Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Generates a 'Mini-Big Bang' 570
buildslave writes "The Large Hadron Collider has successfully created a 'mini-Big Bang' by smashing together lead ions instead of protons. The scientists working at the enormous machine on the Franco-Swiss border achieved the unique conditions on 7 November. The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than the center of the Sun."
Science Journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?
I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure the scientists intended that, but the reporters felt a need to glam the article up to sell copy.
The issue here is that now we are going to have trouble with a union of the set of anti-science loons and the set of religious fundamentalists. Let us not be satisfied with unnecessarily pissing off just one group, when we can do two!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought religious fundamentalists are merely a subset of anti-science loons.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Not necessarily. I am a religious fundamentalist, and science is all well and good in my book, to a point. And by to a point, I mean "this is what we've been able to prove thus far".
Really though, not trying to troll. Just saying those two groups are not necessarily mutually inclusive, though sometimes that is the case.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not necessarily. I am a religious fundamentalist, and science is all well and good in my book, to a point. And by to a point, I mean "this is what we've been able to prove thus far".
Whereas the former seeks the better philosophy of "we've been unable to prove anything so far, but here's a story pulled out of the collective asses of village elders 3000 years ago; let's go on and pretend it's true, and let's ignore all of the horrible acts that have resulted from pretending that fiction is fact."
Oy.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
So your premise is that religion causes people to commit horrible acts? Is it not just possible that humans commit horrible acts all on their own and some merely use religion to justify their actions?
Most religious people have never commited a horrible act... I think this alone refutes your premise.
However, as further contra-evidence, I can think of many seriously horrible acts that were not done in the name of religion... the Holocaust, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, Rwanda, 9/11/2001, (in)human medical experimentation through the ages... the list goes on.
Let's face it. Humans have always and will continue to commit horrible acts and they will try to rationalize some justification for it, be it religion, or politics, or scientific advancement... If you believe that religion causes people to do bad things, then you really don't understand people... or religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it not just possible that humans commit horrible acts all on their own and some merely use religion to justify their actions?
Let's see how that works:
-"Hey, I have a great idea, let's hijack a couple of jet planes with 200 passengers each and crash them into a skyscraper!"
-"Great idea! But, wait, what excuse shall we use for it?"
-"Hmmm, I'm not quite sure... How about religion?"
-"Well, maybe. OK, unless someone gets a better idea, we will justify it through religion"
No, I think religion is the *prime* motive for a lot of shit people does, not a "mere justification".
If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without rel
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I think religion is the *prime* motive for a lot of shit people does, not a "mere justification".
If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion, then you really don't understand people... or religion.
It wouldn't follow, though, to attack the Twin Towers. What sort of religious icon were they? To say that 9/11 was a religious attack, rather than a political one, you'd need to demonstrate how that religion sought to further it's ends through the attack. Has the falling of the towers made Islam stronger, or weaker, or was there no change?
Please do explain how this works, because from where I sit it seems entirely political in nature, with a religious wrapping - which is just what the Parent is suggesting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Please do explain how this works, because from where I sit it seems entirely political in nature, with a religious wrapping - which is just what the Parent is suggesting.
You are both right. The majority of people in the world are taught from birth to believe in a God, and that it is right to follow the teachings of the Holy men, including going to war. Some of the Holy men are religious fundamentalists, and they will demand war against those who follow a different religion. They will justify the war with reference to the Holy scriptures, and this will provide a self-reinforcing story that the people will follow (self-reinforcing because, as a result of the violence. they can refer to new acts of savagery that their opponent has carried out). However, the religious leaders are also rational, and will not usually carry out actions that will weaken their own power base or result in their own destruction. For example, the Iranian religious leaders will not directly attack the U.S. or Israel, as this would ensure their destruction. The violence is geo-political in nature, but in order to justify and motivate the population it is necessary to create a religious narrative that they can follow.
It wouldn't follow, though, to attack the Twin Towers. What sort of religious icon were they?
The goals of the leadership of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood are geo-political: resistance against the House of Saud and it's U.S. backed dictatorship being the most obvious. There is a great amount of social injustice in Saudi Arabia, resulting from a huge inequality in the distribution of wealth - millions of ordinary people live in abject poverty, whilst a few thousand people in the royal family control trillions of dollars in personal wealth. This leads to a society in which corruption is the norm, and where the wealthy can literally "get away with murder". It is not difficult to see why ordinary people might want to replace the existing system with something that seems a little fairer. The Islamists offer them a future governance based on what they perceive to be a better system, where the rules are supposed to be applied equally regardless of wealth or position in society. Throw into this the fact that the U.S. is a major ally of the House of Saud, supplies a huge amount of military and intelligence hardware, and at one point had 10,000 troops stationed there, and it is not difficult to see how the resentment shifts from the House of Saud and onto the U.S.
The average citizen of these countries is poorly educated, and often illiterate. Justifying and motivating them towards acts of violence through geo-politics is hard - how do you convince a man to commit suicide, or otherwise take enormous personal risks, in order to destabilise the governing regime? A rational man will usually believe that his own death is not justified except in exceptional circumstances, and overthrowing his government is not usually one of those. The concept of "life after death with big rewards" is essential to the narrative that enables self-sacrifice towards the attainment of geo-political goals.
So, people attack targets like the Twin Towers because they observe massive social injustice in their home land. Their religious leaders tell them that this injustice is the fault of people outside of their social group, and that God wants them to make the world a better place, and that when they die they will receive the reward of an eternal life. They are personally motivated by religion, and by a sense that the world that they are fighting against is unjust. However, the Twin Towers is chosen as a target because it is a symbol of the injustice; this is not about "glorifying" a religion, it is about striking back against an "evil empire" that is seen as being intimately linked with the social problems of the population as a whole.
Re: (Score:3)
You are confused. The members of Al-Qaeda are motivated by their devotion to Osama Bin Laden, not to Islam. In fact, their actions are in direct contradiction to Islamic beliefs.
If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion...
One man's terrorist is another man's war hero. More people commit "suicide" for political beliefs than do for religious ones. Duty is a powerful motivator.
People are predominantly motivated by greed and power. Making something a religious cause is, more often than not, just a way to get buy-in from the masses... an afterthought
Re: (Score:3)
If you believe someone can become a suicide terrorist without religion, then you really don't understand people... or religion.
I'm not religious myself, but I can see some scenarios where I might be willing to sacrifice myself for totally non-religious reasons. Here's one... My city is attacked by a hoard of ravenous zombies. By drawing them out into an uninhabited region with a plate full of brains and detonating a nuclear device, killing myself in the process, I can save my people from the zombie hoard,
Re: (Score:3)
You guys are discounting "Suicide war heros."
EG, the guy who "Gives his all"-- the much celebrated epitome of wartime valor. (You know, the guy who walks up to the bomb he placed under the enemy bridge, and manually detonates it to halt enemy advance, after the remote detonator fails.)
"belief in an afterlife" is simply a subset of the actual requirement-- Belief that the sacrifice will result in a better tomorrow. The war hero blowing up the bridge might feel that his life is inconsequential compared to the
Description of Scientific method (Score:4, Insightful)
we've been unable to prove anything so far, but here's a story pulled out of the collective asses of village elders 3000 years ago...
Actually, if you replace "village elders" with "theorists" and 3,000 years with "several" this is almost exactly like science: we come up with a theory which we have not yet proved and then act on it as if it were true to see what the implications are and then test those implications. The slight, but very important, difference being that if someone manages to prove the "story" wrong we'll listen to them, give them a nobel prize and rewrite the story whereas religion has a bad track record of burning them at the stake (although even science's record is not blemish free [wikipedia.org]).
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Funny)
You've never heard of a Prius? :p
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's people's morals - often based on or at least supported by what you blithely dismiss as "fiction" - that stop us from doing those sorts of things.
Those of us that aren't sociopaths don't need religion to keep us from inflicting pain and suffering upon others. Those who are sociopaths use religion as an excuse as often as it prevents them from harming others.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Interesting)
She didn't think that she was anti-science, she just thought that she could cherry pick facts from the bible and set up special cases in which the physical laws of nature no longer apply.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
From the point of view of science those two options are identical.
If the 6000 years ago bit is true, we can just continue working on the old universe idea and since God made it look like it old experiment will keep matching theory. God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence. We on the other hand keep doing good science - it's what the universe looks like, so the results and discoveries and technological innovations will all end up the same anyway.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence.
This, this right here is key to understanding the essential gap between atheist fundamentalists and normal people. Observe how the very meaning of life is illustrated in two points:
A) God is amused by our suffering (or at least by our bewilderment.)
and
B) The point of science is to tempt us into damnation.
Neither of these concepts are presented anywhere within the Christian dogma, so where did they come from?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the 6000 years ago bit is true, we can just continue working on the old universe idea and since God made it look like it old experiment will keep matching theory. God can just giggle at us as his brilliantly faked universe tricks us into eternal damnation as we follow the evidence.
Thus casting God in the role of Descartes evil demon. Oh, the fun you can have with that idea...
Interestingly enough, there was a branch of early Christianity which insisted that the Creator was in fact evil, and Jesus was here to save us from him.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
God made the universe 6000 years ago as if it were made much longer ago.
That contradicts the idea that God does not deceive, which most Christians believe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think big bang theory plays into this scientific investigation at all (it's more of an astronomical theory). The language used in the article is designed so that they lay person may understand why it is relevant.
But my point is that they don't know a lot about the nuclear strong force, that's why these experiments are necessary.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
The majority of fundamentalists are accepting of science until they feel it contradicts their scripture and/or beliefs. Religious fundamentalism is inherently incompatible with science in the same sense that one could not simultaneously be a both a humanist and a racist. There's no reason though why a racist couldn't be an absolute angel to white people, or why someone with fervent religious beliefs can't excel in a field of science that can be reconciled with their beliefs. Depends on the amount of proof required. Creationists are well known for demanding unrealistic levels of proof for evolution or big bang cosmology. In their case it's comparable to finding a corpse with a back full of bullets and refusing to accept that it's likely a case of murder - since no-one was there to witness it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe you have that reversed. I've met plenty of religious fundamentalists who weren't anti-science loons... Can't say I've met / heard of any anti-science loons who are not religious fundamentalists.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Informative)
I thought religious fundamentalists are merely a subset of anti-science loons.
You do realize that the one who originally theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest [wikipedia.org], right?
You could even call him the "Father" of the Big Bang.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
Frankly I don't give a shit who gets pissed off. The objective is scientific understanding, not pissing people off or not.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Funny)
Frankly I don't give a shit who gets pissed off. The objective is scientific understanding, not pissing people off or not.
It's just a very nice side-effect.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If god created the universe then why can't people of all faiths see science as a way to get closer to god by unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
Indeed it is.
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
I have always believed that this passage is a parable describing what separates us from the other animals on the planet. We started off as they are, amoral and ignorant. God offered us a path towards being as he is, and dared us not to take it.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Your mission [dilbert.com], if you choose to accept it. You are dealing with people that mostly wouldn't remember what an "ion" is. When you say "smashing iron", they think of banging two iron bars together. And how exactly is iron atoms related to the creation of the universe, really? Answer: It isn't, but they will have skipped to some other headline long before you got to explain it to them.
Do you think think this is related to science journalism in particular? There's so many wildly misleading titles all over the places. Like right now in the sports section is one "The coach didn't like their celebration" as if there was a conflict between the coach and the team. If you read the article he just think there's too many flashy gimmicks, spraying of champagne etc. and it's just not his style. Everything is fluff like that there days.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Funny)
Those are the kind of people we don't want coming to Slashdot anymore.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They created a small version of the conditions that obtained in the event known to nearly everyone as "The Big Bang".
It's not merely a bang. It's a set of physical phenomena that heretofore have not been seen except at the inception of this universe.
The headline is just about as accurate as it can be, and isn't hyperbolic in the slightest.
Re:Science Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not merely a bang. It's a set of physical phenomena that heretofore have not been seen except at the inception of this universe.
Except, of course, that your statement is not true. Collisions of similar or much higher magnitude happen quite frequently, even here on earth (or at least in the atmosphere). This would be better described as a recreation of a high energy cosmic ray collision rather than as a mini big bang.
The headline is just about as accurate as it can be, and isn't hyperbolic in the slightest.
Except that it's total hyperbole.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, is a mini-big bang just a bang, then?
I hate this constant need for science journalists to oversell and over-hype an outstanding achievement with misleading hyperbole. They didn't create mini big bangs. They smashed lead ions to try to recreate the conditions that existed shortly after the big bang. It's already an impressive enough achievement without cheapening it with sensationalist BS.
Absolutely right no need to over hype it and create big headlines. Just give them credit for the bang-up job.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure that there is a difference. From what I've understood, the "Big Bang" really refers to the period of inflation due to Higgs field being stuck on a supercooled state, and these conditions could potentially be re-created by rising energy density high enough to re-create the correct symmetries and then letting it fall very fast again.
Dunno what the word "mini" is
Re:Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, that's what "mini big bang" means. OK, so you don't like it, but who cares.
It isn't cheap sensational BS, it's expensive evocative BS at worst.
100% agreement. Its ridiculous for the OP to get a bug up his ass over that headline. Headlines need to be short and sweet (aka maximally informative to the intended audience) - the BBC's headline is both, the OP's version is far too long to use as a headline. Might fine for the title of a scientific paper, but not a general news website.
a mini big bang theory (Score:2, Funny)
Mini - Big ? (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't a mini big bang just be a moderate bang?
Re:Mini - Big ? (Score:5, Funny)
.
Re: (Score:2)
If we do it all together? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What kind of coffee shops are you attending?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What kind of coffee shops are you attending?
The kind that are pretentious enough to think they create a universe in every cup?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
No, I mini big bang would be just like a regular big bang in every detail...but only one eighth the size.
Re: (Score:2)
What I really want to know is, did it make a tiny solar system? Maybe we should wait a few trillion years to see... :-P
Re:Mini - Big ? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's time axis is perpendicular to ours. From our point of view the new universe existed for an infinitesimal time. I don't think there's any way to tell how long it existed from its point of view.
Please don't mod this insightful, I'm trying to be funny.
Next step... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Next step... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your definition. You're probably thinking "Creationism as in God created it" which is general enough that they aren't mutually exclusive.
Other people say that Creationism is more about using the Genesis section of the Bible to explain how life came to be as opposed to other biological answers like evolution.
I assume the parent wants to disprove the later.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on your definition. You're probably thinking "Creationism as in God created it" which is general enough that they aren't mutually exclusive.
Other people say that Creationism is more about using the Genesis section of the Bible to explain how life came to be as opposed to other biological answers like evolution.
I assume the parent wants to disprove the later.
Creationism and Evolution are not mutually exclusive either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well ther are not mutually exclusive after what is it Bishop Usher calculated 4006 BC. Before that the theories diverge.
Usher is a Bishop now? (Score:2)
What's next? 50 Cent becoming the Pope?
Re:Next step... (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed. A roommate of mine, who was a religious micro-biologist, insisted that evolution, more-so than anything, is indicative of Intelligent Design/Creationism. In his own words, "What's smarter than designing something that can adapt to its environment entirely on its own?"
Re:Next step... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think if they created a real big bang we may all be silenced.
Re:Next step... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then He/She/It/They shouldn't have created us with a brain that was capable of designing and a body capable of executing those experiments, or He/She/It/They should have kept an eye on us and smacked our hand if we tried. IMO deadbeat deities shouldn't get to wander back into our lives after a long absence without any clear communication with us and immediately get to dictate what we can and cannot do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is precisely why they aren't asking you. Look, asking the average person for their opinion on the function, safety, or usefulness of a particle collider is like walking down the street and asking a random person for algorithm advice on your latest programming project. The chances that s/he will have even the vaguest idea what you're talking about are slim. The chances that s/he will understand your question well enough to answer you are slimmer still. The chance that they will be able to offer a he
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I checked most scientists in the field no longer even accept the big bang as likely. They consider it the same "something from nothing" unanswer as religions offer, looking for a cyclic model [wikipedia.org] instead. :D
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last I checked most scientists in the field no longer even accept the big bang as likely. They consider it the same "something from nothing" unanswer as religions offer, looking for a cyclic model [wikipedia.org] instead. :D
...which, of course, is still something from nothing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Now show us a real big-bang so the creationists are silenced
Yes, humans creating a real big bang will definitely silence those who believe in Intelligent Design. Brilliant!
Re:Next step... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, most recursive algorithms have a base case. So:
To understand recursion you must first understand recursion, unless you already understand recursion.
'alternative' summary (Score:2, Funny)
Re:'alternative' summary (Score:5, Funny)
Is that what they call "sexing-up" the story?
Just you wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason to assume that their time dimension runs parallel to our own. Any universe created in the lab might easily branch off in some other non-euclidian direction. In which case, it would all be over before it starts, so to speak.
Re:Just you wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or it could had its own relatavistic principles, where our mini Big Bang might have lasted mere seconds or fractions thereof - if it did in fact recreate the universe properly down to scale, then life and intelligence could have evolved, and died out in those mere seconds.
Re:Just you wait... (Score:4, Funny)
Horton, is that you?
Calling All Dan Brown Fans... (Score:4, Funny)
ALICE? ALICE? (Score:3, Funny)
Who the fuck is ALICE?
One of the accelerator's experiments, ALICE, has been specifically designed to smash together lead ions...
Well, I guess that answers that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was "A Large Ion Collider Experiment"
Fusion? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fusion? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, that is FAR above the temperatures needed for controlled fusion.
We don't have any trouble creating the necessary temperature for controlled fusion. The part we aren't able to do is the "controlled" bit - in a way that allows a net positive energy return.
I'm guessing this collision released maybe a few kcal of energy (which is HUGE for two atom-sized masses, but otherwise on-par with a candle), but it probably consumed the resources from half of a power plant in the process.
The LHC isn't about energy generation - it is about generating huge concentrations of energy in an extremely small volume of space.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually 0.1mJ (or 1138TeV) per collision (half that per ion). They have ways to go before hitting 1 cal. However, within the volume of a nucleus, that's still a crazy concentration of energy.
Also, a beam has a *lot* of ions (they're starting with 2e10/beam but I believe their goal is 100x that before the end of the month). That's 10MJ/beam before the end of the month, which is already a fairly serious amount of energy to have in a particle beam.
Am I dead? (Score:2)
Am I dead?
Is time stretching out as we all are hurtling towards the centre of singularity?
Re:Am I dead? (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, it's just monday...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I dead?
Look around you. See any fjords?
Is time stretching out as we all are hurtling towards the centre of singularity?
No, you're just stoned. Relax, things will settle down in a bit.
Not a mini big bang... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[blockquote]The 'big bang [wikipedia.org]' was the event that created all mass, space, and time in the entire universe in a single instant approximately 13.7 billion years ago.[/blockquote]
The big bang doesn't talk about the creation event. It discusses the expansion following soon after that event, and only somewhat reliably at the planck epoch. The big bang did not create matter, energy or time either. These were all firmly in place by during the period this theory takes place. While their may be theo
Re:Not a mini big bang... (Score:4, Informative)
The big bang doesn't talk about the creation event. It discusses the expansion following soon after that event...
The 'big bang' theory is that the universe began as the appearance of a 'singularity' approximately 13.7 billion years ago that then rapidly expanded into the universe that we see today. According to the theory, neither 'mass' nor 'space' nor 'time' existed prior to the singularity.
Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And therefor the phrase "prior to the singularity" is devoid of meaning.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The LHC collision of lead ions did not create any mass, space, or time but did create a "hot dense soup of quarks and gluons known as a quark-gluon plasma" that might have existed after the 'big bang' event.
You can be damn sure it did create a whole lot of mass. When you reach even a tiny fraction of the energy involved here you start creating exotic particles left right and centre. The quarks in the soup will not be limited to up and down quarks found in lead ions, much heavier quarks will have been created though they can be very short lived.
Pah! (Score:5, Funny)
NVidia achieved that years ago.
Can we patent this? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Freeon. Delicious Freeon.
Re:Sooo..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sooo..... (Score:5, Funny)
That's what the Free Mesons want you to believe.
Re:Sooo..... (Score:5, Informative)
The output energy probably wouldn't have exceeded the input energy. No chain reaction or anything.
I'd imagine a mass the size of two lead ions at a trillion degrees could only maybe bring a gallon of room temperature water up a degree or two. They are quite small.
Re:Sooo..... (Score:4, Informative)
I'd imagine a mass the size of two lead ions at a trillion degrees could only maybe bring a gallon of room temperature water up a degree or two. They are quite small.
Just to keep things in context, they actually shot a rather large number of lead ions at each other in the hopes of getting two to collide.
There's a huge amount of energy zipping around, it's just that the odds of it all releasing at once approaches zero.
Re:Sooo..... (Score:4, Interesting)
You are quite a long way off with your estimate, though you're right that the effect would be small.
One mole of lead is 207 grams so the energy you are talking about would cause a 1 K rise in only (207 * 2 * 10^12) / (6.02 * 10^23) or 6.9 * 10^-10 grams of lead.
That's less than the mass of a human ovum. Orders of magnitude (mass) [wikipedia.org]
And the heat capacity (by mass) of water is about 32 times that of lead so you could heat up even less than that - just over 2 * 10^-11 grams of water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're still here (Score:4, Funny)
If we are gods, we can only hope our creations are morally superior to us.
Hey, suddenly Jehovah the blood thirsty desert god makes a lot more sense.
Re:We're still here (Score:5, Interesting)
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.
R. A. Heinlein
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We’re just a million little gods causing rain storms, turning every good thing to rust. I guess we'll just have to adjust.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's between particles, regardless of their kind. At room temperature, atoms within molecules also participate in heat exchange; this is why for adiabatic compression of ideal gas you need to know if it has monoatomic, biatomic or bigger molecules - this affects the vibrational modes within the molecule. Again at room temperature, quantum physics prevents this exchange to continue inside the atoms - in non-metals, the atom-atom collisions happen below the energy that can knock electrons out of them, let alo