate that hot energetic state.
3) The LHC recreates that hot energetic state.
4) Thus, the experiments at the LHC recreate the conditions shortly after the Big Bang.

AV1611VET · Nov 11, 2010

Wiccan_Child said:
4) Thus, the experiments at the LHC recreate the conditions shortly after the Big Bang.

So if I went up to CERN right now and stuck my head in their particle accelerator, I would see stars and such?

TemperateSeaIsland · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
So if I went up to CERN right now and stuck my head in their particle accelerator, I would see stars and such?

This state would have existed before stars, it was far too hot for stars. The very matter they are made of would come apart.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
So if I went up to CERN right now and stuck my head in their particle accelerator, I would see stars and such?

Since stars did not exist shortly after the Big Bang started, no, you wouldn't. You would, however, be bombarded with the type of particles that were around in such conditions.

Cabal · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
So if I went up to CERN right now and stuck my head in their particle accelerator, I would see stars and such?

This is possibly the best idea you've come up with, ever. Please, do it.

Cabal · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Do you guys really think that dragging kids into this conversation is going to appease me?

Not really, when you're using this one case as a means to make sweeping denigrations of the entire field - but it's quite useful to show what a buffoon you're making of yourself to the lurkers. I'd hate for some poor passing unfortunate to think that your generalisation was in any way relevant.

Could we leave kids out of this and talk about the white coats who were actually there and pushed the buttons and heard the equipment hum and put check marks on their clipboards?

They are the ones who spilled their guts to the scape... er ... journalists.

In fact, I'm wondering now if these two particles even collided with one another.

WHY? On what basis, other than your ignorant prejudice?

What if they collided with something else in that chamber (or track, or whatever it is)?

They'd be able to tell the difference (Probably due to the massive hole in the thing or something subtle like that).

And no offense to you guys, but it would be nice if someone other than an IT specialist, or ask-a-physicist-anything nature lover, or botanist, or geologist would respond here.

Like someone who actually does work in that field?

I helped BUILD the LHC, AV. Now I'm not a particle physics expert by a long shot, but the fact you're nitpicking over a kids article means I can at least address the basics.

I always love it when a geologist tries to convince me the Star of Bethlehem was a comet.

I always love it when a fundamentalist creationist who readily admits his own ignorance and has demonstrably never been near neither a science lecture nor a science lab in his life tries to convince us that we're not really doing anything.

Cabal · Nov 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
Oh, well -- this conversation is going nowhere.

I guess scientists need the press, so they can convince us plebeians they're actually doing something.

Right, because of course people wouldn't complain if we never told anyone anything.

AV1611VET said:
Ya -- I just can't sleep at night wondering what's going on up there at CERN.

More like the publish-or-perish principle being exercised.

No need to project your wilful ignorance onto others, AV.

I read this and it made me very sad

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

CEO of a waterfal

Godspeed, Spacebat

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Mae hen wlad fy nhadau yn annwyl i mi

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency