Visiting the Big Bang 51
DarkKnightRadick writes "An article at the NYTimes.com (Free reg) is reporting that researchers in Long Island, NY are attempting to create the quark-gluon plasma that existed a trillionth of a second after the big bang, when the universe was just the size of a marble or grapefruit. "Sam Aronson was perched a few stories up on a metal catwalk, surrounded by tons of Russian steel and Japanese electronics, and enough wires to impress even Con Ed, when he paused to say what really interested him about the $600 million machine. Time, he said. More precisely, the beginning of time, just after the Big Bang, some 14 billion years ago.""
Full text (Score:2, Funny)
Not trying to whore here, just being helpful:
Imagine the possibilities for audiophiles! (Score:1)
and what sort of frequency response we'll be getting.
Reg free link (Score:4, Informative)
http://archives.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/science/ph
Re:Reg free link (Score:2)
And the Google Partner link.. (Score:3, Informative)
CERN's also been working on this. (Score:5, Informative)
Googling only turns up articles of questionable use [eagle.co.uk]. You can find better information in their list of experiments [greybook.cern.ch], and maybe a summary elsewhere on the CERN web site [www.cern.ch].
More on CERN's claim (Score:3, Informative)
Re:CERN's also been working on this. (Score:1)
Like an old shoe.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't be opposed to something like a half hour or hour special, really.
But every now and then if I watch my local neighborhood college channel, they have this old MIT physics lecture series which coincidently featers one of the researchers involved with this. The last lecture of the series, he talks a lot about the project, as a send off to his students. My college professors were rarely so engaging.
I can't help but be in awe of the incredible might of our intellect. That the minds of men were are able to fling heavy nuclei together bringing the temperature of a little pocket of space to two trillion degrees (at temperatures that great units are almost irrelivant, but K), pushing the hands of time back, esentially, to the moment of our universe's conception, is why we have words like 'brilliant', 'awesome', and 'incredible'.
That I should be fortunate enough to live in a society that permits an average Joe, such as myself, to understand the mechanics of such a feat in qualitative terms, even if the quantitative methodes elude me, is truly a blessing. That a majority of my people seem to think creationism should be taught in schools, tells me too few of my countrymen take advantage of it.
Re:Like an old shoe.... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Alright, that was likely flamebait, but I'm gonna put my two cents in here anyhow. I've seen a high number of slashdotter's who seem to believe that this majority consists of scientifically ignorant, close minded religous fanatics. I don't believe this majority consists of people who want creationism to be taught in science classes. I think the bigger part of this majority is people against the theory of common descent darwinian evolution being taught as fact in the classroom. An objective observer can easily note that a vast number of special cases, and secondary supporting theories are required for the full single cell to man evolution theory to fit the evidence. Yes, I realize that often the details of a theory follow the initial more general theory(newtonian\relativity\quantom theories for example). But the full theory of common descent from single celled life is still fraught with an immense field of unknowns and conflicting theories on just what might or could have happened. It is hardly irrational for people to want the theory of common descent to be taught as a theory and not a scientific fact. Other, completely unthought of theories could, suddenly become necassary as new discoveries are made. Molecular phylogenies are already frequently at odds with phenotype based phylogenies. With the number of things we simply don't know about our distant origins being so large, it could well be prudent not to educate our youth as though current thinking is absolute fact. Remember that once 'most' scientific evidence suggested a flat earth, but that evidence is now understood to simply be a misinterpretation of the bigger picture. Our current evidence for common descent evolution may be better explained by another theory as we make new discoveries. I'm willing to bet molecular studies of DNA will reveal a great deal of what is and is not probable to happen through evolution. I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should not be so quick to push the entirety of current evolutionary thinking on students as though it were fact. It will only lead to closed minded scientists down the road who might miss the next big breakthrough because their 'facts' were wrong.
Re:Like an old shoe.... (Score:2, Insightful)
While the puzzle, as you point out, is far from complete, we should encourage the innovative investigation of the questions that remain, as opposed to endorsing magic.
I might remind you that empircal evidence in support of a 'flat earth', as people so unwisely yet frequently remark, was limited to, "It looks more or less flat to me." By the time people got around to actually conducting experiments designed to test that assumed hypothesis, they discovered not only that the earth was round, but that it was big. I might also note, that the people most fond of creationism took a few extra millenia to pick up that handy bit of information.
Your example, far from being a call to tolerance is a call to arms. A cry for better education.
And here I thought I was saying something no one could disagree with. That'll teach me to share my wonder at man's achivements and my lament that not everyone chooses to share in them.
Re:Like an old shoe.... (Score:2)
My example most certainly is not a call to tolerance. It is a call to open minded approachs to the scientific process, particularly when it is being to taught to students.
I would conclude that most people (who took that poll) are undecided
You'll note I made no claims that creationism should be taught alongside evolution. I referred instead to these undecided people you speak of. I was merely suggesting that this group of people's indecision may be attributable to being torn between evolution being taught as a theory vs. as a fact. Not people on the fence of creationism being taught in class.
Anything we teach to students 'as fact', particularly before post secondary education, has a big impact on how they think about and interpret the evidence they see. I was merely stating that we need to be very carefull were we draw that line. We are not necassarily doing science a disservice by not promoting common descent to 'fact' prematurely.
The theory of evolution covers a pretty broad range of theories and I think this is were in a lot of the indecision among people comes in. Evolution as simply genetic change in a population over time isn't too hard to show as an observable fact. But just how far that change can be extrapolated, and how well the evidence supports that possiblity is another far more debated issue.
For example, if a science teacher taught his class it is a fact that all creatures came from an individual type of single celled ancestor, it could leave abiogenesis running off in false directions. It can close people's minds to the chance that maybe two or 3 types of original single celled creatures started things off. There are a lot of negative side effects that come from teaching students at a young age things as fact which could well be shown as a wrong theory down the road.
I suppose my disagreement comes in drawing a line between wondering at our achievements, and arrogantly believing that all our answers must be the right ones. If we take that wonder too far and lower our standards for what it takes to elevate theory to fact we could well hinder feature scientific minds.
While the puzzle, as you point out, is far from complete, we should encourage the innovative investigation of the questions that remain, as opposed to endorsing magic.
My point precisely, I wasn't endorsing magic I was encouraging innovative thought which could well be hindered by over eager high school teachers over stepping the bounds of theory and fact.
Re:Like an old shoe.... (Score:1)
I would be interested to see this site so that I could also read the information you have mentioned. Given this debate is one fraught with emotion as well as intellect it would be interesting to view the current ideas being expressed by the population.
Creationism isn't a search for answers it's an excuse to not look for them.
I find your comment here interesting. The same could be said of one who accepts theory as fact without further exploring the possibilities and tangents that are opened up within the scientic community, especially since research is constantly discovering new aspects of humanity, the Earth, and biology. Given the fact that some individuals use Creationism as a jumping point for their own investigations I think that comment is slightly unjust. Just as the Big Bang theory has changed and the ideas of how life evolved on our planet has changed from the time of Darwin, so do some of the views in correlation to Creationism. Some believe that the two theories can be melded, some don't. However, being condescending towards either is a discredit to the quest for intellectual advancement. People scorned Newton, Darwin, and Gallileo when they first presented their views as well. It was NOT JUST the Church who did this, the scientific community in their eras did so as well. If they had not persevered in their ideas in the face of opposition, despite the fact they were considered unpopular, heretical, stupid, foolish and a score of other terms, we would not have many of the founding concepts of modern science. Therefore in my opinion, we should not cast out any possible starting point for scientific investigation, even if it may not agree with our own personal preferences. Who knows what we may miss out on if we do?
And here I thought I was saying something no one could disagree with. That'll teach me to share my wonder at man's achivements and my lament that not everyone chooses to share in them.
Yes we may wonder at our achievements but we should not view ourselves as demi-gods and the greatest gift to the world. After all as Douglas Adams said: "It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reasons."
Re:Like an old shoe.... (Score:1)
Survey Says...
62% Said they thought evolution should be taught in school.
21% said it shouldn't.
14% were uncertain.
1% didn't care.
58% Said creationism should be taught in school.
23% said it shouldn't.
16% were uncertain.
1% didn't care.
:) It's why the engineering that allows us to make our clever tools, like computers, is based on science as opposed to faith.
I certainly didn't expect my rather off-hand remark, that was intended to add a little symetry and flow, to end up here.
However, creationism isn't a theory. It shouldn't be confused as such. Furthermore, the vast majority of those who pursue it as science, rather than the looking for the truth, are looking for a truth they've already decided on. Occasionally, scientists do make that mistake, but they usually resist it, and their community acts and destroys it like a cancer. Creationism is a failed hypothesis. There was a 'big bang'. There is no doubt. The mysteries that remain, are: What was its conception like? How does gravity work? Why three spacial dimensions? etc. The fact that there is yet more to learn isn't an indictement of theory, that requires contradicting evidence. In the case of creationism, they must unequivicably disprove all of cosmology (not just the big bang), geology, nuclear physics, chemistry, and of course the field of evolutionary biology to start.
Instead of being incensed that the universe, or rather sinister heathen scientists, are casting aspertions upon their God, they should have gone back and read the story of creation while taking a new look at their faith. They should have seen it for the parable it is. They could choose to believe the wisdom, and enjoy the well written fantasy. I certainly find the idea of a prankster God endearing. But oddly enough, the few creationists I've pressed on the issue, when asked, "Why does God make everything look as if it's older than the six or so millenia it is?" respond without curiosity, or intrest. Who can know the mind of God indeed. Fans of creationism just don't seem to care about how the world works as much as they care about a very superficial validation of their faith.
You might look into what those who so persecuted some of your scientists had to say. In the case of Gallileo and Darwin, almost all of their critics invoked religion. Telling. Newton was something of an asshole, and had some rather unfriendly rivals. In fact his "shoulders of giants" remark was a compliment to those he respected, but a cutting short joke to a diminuative contemperary and object of Newton's considerable contempt.
Sure, while we might not be the second coming (haha) a gift more valuable than the wisdom we pass on would be hard to come by. Which is why we should pass that wisdom on, in schools, as completely as possible. I'm truly sorry if the truth gets in the way of the crutch people use to prop up their flagging faith. But that's hardly a reason to avoid giving children their birthright. Of course the puzzles are incomplete, so much the better. While imparting our wisdom we can issue a challenge. They won't be content to be passive observers. That might not pay dividends to us, but it will for them. If there is some small chance that creationism is more than a parable (and there isn't), the only chance for it to be shown as such is the kid who has the full benefit of that understanding and the desire to explore it, so that he may find and recognize that unfound flaw. Science is about asking questions. That's it's greatest strength, and every theory's greatest foe.
Re:Like an old shoe.... (Score:1)
Why does God make everything look as if it's older than the six or so millenia it is?"
I am not sure why some creationists would show little interest in this point. My understanding from listening to some of their arguments comes from the idea of melding the Big Bang with ID as I raised in my first post. Some may never agree with this idea but some see it as a possibility for the differing age relations. Since you raised the story of creation... Creationists quote the first portion of Genesis where the Spirit hovers as an unknown period of time, possibly millions of years. Others say the Big Bang could have been set off by God and the rest followed as evolution describes.
Fans of creationism just don't seem to care about how the world works as much as they care about a very superficial validation of their faith.
This I think is an unjust generalization of scientists who are examining the idea of ID. It tempts some individuals to cease looking at the issue being discussed and begin to slur or sling insults at other individuals. In my opinion this is not a productive addition to any debate.
In the case of Gallileo and Darwin, almost all of their critics invoked religion. Telling.
You must also take into account the society in which the individuals lived. They were living in society structured around religion and were bringing in the Age of Enlightenment and Reason. You cannot claim that religion is the bully and bad guy in this era just because it may have caused difficulties then. In any age or society when people are scared by new ideas they often turn to mysticism or religion in order to discredit these ideas. It's the nature of humanity to regress in certain situations especially when threatened. Fight or flight. Fear does not lend itself to rationality.
Which is why we should pass that wisdom on, in schools, as completely as possible. I'm truly sorry if the truth gets in the way of the crutch people use to prop up their flagging faith. But that's hardly a reason to avoid giving children their birthright.
Nowhere did I state that we should not teach evolution in school. I agree that every child should have the ability to learn the current scientific theories and discoveries. Yes with this information they may discover holes and flaws within existing arguments whether they be ID, or even aspects of evolution and the Big Bang theory. Just because my idea does not correspond perfectly with your own does not mean I am saying throw scientific learning out the window and school system. It is equally important. I think the survey is also suggesting that the majority of Americans believe that people should be able to have all the information available taught, thus they will be well informed and well educated individuals capable of using their intellect to reason and make decisions based upon their reason. I don't think truth gets in the way of faith. Scientists are still accepting the Big Bang in part on faith, because they are still unsure to all of the facts of how it occurred. As you yourself noted. So that also takes faith on the part of the scientific community.
Furthermore, the vast majority of those who pursue it as science, rather than the looking for the truth, are looking for a truth they've already decided on.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no. I don't presume to know the minds of every scientist as they examine evidence. However, I think your statement here also tends to over generalize. I stated some individuals use it as a jumping point, not as fact. They examine it as a hypothesis, some saying it's false with their evidence, others may come back and say some aspects are possible.
Science is about asking questions. That's it's greatest strength, and every theory's greatest foe. :) It's why the engineering that allows us to make our clever tools, like computers, is based on science as opposed to faith.
I agree that science is a wonderful field of study. I too, am grateful for the discoveries it makes every day that saves lives and encourages technological advancement. However, science is about asking questions and therefore one cannot ask those questions with a closed mind. Just because a theory or idea may not jive with the current one held does not mean it should be scorned and thrown away. How can one get answers when one's mind is made up as you pointed out already? Science is based on fact, but also in a small portion on faith. Theories may be incorrect or incomplete but that doesn't mean they are thrown away. They are held "in reserve" while the answers are searched for. (Theory of Gravity, and Atomic Theory, model of the atom) Yes, asking questions is a great strength, but hubris can still trip up even greatness.
Who moderated this as "flamebait"? (Score:2)
The purpose of science class is not to dispense Ultimate Truth. It is to teach the scientific method, and make students familiar with the body of scientific knowledge as currently understood by mainstream science. Our current theories of gravity are wrong. And we know they're wrong. Does this mean that students shouldn't be taught about gravity? We teach kids Newton's Law of Gravitation and we know for a fact that it's wrong. High schools teach kids the Bohr model of the atom, which is also known to be wrong. I never hear creationists complain about either- probably because Genesis is silent on the subject.
We don't have a satisfactory theory of gravity. That things fall is fact and should be taught as fact. We may not have a complete theory of evolution. This is mostly due to spotty evidence, which is par for the course (fossils are rare). But unlike gravity, our theories of biological evolution are consistent with all of the evidence we've managed to find. That evolution occurs in some form cannot be denied with a straight face, and it should be taught as fact just like anything else is, once our certainty has risen above a certain threshold that is close to 100%. We don't have a continuous surveillance videotape of every biological event that has occurred in the past 12 billion years, but this is a ridiculous thing to ask for.
Maybe the facts we teach might someday turn out to be wrong as new evidence is uncovered. So what? This has never bothered us before in any other scientific field. The secular world makes no claims of infalliblity. Ultimate Truth is not always attainable by humans, and to insist that everything taught in science must be verified to be absolute fact before it can be taught in the classroom is nonsensical. A silly policy like that would put an end to technological and scientific progress within a generation.
Re:Who moderated this as "flamebait"? (Score:2)
My problem with evolution being taught as fact in the classroom is with how it fits the evidence available. For the purpose of debate, I'm going to split evolution into two definitions I commonly see people using. The first is simply genetic change in a population over time, often influenced by selection, environment, etc. The second is the more general theory that this process can and was extended indefinitely and gave rise to all bio-diversity on Earth. The first I believe everyone excepts openly as fact and has no problems with being taught in the classroom as such. But the evidence for the second is much less compelling. From this point on my references to evolution are to the second definition.
We may not have a complete theory of evolution. This is mostly due to spotty evidence, which is par for the course (fossils are rare). But unlike gravity, our theories of biological evolution are consistent with all of the evidence we've managed to find.
My problem with evolution being taught as fact is our lack of evidence that micro-evolutionary changes can be extended right back to a single celled common ancestor. The two biggest evidences we have for this are a spotty fossil record and the relative similarity between DNA from different animals. To claim that our current theory is strong enough to be promoted to fact is premature. Our evidence that micro-evolution is extendable indefinitely really consists of evidences that 'look like it's what happened'. Transitionary fossils are assumed to exist, a mutation path from all animals back to a common ancestor is assumed to exist, a process by which a single celled creature with DNA came into being is assumed to exist. We have lots of secondary evidences that we can point to and say, well these make it look like the above are good assumptions. But I don't think it is a far stretch to continue to teach our current interpretation of the evidence as theory and not as fact. It is still possible that an alternate theory will fit the evidence better, and people taught as students that our current view is fact will have trouble finding it. I'm NOT suggesting creation as this theory, there can very easily be a number of other unthought of explanations that could be missed be people assuming these don't exist.
Re:Who moderated this as "flamebait"? (Score:2)
Well, the fossil record does tell us that for the first 2/3 of life's existence on earth, all life consisted of bacteria. Conjecturing a single-celled common ancestor is not too much of a stretch.
And the molecular evidence is pretty compelling. A competing theory (two single celled common ancestors? Three?) will have a lot of explaining to do.
To claim that our current theory is strong enough to be promoted to fact is premature.
Only for a ridiculous standard for "factness". There always exists a standard of truth against which any fact is not known for certain.
Our evidence that micro-evolution is extendable indefinitely really consists of evidences that 'look like it's what happened'.
Yep, that's how life works. Scientific truths aren't brought down on stone tablets from a mountain; you have to work with the evidence available.
Transitionary fossils are assumed to exist
And every time a fossil is discovered, the number of gaps in the fossil record increases by one, to the delight of the foes of evolution. There are now thousands and thousands of (ever tinier) gaps they can talk about in their pamphlets. If you propose that no transitionary forms ever existed in these gaps, you have to explain why not, since that's the most logical conclusion.
a mutation path from all animals back to a common ancestor is assumed to exist, a process by which a single celled creature with DNA came into being is assumed to exist, a process by which a single celled creature with DNA came into being is assumed to exist. We have lots of secondary evidences that we can point to and say, well these make it look like the above are good assumptions.
Yep. We have no direct evidence of abiogenesis, apart from limited success in reproducing chemical reactions in the lab. But we wouldn't expect to get direct evidence of abiogenesis because it leaves no fossil evidence.
But I don't think it is a far stretch to continue to teach our current interpretation of the evidence as theory and not as fact. It is still possible that an alternate theory will fit the evidence better, and people taught as students that our current view is fact will have trouble finding it.
People not taught our current view as students will probably have more trouble with this superior alternative theory, should it ever come out. I'd be willing to bet that it will more resemble evolution than any "competing theory" that the "theory, not fact" crowd like to talk about, like intelligent design. In fact, ID undermines one's ability to understand natural selection, because it teaches you to think in the wrong way. You end up viewing evolution as a weird variant of ID where each individual species is anthropomorphized and planning career decisions for itself over millions of years. People taught ID always ask stupid questions like "how does the tree know it should make fruit?", as if evolution supposes that species make intelligent decisions about how they will evolve.
If you're going to single out evolution as "theory, not fact" you should do it with the other sciences as well.
I'm NOT suggesting creation as this theory, there can very easily be a number of other unthought of explanations that could be missed be people assuming these don't exist.
Usually, when a discussion about the Big Bang turns into one about evolution, it means a creationist is around.
Re:Who moderated this as "flamebait"? (Score:2)
The fossil record also tells us that something really crazy started happening during the Cambrian period, and then proceeded to stop. Evolution fits some of the evidence well, but there are still places where it suddenly doesn't seem to fit at all and we need to call on extraordinary circumstances. Yes evolution fits most of the evidence pretty well, but it's entirely possible a theory could come along that fits even more of the evidence.
And every time a fossil is discovered, the number of gaps in the fossil record increases by one, to the delight of the foes of evolution. There are now thousands and thousands of (ever tinier) gaps they can talk about in their pamphlets.
Yep, there are crazy's who'll take such foolish arguments and champion them. I'm probably more against them than yourself as their stupidity taints the credibility of my own position.
If you propose that no transitionary forms ever existed in these gaps, you have to explain why not, since that's the most logical conclusion.
Logical in this case is rather subjective. Based on the difficulty scientists are having justifying morphological and molecular phylogenies I tend to think the assumption of missing links existing is somewhat illogical. But in either case, from a scientific stand point it is up to both sides to prove the existance or non existance of such links. I'm personally rather confident our understanding of molecular biology will bear out the infeasability of transitinary forms.
Yep. We have no direct evidence of abiogenesis, apart from limited success in reproducing chemical reactions in the lab. But we wouldn't expect to get direct evidence of abiogenesis because it leaves no fossil evidence.
Fossil evidence aside the only evidence we do have is that on a molecular level it is ridiculously improbable to occur by any known process. Now evolution can be argued ignoring abiogenesis and assuming it happened either by god or some unknown process. But the answer to how that single celled(if it exists) creature came along could have big implications in how evolution works. That strikes me as another reason to teach it as theory and not fact.
People not taught our current view as students will probably have more trouble with this superior alternative theory, should it ever come out.
And as I've stated a number of times, I fully encourage students be taught our current view. I'm simply stating HOW it should be taught, as a theory based on current evidence and models.
I'd be willing to bet that it will more resemble evolution than any "competing theory" that the "theory, not fact" crowd like to talk about, like intelligent design.
We're allowed to put our faith in different outcomes, mine lies somewhere in the middle.
In fact, ID undermines one's ability to understand natural selection, because it teaches you to think in the wrong way. You end up viewing evolution as a weird variant of ID where each individual species is anthropomorphized and planning career decisions for itself over millions of years. People taught ID always ask stupid questions like "how does the tree know it should make fruit?", as if evolution supposes that species make intelligent decisions about how they will evolve.
Idiot's abound everywhere, but try not to judge the concept of ID by it's lowest common denominators. We can argue all day about what propenents of either side can claim, but that gets us nowhere on the actual issue. Student's taucht evolution as fact could easily get caught in the same trap of misunderstanding a new theory that explains the evidence better than anything we have currently thought of.
I'm NOT suggesting creation as this theory, there can very easily be a number of other unthought of explanations that could be missed be people assuming these don't exist.
Usually, when a discussion about the Big Bang turns into one about evolution, it means a creationist is around.
Creationist, yes. But I'm trying to focus more on the current issues in evolution and why I believe teaching it as fact could hamper the scientific process by closing people's minds to other possible explanations, not creation or ID, but some completely unique new explanation that might fits everything better.
Re:Who moderated this as "flamebait"? (Score:2)
But General Relativity is a classical theory, and is incompatible with quantum theory. They both can't be right.
You're correct that it's stood up to every test, because it appears to be correct as a classical theory. The experiments required to develop its quantum version are hard to do, so basically we're clueless and coming up with all sorts of weird stuff.
Sounds like a superhero/villain origin story. (Score:4, Funny)
A freak accident in the laboratory led to the spill of this quark-gluon plasma on an unfortunate researcher, turning him into...
Quark-Gluon Man!
Faster than a speeding universal boundary
More powerful than a supernova
Able to create dimensions within a single bound
Re:Sounds like a superhero/villain origin story. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds like a superhero/villain origin story. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds like a superhero/villain origin story. (Score:1)
Bewolf and overclocking trolls please note (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.star.bnl.gov/STAR/rhicworkshop/
htt
Some fun stuff - the detectors (stories tall)are essentially front ends to circuits that need to sort and detect events happening at a significant fraction of c, discriminate between crap (eg cosmic ray events and glancing hits) and what they were aiming for (collisions).
"The next round of RHIC experiments will have larger data volumes per event and
larger event rates... in each case, about an order of magnitude greater than the present
values. This is similar to the environment faced by the LHC ALICE detector. As a base
model, it is assumed that the upgraded RHIC detectors will record ~1MB/event; the
Level-0 triggers will accept events at a rate of 25 KHz; and that data can be archived at a
rate of 250 MB/sec."
So you before you can say not much remember these are circuits weighing tons a hundred+ feet tall that need to be synchronised with the collisions in the beam, amazingly reliable and put up with a large amount of abuse (hard radiation when it leaks from the guts of the device).
Re:Bewolf and overclocking trolls please note (Score:2)
Re:600 Million!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:600 Million!! (Score:1)
600 million isn't *that* much money. Fusion already gets quite a bit more. And if you want to see where money does go, try looking up how much funding cancer and hiv get.
The reason you don't see a pure hydrogen economy has nothing to do with R&D. The technology to make it happen is readily available, it's the cost of retooling the refineries and replacing everything else. And 600 million up against that bill is a joke, and a little tiny one at that.
Consulting the Hitch-Hikers guide... (Score:1)
Ummmm -- has anybody considered the posibilities? (Score:1)
According to the most current theories (AFAIK), the universe begain expanding at around the speed of light. Then, for unknown reasons, it began it's "inflationary" period, where space expanded faster than the speed of light. After a while, back to normal inflation.
The "inflationary" model was sort of a hack to make the theory agree with the observations. No actual reason for what starts it has been proposed AFAIK.
Who is to say that we might not accidentally create a sort of "mini-inflation" at one of these accelerators, thereby destroying the Earth, the Solar System, or even more. Nobody knows what triggered inflation. What if we do it accidentaly?
I know that this idea sounds absurd. It probably even IS absurd. But ... do we really know? Remember - the Relativity was considered by most to be absurd when it first appeared.
Re:Ummmm -- has anybody considered the posibilitie (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, you are right about the hack part, but inflationary theory explains why our universe has an omega so close to 1 and why apparently disconnected parts of the cosmic microwave background have similiar temperatures. As for the reason it starts, well, there are plenty of ideas, but none of them easily testable (and I can't remember what they were, but they were all very high energy fields breaking indegeneracy...anyone care to comment?).
Alan Guth wrote a book called "The Inflationary Universe" (admittedly he came up with the idea) which gives a very clear explanation why inflation theory seems more suited than many other alternate theories.
"Who is to say that we might not accidentally create a sort of "mini-inflation" at one of these accelerators, thereby destroying the Earth, the Solar System, or even more. Nobody knows what triggered inflation. What if we do it accidentaly?"
A good question, and it was considered seriously by Martin Rees, a famous astrophysicist now at Cambridge. He did calculations showing that cosmic rays many thousands of times more energetic than the best we can do with earthly accelerators routinely hit our upper atmosphere. Given that billions of years of cosmic ray bombardment have not triggred a new universe type of scenario, it is probably safe to say that our experiments won't trigger one off.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed!
Dr Fish
Re:Ummmm -- has anybody considered the posibilitie (Score:1)
But I am somewhat concerned that physicists might do something that could do things you guys are describing. I have no particular concerns, as i don't have the physics, but I think that in some ways it was unforgivable that we tested the atom bomb when there was believed to be the slim possibility of igniting our atmosphere in a self-sustaining reaction.
I'm reminded of the Fermii Paradox...may it be that the brightest of our minds do us in with their curiosity?
Recreating the universe at age 10e-12 seconds (Score:1)
WHAAAAT?!!?!?!?!?! (Score:1)
Is this
Re:WHAAAAT?!!?!?!?!?! (Score:1)
Leave it to
They were smashing gold nucleuses a while ago... (Score:2)
Good to see security was tighter than SUNY Stonybrook. I remember walking into their radiation area without a hinderance, badging myself a radiation detector and taking a tour among the huge tanks, and old books on fission and fusion...
Anyway, in BNL, the guy took me to the Star detector area, and we met a Russian scientist who showed me the data capture machinery. The detector is connected with 10,000s of yellow ethernet-like wires in very thick bundles and entering an area where rows over rows of shelves contained custimzed cards where the cables ended. Looked MASSIVELY parallel. I think the cards (size of 1u server each) had buffers to hold the data, that then got serially taken away and compressed into ANOTHER building that did nothing but crunch data. Sadly that computer building was closed.
Later we went to his office in the theory department. There are several theoretical groups from 5 ppl to sometimes over 100. They join their heads against specific problems and the whole thing results in boring papers. But this guy had Linux on a nice VaLinux machine, running X and I think WordPerfect, and lots of proprietary apps. Oh yeah I saw Mathematica. They all know that app.
Working on now to get qualifications to be able to work there. Ive always hated corporate life.
Two Problems with Big Bang Theory (Score:1)
2) Assuming the stuff did get out (since I'm writing this), wouldn't the light from that explosion have preceded the material? In other words, we can't look "back" at something that already happened, since we would have to have traveled FTL to do this. And, ATAE and GR, we can't do FTL. (Just imagine trying to pick up radio broadcasts from the 1920's. We'd have to travel in an FTL spaceship to a point just outside the 80-some lightyear radius bubble of that wavefront.)
This is not to say that I believe creationism any better, but that I am a skeptic of most theories.
Re:Two Problems with Big Bang Theory (Score:1)
Addressing #2: Space was the thing that was expanding. While photons can move *within* that space (thru time) faster than other particles/conglomerations of particles, they cannot expand it themselves. Thus a photon would wrap around (if inflation/VSL/What-have-you caused it to travel faster than the expansion of space.
Thus, even though matter within space-time is not uniform (galaxies and such (are they fractally uniform, thus lending a fractally uniform nature to background radiation? Errant speculation)), the background radiation would (mostly) be.
In effect, we *are* looking back at what happened to our particles (or what became our particles) every time we look at particular parts of the background radiation (again, assuming VSL/inflation is true).
Re:Two Problems with Big Bang Theory (Score:1)
This does make you wonder what happened to the space locked up in black holes (how the hole punched thru our event horizon (if it did, the holes in one's pants making pockets are still contained (somewhat) within the plane of the pants). It paints a beautiful picture in one's head (of newly formed universe; said universes sucking the life out of ours for their own expansion. I think I finally understand what the concept of white holes is about; now to find out whether my understanding is accurate, or not.)
Re:Two Problems with Big Bang Theory (Score:1)