Big day set for big-bang machine

jamie williams, denham springs, louisiana — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:56:46 GMT

Anyone ever heard of john titor? go to johntitor.com or wikipedia him.....he talked about CERN creating mini blackholes by accident back in 2000. which is how he says we can time travel in the year 2036 and how he came back in time to do his work for the army. Very interesting stuff. Read all his stuff and look at the army books he had brought back about his time displacement machine......makes ya think. stuff was very detailed.

Big day set for big-bang machine

S.B. Stein E.B. NJ — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:07:48 GMT

To be there and to be able to understand all of the math! I love that. What is the current level that any colider has gotten up so far. It was mentioned that LHC can get up to 14 TeV by 2010; will it warm up with something under the 5 TeV that was mentioned?

Big day set for big-bang machine

jamie williams, denham springs, louisiana — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:38:08 GMT

well S.B. Stein, yes it will start up at the energy of 450 GeV which is 0.45 TeV. as far as what the highest level of energy generated before this one kicks off....im not sure. but even if anything interesting is to happen, it wont be for a while still. at least not until it starts really putting out some power. we arent gonna really see anything interesting and new until it reaches at least 5 TeV

Big day set for big-bang machine

AZgirl — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:54:32 GMT

What is this machine suppose to do?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Robert Marsh II, GA. — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:06:24 GMT

It is just a 'matter' of 'time', to see which way this race will go! Relatively speaking, I place all my money upon CERN LHC/ALICE, during scheduled 14 TeV full-power heavy Lead (Pb) ion collisions, once financed in 2009!

http://thefifthknight.blogspot.com/

Remember: Follow the 'White Rabbit'!

Big day set for big-bang machine

anonymous — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:09:51 GMT

@ Jamie Williams -- Just thought I'd point out that while a lot of the things on that website are vague and could POSSIBLY have been a COINCIDENTAL hit, that website is a farce. For example, at one point he says he is 14 in 2012 and that the US Civil War is in it's 7th year... if so, that would mean that the war started in 2005. Learn to read before you post such stupid things.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Lorraine Taube Brockway Township, Michigan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:21:30 GMT

What in heavens name are they talking about? please explain in plain English. Sounds interesting.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Scott karen — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:25:42 GMT

If you study John Titors statements it is very interesting but he says one thing that does not jive. He states that after 2004 there were no more Olympic games. In only a few days that will be incorrect. It tends to make me think it is fradulent.

Big day set for big-bang machine

jamie williams, denham springs, louisiana — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:29:50 GMT

to the anonymous person that commented on my post....if YOU would have read the site at all, then you would know that he mentioned different world lines. let me break that down for you...that means if it happened in his past, that doesnt mean it will happen in our future. He stated that you cant go back and change your past, when u travel back, it creates a new world line from that time on. now....why dont YOU read before YOU post....thanks

Big day set for big-bang machine

Bill Thomas, Southern Nevada — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:33:23 GMT

I got to simply ask "why". What difference does the knowledge of subatomic particles even do for us? I understand man's quest for knowledge but dumping billions into a system and a science that provides no real-use benefit seems like a gross waste of time, money and resources. Please stop this nonsence and let's do something PRODUCTIVE as a race.

Big day set for big-bang machine

savingcats — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:50:10 GMT

We have homeless people and starving children and old people and kids in school with out books and proper materials and some kids not even in school and we spend all this money on this . Who gives a crap about this we have lives to live perhaps you all should get one to and a real job there are plenty of them out there.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Alan Boyle — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:54:37 GMT

Aha, I should recap what the Large Hadron Collider is all about:

Over the past 70 years or so, physicists have been smashing atoms and subatomic particles together to study what makes them tick. The analogy has been made to shooting at a nerf ball with a BB gun, and trying to figure out what's inside the nerf ball by seeing how the BBs are deflected and what gets knocked loose.

These particle colliders have been operating at higher and higher energies, and they've been quite useful ... not only because they reveal what we're made of (for example, the discovery of quarks, etc.) but also because the beams have real-world applications (treating cancer, developing stronger materials, mapping internal organs).

The Large Hadron Collider ("hadron" refers to any particle that contains quarks) will be by far the most powerful particle collider to date, achieving energies seven times as high as the previous champion (the Tevatron in Illinois). It's important to remember that collisions far more energetic occur in outer space all the time. You could think of the LHC as the best artificial cosmic-ray simulator we've been able to come up with so far.

So what will it find? We'll go into that in much more depth in a couple of weeks, but in brief, physicists hope to answer some of the puzzling questions that have been unanswerable until now. For example, based on our current understanding of gravity, we know that all the matter we can see is only about 10 percent of all the matter in the universe. Scientists believe the other 90 percent is "dark matter," which may consist of exotic particles that zip through us all the time but have never been detected. The LHC could detect the signatures of such dark matter particles.

Another question has to do with antimatter. Theorists have said that equal parts of matter and antimatter arose in the big bang that gave rise to the universe as we know it ... but theoretically, those equal parts should have annihilated themselves and resulted in pure energy. There must have been something about antimatter that gave it a disadvantage and led to the fact that we hardly ever see antimatter in nature. One of the LHC experiments, LHCb, will address that conundrum.

Another LHC experiment, called ALICE, will seek to re-create the conditions that existed just after the big bang and study the plasma (or fluid) that made up all that was at that time.

Then there's the Higgs boson. As I mentioned above, it's the last particle predicted by the Standard Model that hasn't yet been detected. It is thought to be associated with a field that determines which particles will have mass (like protons) and which particles won't (like photons). It's so important to the way the world works that it's been called the "God Particle."

Theorist John Ellis told me that the Higgs is the "door" leading to new physics that we can't really guess about right now. Determining its characteristics could lead physicists beyond the brick wall they're facing on several fronts.

There are also way-out ideas: If the universe contains extra unseen dimensions, as some theorists have said, the LHC could create microscopic knots of energy that have been dubbed "mini-black holes" (virtually all physicists say they would disappear instantaneously). Some researchers claim that the LHC could create small closed timelike curves ... essentially, microscopic wormholes or time machines. Most physicists say that's pretty much science fiction, but there has been at least one paper written up about the idea:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2696

As far as real-world applications ... well, that can't be predicted right now. But past advances in high-energy physics and engineering have led to new ways to see the universe (like space telescopes sensitive to various wavelengths) and new devices (like PET scanners and MRI scanners in hospitals). The engineering insights gained from the LHC could help other scientists tame fusion power, or discover entirely new sources of energy, or come up with new types of materials or sensors.

We'll delve into this a lot more in the coming weeks, but I did want to give folks a sense of why the LHC is important.

If you want to click through a presentation that explains particle physics step by step, you can check out the Particle Adventure:

http://particleadventure.org/frameless/startstandard.html

Big day set for big-bang machine

alex guerrieri,bklyn,ny — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:07:00 GMT

hopefully something good will come out of this,and no disaster.maybe inventions,but how much money did and does this cost? what comes out of this ?

Big day set for big-bang machine

jamie williams, denham springs, louisiana — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:13:25 GMT

to one of the last comments....this money and time is spent so that we can furher understand things that at this time are unknown to us. we are a people that have a constant hunger for knowledge and improving ourselves. This will open new doors to things that we may never know about otherwise [...]

Big day set for big-bang machine

Abdul, Tampa — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:16:37 GMT

Hey, yes, let's fight world hunger and not spend so much money on things like this. Sounds like a liberal.
If it weren't for science like this, we wouldn't be able to feed the many people we have in this country. Science has brought us agriculture on a wide scale, transportation infrastructure to bring it to customers, technology to cook it, seal it so it doesn't spoil, and refridgerate it so it is available when we need it. Society has always benefited from science. Kids starving and kids not able to go to school is a human problem and always will be. No amount of money will solve certain human traits. Only this type of science will allow invention and development that will benefit mankind. Anyone who thinks otherwise is typically uneducated, ignorant, or has no capacity to understand.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Gary, Indianapolis Indiana — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:25:30 GMT

This world would rather destroy itself trying to figure out how we came to be rather than just living. Finding a cure for disease is one thing, this is a total waste of time. We have polluted the Earth, its waterways, its oceans, now we are looking to rocketing trash into space to further pollute it. Hell, even if we did manage to find another dimension we would screw it up too.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Alan Boyle — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:38:58 GMT

I should also mention that endeavors like the LHC (and the LEP before it) yield technological spin-offs that are not directly related to particle physics. Of course these things might have been developed even if the atom-smashers weren't built, but the colliders gave them an intellectual and financial "push."

For example, one of the researchers at CERN developed a little something called the World Wide Web to keep track of the data generated by the LEP experiment, which preceded the LHC. You literally could not be doing what you are doing right now if it weren't for CERN and Tim Berners-Lee.

The big innovation for the LHC project is a computer networking system called Grid computing. The Grid is the world's biggest example of distributed computing, and it will likely lead to a significant increase in worldwide computing power. That could be applied to areas ranging from climate prediction to molecular-scale fabrication to protein-folding analysis (which could produce a plethora of new medicines) to ... heaven knows what.

Keep your ears tuned for future Grid applications.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Josh, Spokane, WA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:55:32 GMT

in short, if this experiment works, it will prove once and for all that the "big bang theory" is not a theory at all, but what actually created the universe. it will be interesting to hear what religious folks will have to say about that fact, seeings how it disproves the "intelligent design" theory that some think should be taught in our schools.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dave Wilmoth, San Jose, Calif, USA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:05:28 GMT

Sounds like the Higgs-Boson particle is similar to a stem-cell in that the Higgs-Boson seems to be the guide to other particles. A particle DNA !

Big day set for big-bang machine

DrNO — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:05:48 GMT

Some of you need to read this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/local_idiot_to_post_comment_on
Research and science investigations have GREATLY benefited humanity despite naysayers always claiming that there are more pressing problems. Hell with that attitude we would still be eating raw meat. Don’t waste time trying to start that fire, just find the food and eat. The knowledge gained works it way through society and ultimately improves standards of living usually with unanticipated benefits. NRMs were derived from non- medical research programs but have revolutionized diagnosis. Without further exploration of scientific questions we, as a species, are doomed to stagnation.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:06:35 GMT

In response to ...

> Over the past 70 years or so, physicists have
> been smashing atoms and subatomic particles
> together to study what makes them tick. The
> analogy has been made to shooting at a nerf
> ball with a BB gun, and trying to figure out
> what's inside the nerf ball by seeing how the
> BBs are deflected and what gets knocked loose.
>
> These particle colliders have been operating
> at higher and higher energies, and they've been
> quite useful ... not only because they reveal
> what we're made of (for example, the discovery
> of quarks, etc.) but also because the beams
> have real-world applications (treating cancer,
> developing stronger materials, mapping internal
> organs).

It's fascinating how much is taken for granted in the physics community these days. The past philosophical discussions of the structure and function of the universe on all levels has over time increasingly taken a backseat to a brute-force, mechanical mindset of doing more of the same (yet, presumably better) and getting as many people as possible on board to agree on the same exact models -- which actually aren't working so great after all at predicting much of anything. The idea that this approach will be effective in the long run is, oddly enough, at once both absurd and strictly enforced.

How did we get to this point? Was there a purge of all heretical views? From http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/Steps.htm:

[quote]

One of the most recent comes from a new NPA member who, when doing graduate work in physics around 1960, heard the following story from his advisor: While working for his Ph.D. in physics at the University of California in Berkeley in the late 1920s, this advisor had learned that all physics departments in the U.C. system were being purged of all critics of Einsteinian relativity. Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since.

[end quote]

Purge or not, there are good reasons to doubt these colliders. From David Thomson's "Secrets of the Aether", a good point ...

[quote]

The reader should question whether reductionism should proceed as Zeno's paradox, whereby mere mathematical division reduces systems. However, if this were the case, what would be the physical principle for mathematically dividing something into infinity? A human being is an entity. If we reduce the entity, we find it builds from bodily organs and parts such as heart, liver, skeleton and skin. We do not say that humans build from smaller humans. Similarly, the organs build from cells, which have a level of existence that is very different from the organs. Moreover, the cells build from molecules, which are a more basic order of reality than the cells. The atoms that make up the molecules are a yet more simplified order of existence than the molecules. The subatomic particles are yet a simpler order of existence than the atoms. Moreover, the dimensions that make up the units of subatomic prticles are a still more fundamental order of existence.

[end quote]

It appears as though the concept of reductionism really plays a very minor role in the discipline of quantum mechanics. Is this really correct? Is the universe really just a particle zoo?

There are alternative views of what is being observed with colliders. From David Thomson's "Secrets of the Aether" ...

[quote]

However, the muon, tau, quarks, and other extremely short-lived "observed particles" are merely collision or "unbinding" effects. The collision effects offer some insights into the process of physics, but are of little more use for quantum structural science than crash tests are for automobile manufacturers. Although particle accelerators are useful technology, one has to question just how many we need. It would be far more productive to focus our scientific inquiry on the actual physical structures of stable matter, than to focus too much attention on collision effects.

[end quote]

Properly vetting these sorts of contrarian views and concerns to the public, however, presents a great challenge to groups of scientists who need to fund projects that cost billions of dollars to test their claims. Why would the public support the construction of such monstrosities if there existed doubt as to whether or not they actually work in the first place?

The public needs to dig deeper than the investigative journalism currently being offered to them. A good starting place is to start listening to the critics out there. They actually make some good points that are worth hearing out.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tracy, Neenah, WI — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:09:02 GMT

I have three words for the people that don't understand why this is truly an important thing to study...Ignorance Is Bliss. They must be truly happy people.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Adam — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:22:26 GMT

What would happen if a person could put their hand or a piece of paper or something inside the collided while it was active? Would the protons just go right through or would they do damage to the item that they come in contact with.

Big day set for big-bang machine

CM, Montreal, Canada — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:26:11 GMT

Please, no ignorant commments berating the scientists and professionals working on this project and telling them to get "real jobs". To advance scientifically is to carry out experiments like these, and science has a long history of contributing to the good of humanity (for example, any medical technology). As mentioned by others, it could have innumerable practical appplications as well. Please don't tell me Einstein's equations were useless too, because they didn't directly address world hunger.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:32:55 GMT

14 tev through a piece of metal or a magnetromer may create a reverse in the magnetic pole of gravety and give us a way to go through time with no restrictions electro magtisum is the path maby this will help get there

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:37:47 GMT

In response to this ...

> I should also mention that endeavors like the
> LHC (and the LEP before it) yield technological
> spin-offs that are not directly related to
> particle physics. Of course these things might
> have been developed even if the atom-smashers
> weren't built, but the colliders gave them an
> intellectual and financial "push."
>
> For example, one of the researchers at CERN
> developed a little something called the World
> Wide Web to keep track of the data generated
> by the LEP experiment, which preceded the LHC.

Are you suggesting that the collider research is useful regardless of whether or not the science is on track and the experimental results themselves are useful?

Are you trying to tell us that the Internet would have never been developed had we not built colliders?

Whether or not we should be building colliders should depend more on how good the scientific arguments are for quantum mechanics relative to ALTERNATIVE PARADIGMS. The problem is that if you permit alternative paradigms to even have a voice at all, then you are already undermining the public's willingness to fund these colliders. If the scientists can't seem to make up their minds on whether or not the thing should work, then the thing in question immediately sounds more risky.

One only has to read the writings of the Electric Universe group in an honest manner to realize that our scientific community's fascination with consensus has led them down a narrow-minded pathway that can now only work with never-before-observed particles, 10 or more dimensions and mathematics that has little basis in reality. It's time to expand our horizons if we want to move forward.

[ALAN ADDS: Hm, sounds like you have a thing against particle physics as it's usually practiced nowadays. I'll just note (as many others have before) that the Standard Model is one of the most successful (albeit head-spinning) theories in science - building on insights from some of history's best minds (Einstein, Feynman, etc.). As for the Internet, that was created by the Pentagon. It was the World Wide Web that was created by Tim Berners-Lee at CERN, as a result of the LEP collider experiment. If you remember what the Internet was like before the Web (archie, veronica, gopher, FTP, elm, Usenet, etc.), the distinction between the pre-WWW and the current WWW-enabled Internet should be clear.]

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jeff, Charlottesville, VA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:40:58 GMT

The answer to how we got here and what makes things work is in the first line of this book. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris, Seattle, WA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:47:31 GMT

You liberal idiots whine about hunger, homelessness, etc., you should consider this. What if, as the result of this experiment, scientists were able to discover a clean, inexpensive alternative to fossil fuels? What if understanding how matter is constructed led to a safe way to rid the world of greenhouse gasses? What effect do you think either would have on the world's ills? Stifling science in the name of solving society's problems is how the soviets did so well in science, and what led to their eventual economic supremecy... oh yeah, that didn't work out so hot for them, did it?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Allegory,los angeles,calif — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:53:50 GMT

I am a little surprised that more people (or any) haven't even touched on the fact that the LHC was built with the help of theories that Stephen Hawking supplied. The theory was thought solid as a rock, and they began making this machine to investigate what he thought was to be found. That beginning started in 1975. But, after 30 years of having do doubt he was right in his theory, he found that he had miscalculated,and as a result,admitted that he had been all wrong for 30 years...Too late to stop now,was the mentality...i guess. Of course humans make mistakes,that's why pencils have erasers. But to continue down this same path,with flawed theory in hand, they will happily risk everything because "they dont know what will happen" But are very intrested to see what they get. I'm sorry,but if your whole project is based on flawed info, scrap the project. Or not. It's your planet. Here is a link to more info on what is not being told to you: http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm

[ALAN ADDS: I think this is page passes along some misunderstandings ... for example, it says the main purpose of the LHC is to produce antimatter and black holes. That's not the main purpose. One of the instruments will be studying the matter-antimatter balance, and there's a very slight chance that micro black holes will be produced, but neither of these items will be "potentially devastating." Also, the page badly garbles Hawking's views on black holes. For a well-informed and easy-to-understand explanation of the black hole debate, check out Leonard Susskind's book on the subject, "The Black Hole War," which I'm in the process of reading.]

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tom Jambino — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:28:08 GMT

sounds like something I read about in Angels and Demons...I dont know about you folks, but once this project is under way, im going back to meet the 10 yr old version of myself, and tell him about all the bad desicions we have made

Big day set for big-bang machine

Steve Lakewood, CO — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:43:01 GMT

Science is the ultimate answer....religion plays no part in any logical way in the creation of the world. Religion explains the greed of a make beleive "god", who cant even pay taxes on his property "churches"...

Big day set for big-bang machine

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:50:19 GMT

There is no way proving a Big Bang disproves any Divine Creator. Sneaky Bugger might just have created a Big Bang. Apples and Oranges, folks, to the death. Moreover, the people so upset about a flawed theory are likely of the mind that humans are flawed and therefore so are all of their theories. Which is generally true. We can't have an unflawed theory un til we have real answers. Cant have real answers til we start muckin around with things. Risk vs Gain. Thats the bottom line of the arguement. No one can prove 100% one thing or another. What do you value? What do you dream of? Will this thing help? Is it worth the risk? Most people think along these lines in business and love and all sorts of things/situations. While big, mysterious, and a little scary, this device is no different, nor any less deserving of consideration.

Personally I think its worth it. Rather go down a black hole on accident than burn away in the nuclear spite of human fear.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Michael — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:54:24 GMT

How can the experts be so sure nothing bad will be generated by this collider, when the reason for building it is that they don't know what it will do?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Billy, Petaluma, CA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:58:13 GMT

That John Titor guy is a bunch of bull. Someone had way too much time on their hands. I can't beleive there are people that actually beleive that too. If people are this gullable now, I can only imagine what people will be like in 2036.

Big day set for big-bang machine

not stupid, Seattle area — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:59:19 GMT

OK adam - it's like this:

first off, it's a GIANT THERMOS BOTTLE (insulated VACUUM)

Second - it's VERY VERY C.C.C.cc.c. OLD (1.9 degrees above ABSOLUTE ZERO

So IF there were to be some errant "matter" in there, it would THOROUGHLY screw up the operation. This is an operation of "very fast parts of atoms" (protons) going round and round until they HIT (smack!) some other atom (the whole atom). The object is to look at the "pieces that "fly off" - what angles they fly off and what their "lifetime" is (pretty SHORT) and then try to determine the very NATURE of those particles - those "pieces of atoms", those very "building blocks of matter itself"

I'm an engineer and most of it is STILL way over my head

Big day set for big-bang machine

JD, Seattle, WA — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:03:48 GMT

If for a moment one ponders the idea that time might not be so discrete and sequential, while nevertheless being quite continuous, one might suggest that there is a bit of wiggle room in time, such that certain phenomena tend to follow a different but curiously consistent set of rules, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

Observing that one of the primal laws of the universe is that special cases not only are allowed but also encouraged, is it so difficult to imagine conditions in which events occur at in time at speeds which for slower relative observers appear to be considerably faster than the speed of light--specifically to the point of being virtually instantaneous across vast distances on a galactic scale?

More to the point, if a so-called "black hole" (be it minuscule or immense) meets the necessary criteria for allowing the existence of what one might call a "distorted or convoluted spacetime horizon", then is it such a leap to expect that certain events which have not occurred in our relative timeline in fact occurred quite a while ago in some of these more strange and unusual dimensions of spacetime?

In other words, if the upcoming experiments at the Large Hadron Collider somehow spawn tiny "black holes", then could bits of information travel through spaceime virtually instantaneously through a cosmic pipeline or portal and arrive somewhere in what to us is far distant space where they interact with information that will not become readily available to us based on our current levels of technology until sometime in what we perceive to be our "future", and if so, then one might reasonably expect that we already would have observed a few clues about the future as the consequence of noting anomalies in the behavior of a virtual festival of stellar objects?

Is the information we perceive from our various observations of astronomical objects permanently locked in such a way that everything we will ever perceive in our relative future in fact is entirely predetermined and inviolate?

Probably not . . .

Hence, instead of focusing on what might happen, I suggest it makes a lot more sense to focus on what in the future already has happened toward the goal of determining whether it provides a few clues to upcoming events . . .

Thanks!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Charles, Deansboro, NY — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:15:15 GMT

Please don't think that all liberals are against the LHC. While I agree that there are very real problems such as hunger and homelessness, I have always thought that science is the way. As stated above, who knows what fantastic energy solutions may result from these experiments? Even if the risks from running these experiments where HUGE, and I'm not saying that they are, life is full of risk. If you're not trying to move forward, you may as well be going in reverse.

Big day set for big-bang machine

cmac — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:23:31 GMT

Chris Reeve wrote:

"Those who refused to change their minds were ordered to resign, and those who would not were fired, on slanderous charges of anti-Semitism. The main cited motivation for this unspeakably unethical procedure was to present a united front before grant-giving agencies, the better to obtain maximal funds. This story does not surprise me. There has been a particularly vicious attitude towards critics of Einsteinian relativity at U.C. Berkeley ever since."

Einstein was wrong about a great many things, he rejected much of quantum physics. There really is no current university teaching Einstein without also including Higgs and a great number of other greats since Einstein. There has been no purge, and the only theories that might get you kicked out of a university are ones that embraced only Einstein and rejected what came after him (i.e. particle physics, quantum theory, and string theory)

Counter to what those of religious and right-wing philosophy want to tell you, science generally works on the basis of peer review. Even if your theory sounds whacky today, as long as you are published and reviewed, eventually the truth of your equations will come to light. There is room for personal opinion, but eventually truth wins out. It scares a lot of people because humans generally fear change, but change comes no matter how you try to stop it.

Big day set for big-bang machine

kola — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:30:45 GMT

don't argue with a fool, bystanders may not be able to tell you apart..............

Big day set for big-bang machine

Nuke worker, arkansas — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:34:06 GMT

It is great to see the well reasoned responses explaining this device despite the emotion laden concerns of some. Gives this technical professional pride in all of us.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Alan Boyle — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:36:37 GMT

Folks, I haven't approved some of the comments because they go a little too far over the line in terms of attacking the comments of others. It's a judgment call, and some of the comments I've let through might sound a little bit rough as well. But if you don't see your comment appearing, you may want to rephrase it a bit, addressing the information generally (e.g., "being a fan of Paris Hilton is idiotic") rather than addressing a commenter specifically (e.g., "John Doe, you're an idiot because you're a fan of Paris Hilton").

Big day set for big-bang machine

Gary — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:50:00 GMT

How much does it cost to ride it and do they expect long waiting lines?

Big day set for big-bang machine

john smith — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:04:42 GMT

science am bad; stay away from it. everyone know science am bad. i am going to go now and try to unlearn some knowledge so i can be like the people who condemn the advancement of knowledge as a bad thing. those who lack vision deserve to fall into the hole.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Matt Staben — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:10:19 GMT

It's this kind of science that lets us assume that we'll be not having to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years ... we'll find ways to transmogrify the waste into water or other harmless benficial substance before too long. If we don't try, that stuff (and there's cubic miles of it) is going to come back with a vengeance!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Simple ol' country rocket scientist — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:14:58 GMT

Hey, Elon. You once said you never lose. Well, baby, you've lost 3 to Davey Jones. Should have gone with me back in 2003.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:25:24 GMT

> [ALAN ADDS: Hm, sounds like you have a thing
> against particle physics as it's usually
> practiced nowadays. I'll just note (as many
> others have before) that the Standard Model is
> one of the most successful (albeit head-spinning)
> theories in science - building on insights from
> some of history's best minds (Einstein, Feynman,
> etc.).

How would you know how comparatively successful the Standard Model is without actually permitting yourself to learn about competing paradigms? Sounds to me like you are too willing to accept the claims of others without listening to the criticism.

Has anybody ever used the Standard Model to create an equation that predicts the values of an elemental characteristic for every single element of the periodic table? Shouldn't we be able to do that by now if the Standard Model is so great? David Thomson did just that with his electron binding equation in his Aether Physics Model, but nobody considers him to be "great". Seems to me that a lot of science these days -- like in the nano-world -- is a lot of fumbling around, twiddling molecules and playing with physical phenomena that are not truly understood.

Are you aware that the HR Diagram for stars can be easily described with simple plasma physics (rather than proposing that stars "age")? I'm betting not, but you are still confident that it doesn't matter even without reading about it. That's not very rigorous.

There remain many great unresolved enigmas with the Standard Model if you will just listen to the critics explain them to you. You don't ever read about them though because you are spending too much time reading just about popular people and popular theories. That's fine if that is your actual occupation, but it's unfair if you then try to make a statement that also covers those theories you are less familiar with. How do you know that the competing paradigms do not compare to the Standard Model without even reading about them?

If you guys just forced yourself to do a bit of reading on the side, you will understand the problem better. Try "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott for starters. It's such a short book, you could read it in 2 or 3 days. When you see that there are alternate paradigms that actually can be made to work quite well based upon rock solid laboratory science like plasma physics, then you will start to question the observational interpretations that you're taking for granted at the moment.

(Not trying to take over your space here, so I'll leave it at that ...)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Thomas Baker, Greenville, Texas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:30:24 GMT

This is an interesting time to be alive. If the missing particle is found, Physics will have very little left for us in terms of discovery. But if it is not found, Physics as we know it will have to be re-written, an exciting idea for me, as I believe that current Physics relies too much on theory and hypothesis. I personally do not believe that the Higgs will be found, but we will see! YES, WE WILL SEE! A VERY EXCITING TIME TO BE ALIVE!

On another note, I would like to discuss the Big Bang. I do not believe that everything originated from a single point of infinite density. You can still have the Big Bang without this theory. Has no one ever thought about two Supermasses colliding?!?! I will use the illustration of a bomb. After a bomb detonates, it resembles what we see in the Big Bang, expansion in every direction. But alot of things happened in order to get the materials into the bomb to preceed the explosion. It seems far more likely that "SOMETHING" preceeded the Big Bang, not nothing as the theory states. Another idea that seems far more likely than the "nothing theory", as I call it, is a white hole or some kind of tear in the fabric of space. The Size and Scale here are unfathomable, which brings me to my next point.

Why do scientists fool-heartedly believe that they can see the entire Universe? We cannot do this. Our size and scale are very limited, and just by saying that what we see is the ENTIRE Universe, is follish, selfish, and quite frankly, unscientific. If anyone has any information to disprove this, I would very much like to hear it, but I currently have not seen anything to bolster, in my opinion, this error of judgement.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Charles Kapplinger Jr — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:35:02 GMT

To repeat...

Please remember that astrophysicists and the physicists at CERN are often wrong.

And please note that the Big Bang theory is quite wrong (and obviously so).

CNN.com and AP report --

“Scientists plan to hunt for signs of the invisible "dark matter" and "dark energy" that make up more than 96 percent of the universe, and hope to glimpse the elusive Higgs boson, a so-far undiscovered particle thought to give matter its mass.”

The concepts of “dark matter” and “dark energy” are spurious. These concepts are based upon the incorrect Big Bang theory.

So what is the purpose of the LHC??

Big day set for big-bang machine

Woof 2.0 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:44:40 GMT

BTW, is the Energizer Bunny involved in this project?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dennis Stillman, fullerton, ca — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 00:53:51 GMT

GOOD LUCK AND HAPPY COLLIDING!!!!!!!!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Mav, Ventura, Ca — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:00:49 GMT

Alan Boyle, you rock. Great explanation, I actually understood. Thank you.
Isn't 'the war' costing us around $1B per day? I think I read that. Even if it's remotely true, without getting into the rights or wrongs of either, frankly this research seems like a bargain.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Paul Dembinski, Woodstock, Vermont — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:04:11 GMT

Who was the GC for this job? I wish it was me. Great article and very important work. I'm all for it. Now what happened to that Super-collider that was being built in TX. Understand it's just a ring in the ground, now.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Beckwolf — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:08:40 GMT

"I got to simply ask "why". What difference does the knowledge of subatomic particles even do for us? I understand man's quest for knowledge but dumping billions into a system and a science that provides no real-use benefit seems like a gross waste of time, money and resources."

Oh, let's just start with the medical implications. Non-invasive procedures that save thousands of lives, cures, an understanding of more fundamental subatomic layers which can lead to cures of diseases and new inter-body mechanical healing devices. Then we go on to a greater understanding of energy consumption and formation, billions spent now could lead to trillions saved later, along with countless numbers of lives. Why would we ignore something with strong potential so that we can only focus on one problem. There's many problems and many people working on them. Meanwhile, to ignore potential advances is only opening the door for MORE problems. Learn all we can and apply it for betterment, and this has the potential to unlock many doors.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Beckwolf — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:12:57 GMT

"Counter to what those of religious and right-wing philosophy want to tell you, science generally works on the basis of peer review."

Hold on there, religious and right-wing philosophy? So I take it you buy into the stereotype that religion is a determining factor in political affiliations? For the record, I'm a pro-choice, scientific advancement, gay rights, atheist Republican. Political parties are only about the best business model to enable all financial stations in a country to function. Religious philosophy I agree with you on, but there IS NO scientific right-wing philosophy outside of proven business models. You're simply repeating old stereotypes created by one group in an attempt to discredit the other. My fiance is an atheist, and I hold science as THE fact finder, proven ideas being the only truth.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Paul Dembinski, Woodstock, Vermont — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:12:58 GMT

those who lack vision deserve to fall into the hole.

No pun intended?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Lester, Winston-Salem, NC — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:14:03 GMT

Can we stop with the religion bashing, please. As a Christian fundamentalist, I happen to believe that science is a good thing and the experiments with the collider are a very worthwhile and noble endeavor. My personal OPINION is that the Bible tells us Why God created and science tells us How God created. (I'm still ticked that Bush 1 killed the project during his administration.)

Those that argue that we should shun science only alienate the very people we need to stay a technologically advanced nation. Those that trash God only alienate us (techie Chjristians) that would like to vote funding for scientific research.

thanks.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Todd in Dayton Ohio — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:25:25 GMT

It amazes me how the media has convinced people that right-wing conservative religious people are all nuts. Almost all of our scientists from before 1900 were Jesus-freaks. Isaac Newton wrote more on religion than on science! Check out Pastuer, Pascal, the dude who invented anesthesia after reading about Adam and Eve, etcetera. Religion and science are not exclusive. In fact, God is the master scientist. There are at least 100 things now known to exist, that if just one of them was just a little different we would not even exist. This includes the existence of the moon, the distance from the sun we are at, the existance of Jupiter, the age of the universe, the atomic weight of protons and electrons, etcetera. The odds of life just happening with out intelligent design, according to an athiest scientist, are greater than 1x10 to the 62nd power. That is the number of atoms in the universe and widely held to be the threshhold of possibility. In other words, it is impossible for humans to exist on earth just by random chance. The big bang theory is not any sort of argument against God. One bumper sticker is more accurate than some want to believe. "God said it and BANG there it was!"

The only reasons you, the reader, have to be mad at me for giving my opinion is a lack of understanding of the immense love God has for you and a fear God will punish you for ignoring Him your whole life.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Daniel — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:35:48 GMT

"if the upcoming experiments at the Large Hadron Collider somehow spawn tiny "black holes", then could bits of information travel through spaceime virtually instantaneously through a cosmic pipeline or portal and arrive somewhere in what to us is far distant space where they interact with information that will not become readily available to us based on our current levels of technology"

Contrary to science fiction stories, black holes do not SEND anything, they break them apart. A black hole would simply take a signal you try to send through and break it apart into nothing, that's their entire purpose. This is why John Titor's claim is so easily debunked, he never traveled in time through a tiny black hole, but simply made up a science fiction story based upon other science fiction stories, while claiming this one to be based in reality. An object attempting to pass through a black hole would be broken down into the most basic of components, and then essentially eliminated. The questions remain on HOW it breaks them down into nothing, even light, but the idea of it being a portal is mere fantasy. Besides, banging protons together until they break apart so we can look at the pieces doesn't create large black holes, it creates short lived proton pieces, the "explosion" causing the breakage potentially breaking apart forms of energy resulting in small antimatter pockets, which would break down any matter it comes in contact with, a basic representation of the energy eating of a black hole, meaning it would kill a person who touched it versus transport them through time or any such nonsense.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:52:35 GMT

> Einstein was wrong about a great many things,
> he rejected much of quantum physics. There
> really is no current university teaching
> Einstein without also including Higgs and a
> great number of other greats since Einstein.
> There has been no purge, and the only theories
> that might get you kicked out of a university
> are ones that embraced only Einstein and
> rejected what came after him (i.e. particle
> physics, quantum theory, and string theory)

Show me where I can major in plasma cosmology. I'd like to go to that school.

Have you heard of Halton Arp and what happened to him for attempting to explain an enigmatic observation that disrupted the redshift paradigm? Did you hear what happened to Stephen J. Crothers when he apparently disproved the mathematics that are presented in textbooks to prove black holes? To this day, we still await an explanation for why he is wrong. What do you think happened to Wallace Thornhill when he properly predicted that more than one distinct flash would occur with the Deep Impact Mission? Was he congratulated on his successful prediction? What about Kristian Birkeland? He was an outcast scientist that turned out to be dead on in his primary premise. But, are you familiar with his terrella experiments that bear striking resemblance to modern-day astrophysical observations? When Hannes Alfven reconstructed the terrella experiment and tried to finally show it to Sydney Chapman, Birkeland's prior nemesis, Chapman just refused to look at the experiment. I find that to be a pretty good description of what is happening in science to this day.

It matters little if we call it a purge. The fact is that people who propose alternative, competing paradigms to the Standard Model are frequently sidelined to the fringes of the scientific community -- regardless of how good their arguments in fact are. Their inability to procure funding and get peer reviewed is not testament to the strength of the Standard Model; it is instead a symptom of a larger problem of premature consensus and scientific social dynamics.

> Counter to what those of religious and right-
> wing philosophy want to tell you, science
> generally works on the basis of peer review.
> Even if your theory sounds whacky today, as
> long as you are published and reviewed,
> eventually the truth of your equations will
> come to light. There is room for personal
> opinion, but eventually truth wins out. It
> scares a lot of people because humans
> generally fear change, but change comes no
> matter how you try to stop it.

Peer review is nothing more than an organization of people. We should not attribute god-like status to it. Those people can and do make mistakes, and even ethical violations (this is in fact proven by studies). Don't forget that it is researchers who attribute causation to their observations. It is the scientists themselves who decide what does and doesn't qualify as a legitimate inference. If the consensus is that the universe is dominated by gravity rather than electromagnetism, for instance, then any inference that points to electromagnetism (like plasma filaments) when gravity can be "made to work" through some contortion of mathematics will be *ignored* and never considered. And this is how good ideas can quite easily become marginalized and buried.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Beckwolf — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:00:52 GMT

"in short, if this experiment works, it will prove once and for all that the "big bang theory" is not a theory at all, but what actually created the universe. it will be interesting to hear what religious folks will have to say about that fact, seeings how it disproves the "intelligent design" theory that some think should be taught in our schools"

We've already proven the big bang, two or three years ago, and the two scientists who did received the Nobel Prize. Might want to check it out, it's some interesting information. Most powerful telescope in the world was used to see farther than ever, and therefore farther back in time, all the way to the aftermath of the big bang going back to where the "explosion" was too bright and nothing more could be seen. The big bang HAS been proven, but naturally the attention it received for such a huge discovery was absolutely negligible. You'd think that proving something so big would be something talked about all over the world, but while it doesn't disprove that some version of a god-thing didn't make the Big Bang happen, the media seemed rather reluctant to make much mention of it. Heck. one paper gave it one small paragraph in the very back section, how's that for respecting science and facts?

[ALAN ADDS: Here's the story we ran on that Nobel Prize, which we splashed at the time (of course):]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15113168/

Big day set for big-bang machine

Stephen, Dallas, TX — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:09:09 GMT

There is always a part of me that sees such need and poverty in the world and wonders at the wisdom of dedicating enormous resources to pure research ... but that is only momentary. Read your history. The quality of life for even the average world citizen improves (assuming their respective leaders allow it, and sometimes even when they do not). The forces that drive poverty and despair such as we observe are not caused by failure to assign resources .. no matter how much we spend, poverty remains, and will be a curse of our world for many years to come. I like to think that slowly, like the darkness, it will also pass.

The particle accelerators and other 'frivolous' experiments of times past are the reason we can sit here in front of this PC .... you know, the 5 year old PC more powerful than a Cray II ... none of our electronics would be possible without such science. I try to imagine what may come from this work in 10 or 20 or 50 years and it does boggle the mind. Open the book of gravity, and the price of oil becomes, meaningless.

The voices of those wearing self imposed chains of ignorance slowly fade, too .. though often after causing much suffering. This is especially true when they are in positions to imposed their ignorance on others .. before Hitler, there was the inquisition, after all …. all done ‘for their own good’.

Knowledge is always a good thing .. and the more we gain, the fewer places darkness has to hide.

Big day set for big-bang machine

N. E. Root, Kokomo, Ind. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:37:09 GMT

14 years, 17 miles and 10 billion dollars, just looking at the pictures I think they got their moneys worth. Science aside, the engineering genious it took to coordinate and team assemble those components brings me to my knees in awe. I'd pay a premium price just to walk around it!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Moxy M — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:39:09 GMT

A certain core of people, we'll leave names alone, want to be able to finally identify that which they assume made life, as we know it, here on earth... It is both part of an effort to again Prove Creationism or Darwinism... As for the things it will produce, future energy and the ability to disrutp earth magnetism, hopefully, in a petri dish... The odds of changing the laws of physics are very high indeed, so are the chances of understanding the higgs bosson, so where to from there you ask...well, if Gods Particle is proven, I am sure they will say, we discovered this and it now means we are free to be atheists...
Think again...

Big day set for big-bang machine

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:46:52 GMT

Alan - as usual you concisely explain the generalities so well that most of us "get the point" while the rest of us, as Stephen Leacock wrote "gallop madly off in all directions." The Large Hadron Collider should have your picture on the wall.

Chris Reeve is persistent in his advocacy of the electric nature of the universe, maybe rightly so, but one cannot dismiss all the other theories of creation that the mind of Man has conceived, especially when those theories work.

In contrast, instantaneous space travel and time travel are so illogical that they must be classified as fantasy. The first requires impossibly accurate and persistent measurement of distances involved, while the second would mean that either all "events" are predetermined and that we can dip into that stream of happenstance wherever we choose (but since it has never happened in the past, that means it will never happen in the future) or that a "new" alternate universe automatically springs into existence with every breath we take that we didn''t take in our former existence, and that would require an infinite amount of energy to be available at all times. Whew!

And some people have difficulty with the concept of God! I guess they have less difficulty visualizing strings vibrating in eleven dimensions as the basic fact of reality. As for me and my house, the simplest explanation for anything is the best.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jonas McNair, Aspen, Colorado — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:47:11 GMT

This is the coolest science project ever. I talk about it all the time to my friends, but nobody knows what I'm talking about. I'm no physicist, but I am very interested in the concept. There has to be other dimensions out there, because when they smash these two particles together, the total weight is more than when they started. It in sense rips open a whole, and a little bit of energy or matter creeps out. I can dig it.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Karl, Niceville FL — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:30:20 GMT

Bring it on(line)

What we learn, we learn.

BTW, to the person who asked - if the device was to malfunction and the beam "got out" and struck you, the consequences would not be pretty.

(The damage to the unit would be rather severe too)

The proton beam is accelerated around the "track" by focusing magnets. A microwave oven (or transmitter) works on the same basic principle, except that it is accelerating electrons.

The reason for the ultra-cold is that to get the magnetic flux necessary to make it work, you need superconductors, otherwise the resistance of the wire used to make the magnet precludes getting a high enough flux and the wire would burn up if you tried. A superconductor has essentially zero resistance, but they only work when very, very cold.

The vacuum is necessary because the beam must remain "on track" and hitting molecules of air interferes with that (you don't want collisions until the target is struck)

Put all this together and you wind up with a very complex device in which all the pieces have to work together.

What we will learn from it is another matter - there are lots of hopes, including the Higgs Boson as mentioned, but no guarantees.

Basic science like this doesn't come with guarantees. But it often does come with huge rewards for human understanding of the universe and the applications that come from that understanding change our world. Many of the advanced things you and I enjoy today in various fields are a direct result of basic scientific research.

IMHO, its worth doing.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Anne Birmingham AL — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:39:40 GMT

We can throw all our garbage in the black hole. That will be the answer to our solid waste problem.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Ron Thompson, Spokane, Washington — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 03:57:02 GMT

This is an absolutely amazing scientific endevour! The potential of new knowledge is incredible & I can hardly wait till the LHC is up, running at full power. Hold on....

Big day set for big-bang machine

Rob, Boston, MA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 04:08:17 GMT

what are the millitary uses for this and who will be the first to utilize them?
Nobody puts this much money into something unless they gain something back-POWER

Big day set for big-bang machine

Scientifically Literate Liberal, Berkeley, CA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:21:42 GMT

For the price of a couple weeks in IRAQ, the planet gets to work together to make profound discoveries about our Universe. This is one liberal who wishes more of his tax dollars went to things as useful as the LHC. As for the zero-sum folks who think that every proton in the LHC takes a bottle away from a baby, I hope you are writing hundreds of comments decrying the waste in IRAQ for every one worrying about the cost of the LHC.

Big day set for big-bang machine

futuresoldier — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 05:44:25 GMT

Military personnel armed with state of the art earth weapons on standby a safe distance from accelerator should be waiting to repel malevolent aliens from anor world / dimension coming thru with advanced weaponry to destroy this primitive race called homo sapiens. Or maybe the black hole it creates by obliterating and displacing matter will suck in the accelerator itself and wake us all up to the dangers we know nothing of, but rush blindly towards at almost the speed of light.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tom Phillpotts, currently residing in Guangzhou, China — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:14:51 GMT

What will the LHC provide?
How do we define knowledge? -How many numbers we can add together?
How do we define quality of life? -Owning a computer?
If surrounding oneself with expensive technological items could provide happiness there wouldn't be wars. George Bush and his buddies could just sit on his ranch and play playstation.
Advances in medicine are great! -if you can afford them. And even if you have health insurance your provider will do their best not to pay for your care.

Mav is right, the financial cost of the war in Iraq alone is much more that of the LHC. Not to mention the suffering caused.
The people fighting the war in Iraq are probably not too concerned about the LHC.
The people building the LHC are probably not too concerned about the war in Iraq. Although indirectly, technological advances purchased from scientific research do help us make more effective killing machines.

Can there be a grand unifying theory that can be understood intellectually? What can we gain from this theory that we don't already have?

Let them play with their collider. We can't explain the meaning of these actions rationally.
Words fall short.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Daniel, Dry Ridge , KY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 07:54:32 GMT

the sad thing about this machine is that if it discover's that the big bang theory was quite possible then that completely shatters any religion out there then what happens when they give up hope because religion gives hope of an after life so in this life they conduct themselves in a respectable manner, then when they give up hope I see a lot of trouble think about it all of the religious people on the planet start doing what ever the hell they want because they relize this is the only life they have all their dreams all the women they never did anything with cause it wasn't christian and also the drugs and crazy violence! this isn't gonna end up good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Norm White Escondido, Ca. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:44:09 GMT

The idea of time was invented by man so he would have a concept of past and future, neither of which really exist. It is always NOW and always has been NOW.
These "scientists" will tinker with physics and their mega-machines until one day they will somehow either
blow up the earth or set in motion a chain of events that will ultimately destroy it. The processes referred to here should be outlawed worldwide. Doesn't anyone in the scientific community feel concern that something might go out of control during this experiment (which is what it really is)?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Information Junkie — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:50:09 GMT

"It's this kind of science that lets us assume that we'll be not having to store nuclear waste for 10,000 years ... we'll find ways to transmogrify the waste into water or other harmless benficial substance before too long."

Matt Staben (Sent Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:10 PM)

The means already exist for this. Breeder reactors can convert nuclear waste into either fissionable or useful non-/low-radioactive material. However, they can also convert normal radioactive fuel into weapons-grade plutonium... which is why almost all of them have been closed down/decomissioned.

Big day set for big-bang machine

M.D. Ostring — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:03:22 GMT

What if it proves nothing, but a way to create a new weapon to threaten an intimidate our enemies. Perhaps creating a type of reaction that disstablizes our gravitation and causes our planet to be molecularized

Big day set for big-bang machine

Re — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:03:33 GMT

I am greatful that are world has such knowledged individuals hard at work, for the benefit of all. Not everyone has the ability to understand the concepts of what is happening in our universe, But I am sure glad that there are people intelligent enough to try and figure it out. After reading all the comments written here against the LHC, I think it is sad how some people can be so ignorant towards our great scientist who are trying so hard to accomplish great things. When people put others down it is because they wish they could of done what they are doing. I wish all the employees of Cern much luck and hope that you all accomplish what you set out for. I am going to watch, listen, and most of all read everything that is happening along the way. What would we do without such people who push beyond the comprehension of others. I saw a program a few months ago on television about Cern and I thought the place was incredible. Maybe when the project is done Cern will allow schools and interested people guided tours of the facility. I know that I would love to see that place up close. P.S. there are many people who so not get basic chemistry, so it is understandable that they would not get what is going on. Lots of luck to you all!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Greg, Cambridge, Ohio — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:08:38 GMT

In response to:
"if this experiment works, it will prove once and for all that the "big bang theory" is not a theory at all, but what actually created the universe. it will be interesting to hear what religious folks will have to say about that fact, seeings how it disproves the "intelligent design" theory that some think should be taught in our schools." by Josh in Spokane

You are missing the point of the intelligent design theory altogether. It is not a theory that says a theory in science is flawed, it simply is the case that whatever science discovers is only an answer to the method the designer used to create this universe. Even in the big bang theory many scientists believe that the big bang ocurred "out of nothing." That is exactly what the intelligent design theory has claimed for thousands of years. God created the universe and all that is in it "out of nothing." How He did it is what scientists have been trying to figure out for years! The Bible is not a science book, it is a book about the salvation history of God's interaction with human beings. Therefore, any scientific discovery does not threaten my faith!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Todd, Las Vegas, NV — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:35:07 GMT

I'm thinkin' once they get this thing going, we won't be waiting too much longer for anti-grav cars and teleportation. I just want to be able to teleport to anywhere in the world in an instant, wouldn't that be nice...

Big day set for big-bang machine

CC Stevenson — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:37:05 GMT

Ok, Q/a, who is paying for all this? taxpayers an also if it blows up,could it destroying our world or parts of like the A-bomb did, many years ago?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Max Robins, San Antonio, Texas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:07:06 GMT

So... how much time, exactly, do I have to live? This might sound crazy, but I have been planning to live past October 21st for quite a while now.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dakota Pendray — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:31:49 GMT

Hummm ... yet another attempt by scientific man to disprove God and HIS creation.

Big day set for big-bang machine

zaw han — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:39:08 GMT

some of you stated that the machine will help
with energy problems or may be improve human conditions.of course those are necessary but for that amount of money is absurd, money should also be used to cure all of society ills issues like hunger, education, health jobs,crimes, poverty etc. without a healthy society the society is doomed when societies are doomed the world is doomed. so to be fair divide the money half and half one for advancement and the other for society issues. the end

Big day set for big-bang machine

Anne — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 10:52:09 GMT

Kinda weird that they picked 24 hours before the anniversary of september 11th to do this thing.

They should really do it on a different date.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tigertom31 — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:33:56 GMT

The Mayans, incredible astronomers and creators of a calendar as accurate as ours, predicted the end of the world on December 21, 2012--their calendar stops on that date. Even the greatest seer in history, Nostradamus, could not see anything beyond that date. And this device goes to full power in 2010? Hummm, makes one wonder. How ironic, if it does come to pass, that man's hubris will be his own undoing.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Anne David, Dallas, Tx. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:34:48 GMT

Go for it, gentlemen and ladies! Not that you need MY "official okey-dokey".

If not for folks like you we'd still be sitting on our haunches in front of the cave hoping lightning would strike a nearby tree so we could cook the meat for a change.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Ronald Wentz jr leonardtown md — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:35:56 GMT

Yes my god i did read about john titor...this is too strange....he said all this but his dates are off by 3 years lol....kinda saps any real time travel truths....

Big day set for big-bang machine

tweeker — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:52:23 GMT

why not? an experiment like this can end up producing information concerning things that were not even considered at the time of development. nobody can predict the many outcomes of something like this.

some of these posts are really sad when people complain about the money spent on this project as compared to world hunger. that's like saying henry ford should not have invented the "assembly line" so he could have used that R&D money to stop world hunger. bell should not have invented the telephone so THAT money could have gone for food. and edison was a FOOL for spending all that time and money on a lightbulb...he should have been gardening and feeding people! wow, lot's of "worried and hungry" people out there!

i'm just glad to hear about projects like this because it shows that science still transcends politics and human emotions. i remember years back comments made saying how absurd it was to think that people would have computers in their house. what if we all listened to those people???

Big day set for big-bang machine

David , Bonney Lake, Washington — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:00:54 GMT

in spite of all the big important words flying through this string of comments, I'll say the same thing i tell my kids on a regular basis...Sometimes "I Don't Know" and "I Don't Have a Clue" are perfectly acceptable answers!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Philip J. Calamatas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:05:23 GMT

Alain
I’d like to ask you something.

Have you ever worked in any industry where the word “Safety” has to be proven (i.e. aerospace, military, railways, etc)? Well if you did, you would be surprised to find out that assumptions are not allowed unless they can be quantified to what many would be consider as absurdly low levels of 10E-12 to 10E-16 failures before those systems can be used in a fault-tree or failure mode (FMECA) analysis.

Now go and ask any of CERN's physicist’s to show the probability reports of something going really wrong that is not based on any ASSUMPTIONS. For your information both Theories of Relativity are based on assumptions and I’m not even mentioning M theory and Super-Symmetry which are even worse.

For consideration we are not talking about a door falling off of a plane in flight or of a projectile getting stuck in a cannon, we are talking about the entire planet, where there are absolutely no mitigating systems that can called upon if something goes wrong.

I am a 100% believer in science, but I am convinced that the direction of CERN in rushing into this are aware of all the facts, in fact they themselves have reported that this new toy will help them uncover new aspects of physics that were previously unknown.

It only takes one unknown BAD aspect to potentially destroy the Earth. Ask yourself, have CERN quantized (pun intended) that probability without the use of any assumptions?

If CERN’s failure calculations were put to the same level of scrutiny that other human safety related industries must follow, I am sure they would FAIL. The problem here is that most physicists are not trained to perform failure mode analysis especially at the level were the entire planet may be at risk.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Enlightened, US — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:09:52 GMT

When has believing in God made one person better than another? We are all flawed human beings. But to try to use intellect to bring down someone else's beliefs is beyond ignorant. Do not claim to be more intelligent than others while simultaneously belittling them for their beliefs. You can believe in and worship a machine, and we will believe in and worship our Lord.

And the answer to all of this is not more science. Our society is falling apart because of science. That is why people are losing their jobs and leaving their families and dieing of new cancers. We keep hoping we can create more science to fix the problems that science has given us.

We need more social interaction and understanding.

I dont not want to be on lfe support for 50 years to further a hollow life, these advances in the name of 'science' do not help me. There was existance before these fancy machines, but their may not be existance after - because we ARE human, and their WILL be errors, large ones.

Who will be saved in the end?

You can say what you like - you can defend it in blogs. But why would you have to defend something if it was a life changing, fantasic, perfect idea? It would have already spoken for itself.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Carlton Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:17:03 GMT

The Entire Universe? (Thomas Baker)
The OBSERVABLE universe by definition is what we can SEE.
Science limits itself, again, by definition, to the studying of and making discoveries in the observable universe. If it can't be observed or does not produce observable effects, Science does not mess with it. Science does not tell or deal with what is outside the observable universe. The universe may,indeed, be infinite, but the observable universe is not infinite due to the finite speed of light. What, if anything, is beyond the observable universe is not a true scientific topic. Mathematics (Philosophy) may construct a theory that yields an infinite universe, but Science keeps hands off until it sees scientific observations that verify the theory. Currently, string theory is not accepted as Science, even though it has much mathematical beauty (and some garbage that makes trouble), because there is no physically observable evidence verifying it.
Bona fide Scientists do not say that the observable (visible) universe is all that there is; they do say, however, it is all that Science treats. Of course, just because Science does not treat something does not mean that that something does not exist. Some Scientists (their bona fides being compromised) make such UNSCIENTIFIC claims of non-existence, but one must remember that they are not speaking scientifically when outside the realm of Science and may need to be reminded that they have strayed from their professional area (area of expertise).

Big day set for big-bang machine

Drew A. Solberg, Sr., Bovey, MN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:27:08 GMT

I am a retired Navy Chief Petty Officer and 21+ years of service put me all over this globe. I have seen starving children in just about every country so I tend to agree with those who question the sensibility of spending tens of billions of dollars on projects such as this. This is even more wasteful than the space program. At this point in time the human race cannot seem to use their intelligence to clean up and save the one planet we know for sure we can live on and yet they spend hundreds of billions on a program to try to get into space and find another planet we MIGHT be able to live on. Instead of spending those hundreds of billions of dollars on improving our one home world and bettering manking you people who like to show off your level of intelligence convince governments to waste money on your projects that provide no real tangible benefit to mankind. Perhaps if you were to get out and see some of those starving children, senior citizens living with no proper health care because their government failed them, children who cannot go to school because their parents cannot afford to send them, then you might actually start to use your 'intelligence' for something really worthwhile.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Scott Howell, Drexel Hill, PA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:28:03 GMT

The antimatter bomb this project will create is going to make atomic bombs look like tinker toys.
If you don't think this is to make another bomb FOLLOW THE MONEY. Defense spending is another word for "Bomb Making".

Big day set for big-bang machine

micah, Tulsa, OK — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:31:55 GMT

I love the "catastrophe could never happen" bit... Anyone remember the Titanic? It could never sink either...

Big day set for big-bang machine

Drew A. Solberg, Sr., Bovey, MN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:34:58 GMT

I was also thinking along another line with this supercollider project. I have read that the scientists involved only think they know what will happen when they start smashing hadrons together with such intense energy. They do not know for sure. Therefore I tend to submit the same poser as so many others - why are you willing to take a chance like this with the entire world? Can you really say for certain that it will not be the start of the end? At the very least can you say for certain there will not be a very large, catastrophic explosion causing the deaths of a large number of people? The older I get the more amazed I am at the utter lack of common sense displayed by so many 'intelligent' people.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tammy, Asheville, North Carolina — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:52:35 GMT

PLEASE!!! I believe in the big bang, God said bang and it was done, all this crap is nonsense, just let us live ans why worry about what were made of, according to God we are made of dirt, Ashes To Ashes, Dust To Dust. Just let it be and stop wasting money on this.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Walter L. Wagner — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:56:11 GMT

Alan:

Chris Reeve is quite perceptive. Please also note that PET and MRI were not developed by particle physicists, but by medical physicists. Particle physicists just like to take credit for anything done in physics.

Now, do you want to do a wager as to whether they actually obtain a circulating beam anytime soon? Or is this just more CERN hype for gullible "science journalists" to obtain positive PR for CERN, to keep the taxpayer money flowing to them.

Keep in mind that it took RHIC about 2-1/2 months to obtain a circulating beam after they first introduced beam into their machine. It takes a long time to adjust each magnet so that the beam is threaded through the entire length. And, the LHC is six times longer than the RHIC.

Where are your articles on the AMS-2, which has been built but not launched. It has the capability of determining the LHC safety, in that it will search for strangelets. If we can be certain that strangelets exist in nature, then we can know that it is safe to make them in the LHC. Otherwise, we might be making strangelets with Lead-Lead collisions for the very first time. Those types of energetic collisions do not occur in nature, as all high-E cosmic rays are protons or He, despite what hype you might hear about cosmic rays being the same as the LHC.

Some of us are not on the bandwagon for a reason.

[ALAN ADDS: I've known Walter for years ... I should note that Walter is one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit brought against CERN and the Department of Energy (plus Fermilab, NSF, etc.). I've referred to the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer is several articles, going back to the days when the AMS prototype flew on the shuttle back in 1998 (those articles are no longer on MSNBC ... back then, unfortunately, we weren't as good about keeping articles around as we are now.)

[Here are some of the recent articles that refer to the AMS:]

Space station science gets squeezed
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14489184/page/2/

House adds extra shuttle flight in NASA budget
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25251027/

The shuttle's long goodbye
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/08/1187609.aspx

The space of shape to come
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/30/1234682.aspx

Big day set for big-bang machine

Micah, Illinois — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:56:26 GMT

Hey Josh in Spokane, you should do a little, okay, a lot more research. Intelligent design fully embraces the reality of the Big Bang. As far as what's being taught in schools, evolutionists have managed to push their religion quite well despite it being bad science. Tree of life, transitional forms, irreducible complexity - strike three. I could go on, but it would probably be over your head. You believe, or don't believe, whatever you like because it fits your lifestyle and provides lack of acccountability. So you think. Seriously, do some objective research.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Sariph, Kentucky — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:04:45 GMT

I just hope it leads to a technology that would be undescribably cool...like light-sabers or a new medical advances like super-fast hair removal. These are the kinds of "scientific improvements" that will be elucidated by the LHC, its the same thing we as a spoiled human race have always done with these "great" advancements. No real good doctor ever actually needs a PET scanner, because in the end it probably won't effect the prognosis for the patient anyway. I personally think the Amish have it right you work hard and then you die. And for the people who mock those scientists involved in this research, it's what they're good at. You might be good at building houses, healing people or fixing cars, they like to run subatomic particles into eachother at breakneck speeds and see what happens. But hey, who dosn't like a good demoltion derby. I say kudos to anyone who works for a living. I guess what I'm trying to say is let a person do what they love, don't spend so much time tore up over something you can't fix and go say hi to your neighbor you don't even know.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Andrea Thackxton ,Sebring,Florida — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:07:43 GMT

What is this machine supposed to do??? Besides kill us all............

Big day set for big-bang machine

Silver — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:09:31 GMT

Humans have a problem.. they can't take something for what it is. I agree with Gary. Leave it up to mankind to find another perfect living space and they will screw it up just like they did our Mother Earth :-(

Big day set for big-bang machine

Elisabeth — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:18:28 GMT

First, thanks to those who have take the time to offer more explanation on what this project is about, and in terms laypeople can understand. It was very helpful.

Going by some of these responses, you'd think science had become some Great Evil, thought of in much the same way people of the Dark Ages thought about witches and the supernatural.

The recent reduction of science for the sake of science--just to figure out how the world works and why--is one of the most regrettable current trends in the US. Projects like this one give me hope that wonderful discoveries can still be made. It has always been Pure Science, not applied science, that has led to the greatest advances.

And THERE IS NO CONFLICT between religion and science. People like Dawkins and the crazies on the opposite end of the spectrum have set up a false dichotomy. Religion is about faith and the spirit. Science is about the mechanics of the world. My father was both a pastor and a biology professor for most of his career. He never saw those two occupations as mutually exclusive. Still doesn't.

Big day set for big-bang machine

thinkin small in nc — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:21:00 GMT

this is all way over my head but, science aside the magnetic field that this is going to create...how will this affect the planet BEFORE we figure out the benifits.. tides,general things will this thing erase my credit cards. I know this is thinking small but effects on the wildlife that uses magnetic sense to guide them would be thrown for a loop. anybody got any ideas?thanks

Big day set for big-bang machine

Alex, Fort Wayne, IN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:24:12 GMT

Reading some comments makes me wonder what fascinating things could have been said by the article but thankfully were put in by you guys.

I also must wonder: how many of you realize this machine is NOT in the US but talk like it is and all our money is going into it?

We could be helping fund it, but cut the "feed the hungry" line Ms. America. Why don't we just stop all drug and cancer research until every mouth is fed?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Bob Maluga — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:24:33 GMT

Always like an adventure. The quest IS the quest !!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Brian Lull, Fort Knox, KY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:24:58 GMT

John Titor must be crazy, because you can only travel as far back in time as the first instant the machine was turned on. Before then, it didn't exist. So if the machine hasn't been turned on, then how is he talking about it in the year 2000? He can have a theory, that's fine. But claiming you traveled back in time to work for the army is stupid.

Big day set for big-bang machine

George McKinney, Charleston, WV — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:26:08 GMT

So many of the comments here seem to center on "We know (almost) everything, and with just a little more effort, will know it all." Once we get hold of the Higgs Boson/Philosopher's Stone/Original Cellular Life, we will have everything quantified, and the golden age will begin. Then some Copernicus/Newton/Einstein comes along and kicks the elaborate convoluted house of cards down and replaces it with a simplified model. WHICH THEN STARTS GETTING CONVOLUTIONS, to explain OTHER items which it doesn't fit. Does anyone really expect the LHC to do anything greatly different? You will get new, unexpected data, and will have a choice of either creating more convolutions of standard theory to fit the data (the old middle ages epicycles), or else you act like an intelligent scientific person, and find a new theory that fits observed data, and hopefully can extrapolate just ten percent from where we are.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Karl Smith, Cbus Ohio — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:26:49 GMT

This sounds really interesting, I would like to know the possibility of something going wrong... minor or catastrophic. Everyone talks of the possitves, no one likes to hear the neagtives, I think people are more neutrul if they know both.

Big day set for big-bang machine

michelle, tahlequah, ok — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:28:29 GMT

I am most definitely interested in what this item does. But I have one question, if a black hole was created, will it not eat the planet away. I thought they just sucked in everything around them.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Duncan. Indiana — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:42:25 GMT

Its interesting how people always put a belief in God at odds with science. How arrogant it is to assume that we know everything. Our total knowledge pales in comparison to the discoveries that await mankind.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Brett — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:56:25 GMT

what the heck is this machine, what is its purpose and why do we need it? its a toy for scientists wround the world that have nothing better to do. try curing cancer instead, or is that not fun enough?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Joyce Frey, Macksville, Kansas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:00:15 GMT

It is the nature of the human animal to seek the source from whence we came....we have asked the ultimate question from the time we first became sentient beings..."who am I, what am I, where did I come from, who created me, how did I get here"... in the interim between the question and the answer (which we yet still have to attain), we have created religion as a tool to comfort ourselves and a way to find meaning out of what seems to us to be chaos... what science does on the other hand, is persist in seeking the reality of our existence..it is not always comforting...the unknown can be something to fear for some...but for others it is a challenge and an opportunity to advance... bravo to the great minds that have the intellectual capacity to seek, and heart for it, they will be the salvation of humanity if there is to be one. Good for you! Keep seeking, and sharing your knowledge...it's okay to make mistakes, that's how we learn...it's all about trial and error...without that (the scientific model) there would never be any gain. Keeping in mind a good theory is always one that CAN be proven wrong... that's the way truth is found. We've come a long way from the dogma that stated the earth was the center of the universe...and people lost their lives for that heresy...so, I think we are progressing! :O) I am looking forward to hearing more about what is learned about the universe from these experiments. Good work!

Big day set for big-bang machine

George, Louisville, KY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:04:04 GMT

Oh fine, let's forget abot this and every other expensive scientific project. While we're at it, why don't we go crawl back and live in a cave like our ancestors. And what if the answer as to how we came to be is indeed "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Maybe science can help us understand better how He did it. Too many peiople assume science and religion are at odds. They are not. The growing number of scientists who believe in God and the Bible is proof of this. BOTH are man's attempt to explain the unexplainable, and both in their way show us parts of the truth that governs our universe.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Steve, Ada, OK — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:10:35 GMT

"And God said, "Let there be light..." Sounds an awfully lot like the big bang to me - KABAM! - ...and there was light."

Just because the big bang might be the method used - much like an artist sometimes throws paint against a canvas - doesn't preclude an intelligent Designer.

Science and Creation actually fit quite nicely together; it's the fanatics on both sides that can never see eye to eye.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Rob "Lonnie Anderson" Gilleo — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:15:31 GMT

I love this stuff. I think what we learn from this thing could change the way we think about the universe/multiverse or whatever you'd like to call it. Naysayers unite!! It doesn't matter what you say, someone will continue with the experiments and I just love these Doomsday Court cases. I may take a vacation in Hawaii just to see some of it. CERN may destroy the planet and maybe everything else, now that would be an interesting lesson. How many Sci-Fi stories have been written about unexpected, catastrophic results from experiments? All these theorists know is their theories. By definition, theories haven't been proven. Both sides of the argument are theoretical and we expect a judge to make a distinction between theories that most people without a 165IQ can bearly comprehend, let alone understand the ramifacations of.

More power to you CERN and Fermilab!! Hopefully you won't destroy existance.

By the way, if you're that worried about the end of life on the planet, maybe you need to re-examine how you're living.

Big day set for big-bang machine

m, Jersey city, NJ — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:16:39 GMT

to Josh, Spokane, WA: and Who do you suppose made those particles go Boom Boom at the beginning?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jerry Heep, Fort Worth Texas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:19:46 GMT

This is great! Please read "Blasphemy" by Douglas J. Preston. In this book, the USA has spent 40B dollars to construct a super collider in New Mexico to prove/research the big bang. The religious sector get wind that they are trying to "disprove God" and the fun really begins.

Big day set for big-bang machine

scott moroz, Port Jervis. N.Y. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:25:25 GMT

Just Great!! a chance we all can die, & all in the name of science

Big day set for big-bang machine

slakk — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:25:30 GMT

What I find amazing about all super-collisions is that the "spin-off" of particles after they collide are strikingly similar, if not exact, in nature to the Golden Spiral (golden ratio). Most likely due to the circular construction and polar influences of the magnets, but without doubt, purely a great representation of the mathematical properties of the golden spiral and ratio. NEAT HUH?

Big day set for big-bang machine

s.b. Clearwater fl — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:27:37 GMT

owwww! my brain hurts

Big day set for big-bang machine

Ryan, Washington, DC — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:30:22 GMT

Call me a liberal or call me religious (only one is true), but doesn't anyone stand back anymore and look at the vanity of humanity in the way we only look at the world and universe through our eyes? It is ture that science is wonderful and has gone a long, long way to improving the lives of human beings.

But therein lies my issue. Everything is viewed from the standpoint of human beings. When did the universe appoint us as the central focus of everything that is? When will we be satisified? Every new technology and lesson learned is turned around to benefit humans until it no longer benefits us and we have to advance further to right the wrongs of the past or be "better."

How old is old enough to live? How much is enough for us to know? How many humans need to occupy this one little planet and the universe around us until we have decided that we have bred enough and control enough?

I prefer philosophy.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Don, Salt Lake City, UT — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:31:16 GMT

We all know scientific theories are never wrong. And 50/50 odds are pretty good. Right? An amazing opportunity to study new realms in physics. Or a first hand opportunity to be on the event horizon of our own black hole. Wow.

Big day set for big-bang machine

William B. Chaffin, Martisnburg, WV — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:32:20 GMT

Actually. proving the Big Bang Theory will prove that God created the Universe.

See Genesis.

"God said, 'Let there be light!'"

Then commenced the Big bang.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Joe P. Doe — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:37:03 GMT

Hello,

I'm from the future. Please do not turn on this machine. Giant chickens now roam the Earth in my time.

Big day set for big-bang machine

A BELIVER — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:40:15 GMT

GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH --
Whether or not you believe that does not change a thing. Everyone will have the same answer when they pass from this life into eternity. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Mike in Massachusetts — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:40:19 GMT

Has anyone read the book "Blasphemy" by Douglas Preston? It's fiction and it is a story about this machine. It's a really quick read and great airplane book. This book is why I read this article. De ja vu, essentially.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Gray — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:40:31 GMT

To: Alan Boyle and Cris Reeve,

Based on my reading of this blog, you both seem quite knowledgeable on this subject, but appear to have opposing views. I am curious, what do each of you think are the real dangers, if any, of the LHC startup? Is there a possibility of catastrophic results should something go very wrong?

Big day set for big-bang machine

The Skins — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:42:24 GMT

Well said Jeff in Charlottesville, VA! And as Dan Brown said in his book on this same subject :

"Science and religion are not at odds, science is just too young to understand."

Big day set for big-bang machine

Rob KCK — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:43:37 GMT

Ya know, you can throw all the money in the world at the homeless and the hungry and there will still be homeless and hungry people in the world. It doesn't help. Just ask Billy, Robin, and Whoopi. Money spent on the advancment of human Knowlege and understanding is monry well spent.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Frank, Atlanta GA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:43:40 GMT

Alan, a correction, if I may. You said:

"For example, based on our current understanding of gravity, we know that all the matter we can see is only about 10 percent of all the matter in the universe. Scientists believe the other 90 percent is "dark matter," which may consist of exotic particles that zip through us all the time but have never been detected."

Unfortunately, that's an incorrect statement. According to the latest estimates, ONLY 4% of the Universe consists of ordinary matter, while 23% consists of Dark Matter, and the remaining 73% of Dark Energy.

That is why I am astounded at the supreme arrogance, hubris, and insolence of those closed-minded scientists and militant atheists. They act as if Science already has the answers to most everything in the Universe. They scoff at the idea of the existence of God, of UFOs, of ghosts and other supernatural phenomena, when in fact Science has only begun to understand the workings of ordinary matter, which is ONLY 4% of the Universe! Science does not even have a sure grasp of what goes on the earth, of what goes on in the human mind, of what Life really is, much less Dark Matter and Dark Energy!

There's so much Science does not know about the Universe (96% of it, AT LEAST). God is the Living Universe/Multiverse (yes, the Universe/Multiverse is alive, is Life itself, and omnipotent and omniscient), intelligent aliens could be harnessing Dark Energy/vacuum energy for superluminal travel, ghosts could be some kind of as-yet unknown physical phenomena. Renowned Harvard physicist Lisa Randall posits that gravity is so weak because so much of it leaks into other dimensions. Why can't ghosts be weak manifestations of beings leaking into our dimensions from other dimensions of the universe/multiverse? Evidence of quantum phenomena on the macro scale?

I urge scientists to not be so closed-minded because that is absolutely anathema to true Science. Real Science is the search for Truth, and Truth is often what scientists do not expect it to be (witness quantum uncertainty, Dark Energy, chaotic phenomena).

Finally, Science has no choice but to find God. There's a reason why the Bible says God is the Truth, the Way, and the Life. Because God is.

[ALAN ADDS: You're pretty much correct on the statistics... When I say 10 percent, I'm talking about the matter percentage ... dark matter vs. "ordinary" matter ... so I should have said all that we see makes up more like 15 percent of all matter. That 10 percent figure was hanging around in my mind from the days before more recent probes such as WMAP nailed down the figure with more precision. Here's more about dark matter:]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16515562/

Big day set for big-bang machine

not impressed — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:44:17 GMT

It's not like the information they get will change the world so who cares. elitist will be the only ones to prosper from anything it may accomplish. As far as saying that nothing could destroy the earth, that is arrogance. If they create a black hole and can't undo it, it will get bigger and stronger and with the passing of time it will do this faster and faster.

all that money could have been used to better ends. disgusting arrogance.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dr. C. Michael Turner, Orlando, Florida. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:45:29 GMT

Dear Alan,
As an amatuer in science, I called you several years ago telling you that I understood the nature of gravity, around Christmas one year. My understanding is even more clear today. My understanding has increased as science tries to figure it out. I will recap to remind you but with a little more focus.
The nature of time and space are the decay of the magnetic field into the gravitational field from each and every piece of matter. Space, the monopole gravitational field is the dark matter that remains elusive to all, almost all. Dark energy is also related in the way that is describes the interplay between force with a decreasing mass. Time, absolute and relative, space, absolute and relative, and gravitational wave synchronization ( constructive wave interference with the complete understanding of the Huygens' principle ) are actions of all matter decaying naturally into the gravitational wave. Simple question to ponder, "If a generated wave aligns constructively with another generated wave and yet the waves themselves do not change in length of frequency, then what changes that allows the waves to align constructively?" Here is the simple answer, the waves align constructively by the objects generating the waves to align, come together, and thus you have your answer to gravity. Now look at all the oddities that we don't understand and apply this hypothesis and guess what, everything fits. From magnets loosing energy to inflationary theory, to black holes evaporating to galaxies odd behavior, to the universe increasing in acceleration and flattening, the the fundamental reason that motion exists, to the reason relativity exists. I will be happy to walk you though it and open your mind to the beauty of understanding the nature of gravity. Sometimes we get so tied up in specialization that we can't see the whole picture. That is what happened to theoritical physics in the twentith and twenty first century to date.

Big day set for big-bang machine

right — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:47:56 GMT

this is the way the universe works. the big bang happened, and has happened and will happen again. Black holes suck in all the matter that spread out over time, everything that was ejected is brought back to center. Here higher life forms, god or whatever does what it does and BANG! after it's all been refreshed its back out there again.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Wally, St. Petersburg, Florida — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:48:09 GMT

Mark the words of a regular Joe. There WILL be doors opened that we will all wish had stayed SHUT!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Megan, Addison, Texas — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:51:00 GMT

Alan, thank you so much! You broke it down so that it could be understood by anyone. I think it's very fascinating and I look forward to following it and the outcome.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Alexander, Brooklyn, NY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:53:21 GMT

I'd like to thank Mr. Boyle and Mr. Reeve for enligntening us about this topic and the issues swirling in the scientific community surrounding the collision of particles.
To others I would like to say i am not a scientist nor a technician, but I have learned that the answers to the hard questions are far more complicated than yesor no. If fact in many cases the answer will be shown to be yes and yes. Both sides of the question are correct.

For example, if you ask whether a wall is solid or can human beings pass through the wall, the answer may prove to be that both are true. It is becoming more obvious that our existence is governed by more than one set of rules. There are simple rules like gravity, the doppler effect, etc. and then there are complex rules. The particle collider is an attempt to understand these complex rule-sets and access our link to a very complex system set at play in our existence.
Now simple rules have taken us far, but we are fast running out of creativity within that rule-set and bucking up against the limits of operating our lives based on this simple system. Overcrowding, hunger, energy scarcity and pollution are just some of the problems. Hopefully, this particle collider will continue us on our nascent search to understand the more complex rule-system which are in effect in our universe and hopefully will reveal the link to other universes.
People need to understand that we have already imagined in science fiction (if that is really the correct name for it) the outcomes of this and other experiments. Deep in my heart I believe that surely our imagination's reach does not exceed our grasp as humans.
I look forward to the coming months and years. Let us hope that a spirit of scientific openness and sharing prevails over the dissemination of outcomes from this and all subsequent CERN experiments. Thank you.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Don, Salt Lake City, UT — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:56:40 GMT

Ships that shouldn't sink, bridges that shouldn't collapse, species that shouldn't be invasive, banks that shouldn't fail, wars to end all wars. For all the times these and millions of other things like them haven't happened is irrevalent when applied to this, because this only needs to happen once.

Big day set for big-bang machine

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:58:29 GMT

Draft review of "The Electric Sky" from astrophysicist W. T. Bridgman:

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf

Big day set for big-bang machine

Todd Denmark, Orange Park, FL — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:59:22 GMT

This post is so far down the chain now that it will probably get overlooked, but this is in response to Mr. Boyle's post about what LHC is all about - specifically this portion: "Theorists have said that equal parts of matter and antimatter arose in the big bang that gave rise to the universe as we know it ... but theoretically, those equal parts should have annihilated themselves and resulted in pure energy...Then there's the Higgs boson. As I mentioned above, it's the last particle predicted by the Standard Model that hasn't yet been detected. It is thought to be associated with a field that determines which particles will have mass (like protons) and which particles won't (like photons). It's so important to the way the world works that it's been called the "God Particle.""

I was a former nuclear power plant operator for the Navy. In Reactor Physics class, we brushed across this idea on a much more fundamental level when the instructor was discussing what the program (and physicists in general) called the "nuclear force." Very simply, all atoms which make up all things in the known universe, are made up of a nucleus containing two particles - protons and neutrons...the same protons they are colliding in LHC's project. However, there is a very significant dilemma in these nuclei that most of us and many scientist dismiss offhandedly. Since protons are positively charged particles and neutrons have no charge, no nucleus should exist. Bringing two or more like-charge particles in such close proximity to each other should cause them to repel and fly apart, but they don't. Thus, it was concluded that there is another force acting upon them, the "nuclear force," keeping them together, keeping everything in the known universe together. Hands went up all over the classroom. He paused at that moment to let everyone let that information sink in, then just quietly said, "It is at this point of the class that I must ask you all to put your hands down and just push your 'I believe' buttons."

Now is the point that I must ask you all "what do you believe?" Science is exhausting itself on multiple fronts trying desperately to prove the natural initiation and maintenance of the creation. In Colossians 1:16-17, the Bible says Jesus was the agent of creation, that all things were created by him and for him and that by him "all things consist." In the original Greek the word used means "to set together; to exhibit; to constitute." Consist means "to hold together." In his lifetime, Jesus also demonstrated his superiority over these physics, that he was Lord of physics also, when he walked on water. He then went on to demonstrate his superiority over the unknown world beyond when he resurrected from death.

What I am presenting is that God keeps matter and antimatter from annihilating itself, that God is the determiner of what has mass and what does not. It may yet be discovered that he does it through another well-defined and researchable force, like gravity, or friction. But, it will in no wise change the fact that it originates from him. He has done all that he can to prove to us that he is orderly, powerful, and majestic through his creation. Further, he inserted his son, Jesus, into mankind's timeline to declare to us that he is, that he loves us, and that he controls the present universe (healing, walking on water, turning water into wine, etc.) and the world to come (his resurrection from death).

I believe LHC's project has value in scientific advancement, but also may reveal more about the God of the universe as the nuclear power program did for me. What do you believe?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Don, Salt Lake City, UT — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:01:16 GMT

Another example of how science is never wrong.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26078051

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dee — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:05:35 GMT

Is that something you heard on "Coast to Coast?" *rolls eyes* Yeah, like the details of the "Invisible Time Machine Kit" one guy had for sale. $300 gets you the instructions to build your very own, only he can't show you an example of his own creation, because it's invisible. Nut jobs will attach themselves to any idea and any group, just for some level of authencity.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Micol — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:06:13 GMT

Some perspectives to consider: As to time travel, consider that six months ago happened on the other side of ths sun. To physically travel thru time, one must physically travel thru space. As to the goal, if one is able to manipulate polarity, one may use electro-magnetism to achieve light speed, ergo, travel beyond the limitations of burning fuel to travel thru space. Nuclear reaction is not the power source of the Universe, merely the energy source. The Universe "works" thru electromagnetism. Along those lines, the same technology might be used to turn turbines to produce electricity, and, would be the ultimate "green" technology.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Douglas Pagoria, Bowling Green, KY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:06:36 GMT

If I'm going to worry about anything at all with this machine, it would be about the possibility of new waves. The Electromagnetic Spectrum has been building through time with our discoveries, and of course anyone can name a million things that evolved from it and its information. But this has come from tuning down our machines to a finer degree so that we can "catch" those things and observe them. Has any of you considered that we are "made of fish nets" and cannot pick up this sand that glimmers and shines with promise of so much more? What if there WERE a 100 waves beyond Gamma? Would it matter to us, if we could never, in our atomically based existence, stop one of these rays to see what it can do? I mean, it would be great if we found another 1 or 2 more wavelengths that can help us mold things to our will, they might give us the ability to clean up our planet once and for all. However, we will at some point realize that we are indivisible to an extent, and that you cant have infinite places after the decimal point, because our matter only goes so far. Yet we do see effects from unchartered dimensions, they do at some point materialize into one thing or another, and we call most of it the "paranormal" or "pseudo-science". Maybe we will have to accept that some of these sciences will stay at the advancement they have already reached...just whims. But so what if we cant stop and observe it so it can be decoded and written into something that most of the human history further-on will never explore or try to understand? They'll just sit idly by and reap the benefits. Unless, it's a constant free-for-all in discovery; where anyone can have their own theories and suggestions of why they work. No one will ever be able to prove or disprove it mathematically, and the only thing to best support one's ideal, will be its subtle different results. Meaning, there wont be enough there to fight about. And people will get behind one another on something like this, because it will be about the thrill of experimenting, never to find the absolute truth, but always rendering advancement in personality, character...it will be almost an art project.

But back to my main point, the intention of smashing these particles together is to observe the pieces flying apart and determine their nature. What if the pieces go flying right through the machine, the building, and the entire planet, accelerating our cells into...who knows what, could be bad, could be great. It might even be the thing to unlock the rest of our brain power, possibly moving humanity to a new level of attitude and maturity level that allows us to put emotions to the side when need be and keep our heads straight. This is what I hope for. With a healthy mind and body, moods would be elevated all around, people could put differences aside because they realize they are trivial. Truth is, we have everything on this planet that we need, food, shelter, and water. And if there isnt enough, there could be if anyone at the top of the ladder gave a sh**. There are almost 7 billion people now, put half of them in the fields for a year and see what you get.

I dont see what we are pushing for at this point. More ease in our lifes, I suppose. Everyone wants the easy way. Well try throwing the billions of choices and processes that civility has created in everyday society to the curb, and just enjoy someones company. Look at their face, their smiles, hear the laughter, and feel the warmth of a companion. Happiness is not bought or discovered, it is experienced through the body; satisfy it with a hug, the wind rushing across your body, the Sun's beams that let us live.

If we ever reach the point of being able to dart around the billions of galaxies out there, then what? Will we find what we've been looking for? And what is it exactly? If you want answers to why we are here or where we came from, you might have to accept that it will only be revealed to you after you pass on. Speaking of, no one knows for sure if there is still anything left from a corpse to experience an afterlife with. But I have always heard that energy cannot die, and also, that ideas are bullet proof, which is what your mind manifests in thought, out of energy. It is an untraceble (thus far) conduit of understanding and intuition. Yet it is there. Why bash on it with loads of stress from being ignorant about a few things, when it can be used to make that perfect joke, that makes everyones gut hurt, and horse tears roll down your cheeks? Would that be so bad? Would it demerit our species to stop trying to mould the universe? If there is anything out there for us, it will come when the time is right, and Im guessing that time won't be when we figure out HOW TO TRAVEL THROUGH TIME. Can anyone tell me the purpose of this anyway? Are we gonna go back and correct the mistakes that have made the world unhappy? Why do that when it can change today, right now. I dont know a person on this Earth that has the power to stop a fed-up mob the size of 4 continents. And how can they say they are any more correct at how they conduct themselves when 3,4,5, or however many billion people disagree? STOP THE NONSENSE WITH GOOD WILL! Maybe that will be the only path to ever truely get us to where we are headed. An elevated state of consciousness that could transgress the boundaries of materialization and put us where we need to be in the whole of things. And I can tell you what wont be there when we reach it, famine, poverty, or depression. But I dont picture the glued-on-smile utopian world that others might. Imagining paradise to me would more than likely present a picture of Six Flags x10, with an arcade equally large. Because people want to express themselves, and video games are the perfect way to do it, and nowadays, almost a completely click-and-go operation. It might sound absurd, but look at what makes culture interesting through out time, it wasn't necessarily the discoveries, but what we made from them, each personal and heart-felt idea that brings a spark to someone else's day, or year, or lifetime.

Im done rambling, hopefully some of this has been some food for thought.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jim, Bowling Green, KY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:07:23 GMT

The "Big Bang" may have created the universe...I'm OK with that part...but someone had to strike the match.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:09:47 GMT

Bill Thomas,
Knowledge of subatomic particles like electrons led to the scanning electron microscope which has led to medical breakthrough after medical breakthrough. CRT technology (TV), doping of electronics, miniaturization of electronics, stronger alloys making all manner of metal things safer, …

Savingcats,
Well, I guess the fact that your handle is savingcats means this comment isn’t really necessary.

Alan,
This “World Wide Web” you mention, how has that effected any of our lives?

Josh, and others elsewhere,
Proving the Big Bang Theory doesn’t disprove God. It just answers the question of how He did what He did. And Intelligent Design wouldn’t come in until life. Big Bang is about the creation of matter – day 1. Intelligent Design is about the design of life – not until day 5. Smoking, pills, so much booze you pickled your brain?

Chris Reeve,
Yes, the standard model works with particles we haven’t yet seen. It used to be much more so, but since then we’ve seen some of those mysterious, previously theoretical particles. You have, for quite some time, preached for the Electric Universe view. Are you saying that it has no holes? You, or anybody else, are quite free to pursue experimentation down that avenue. There’s money out there, go thump for it. The fact that government sponsored research pursues the standard model, worldwide, follows the fact that the theoretical parts of the standard model continue to be proven factual. Tell us about the advances in the electric world view.

Jeff,
That’s great if you can only understand the broad strokes. The answer “God did it” reeks of ignorance. These experiments will tend toward the answer to how God did it. That statement is likely to engender a religious, but not so spiritual, rhetorical response. Understanding how God did it will help us to better control our environment. It’s just an extension to building shelter from the wind and rain and cold. Unless you have a problem with understanding God and his ways don’t answer with the rhetoric.

Thomas Baker,
Among other things but this most notably, who said we can see the entire universe? I’ve never heard this and frequently hear quite the opposite.

Beckwolf,
What were the truths before they were proven? I’m not an atheist so maybe I don’t understand. To me the truth is the truth, whether it’s proven or not, whether we know it or not. The truth is this ant killed that caterpillar. Even if no body observed it to know it. Even if the worlds greatest forensics team can’t prove it.

Daniel,
Your main point not withstanding, black holes may be portals. The other end would be a white hole though. Recognizable stuff goes in, plasma comes out.

Chris Reeve said,
“Peer review is nothing more than an organization of people. We should not attribute god-like status to it. Those people can and do make mistakes, and even ethical violations (this is in fact proven by studies). Don't forget that it is researchers who attribute causation to their observations. It is the scientists themselves who decide what does and doesn't qualify as a legitimate inference.”
To put that another way, Baptists peer review Baptist books and doctrine, Assembly of God(ians) peer review Assemblies of God books and doctrine. If you’ve read both you know that they are vastly different despite, or because of, peer review. Peer review merely means that people who agree with you agree with you.

Stephen touched on it and it has been discussed under other topics. Much of the woes that many cry about on these forums, the where the money should go woes, are due to local politics, not money nor availability of real rescources.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Kevin Kitchens, Atlanta, GA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:09:48 GMT

Will this replace the internal combustion engine??!!?!?!?!?!?!

:)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Cecil — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:11:37 GMT

The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Albert, Questa, New Mexico — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:11:51 GMT

Theories leads to research, research leads to development, development leads to commercial applications, commercial applications lead to USABLE PRODUCTS, usable products leads to marketing, manufacturing, jobs and all those other things that we see and concern ourselves with on the day to day basis. It has been shown again and again that in the long run R&D will ALWAYS create a positive ROI.

During the sixtes alot of people were complaining about the cost of the space program but what it has return in terms of new technologies, manufacturing, jobs, increase tax revenue, greater production capabilities is miniscule to the gains the space program brought in.

The LHC might seem to be an expensive pet project for geeky scientists today but 10, 20, 30 years from now the benefits this research will create will greatly outweigh the cost today. Who knows your child or grandchild might be one of the entrepreneurs who will develop a commercial application from this research and create the next Intel or IBM and employ thousands of people in turn increasing their standard of living so that they can end up donating to their favorite charities to help out the less fortunate ones in life.

In my humble opinion the US lost a great opportunity when it cut off founding for the Super LHC here in the states, that big bad boy would have dwarfed the LHC and would have brought imported foreign R&D funds and jobs into the states but our politicians can only think at a max of 6 years into the future (one senate term for those of you who don't know)and deeped six the program so that we are now paying and exporting R&D money and jobs to Europe's CERN.

Big day set for big-bang machine

MaryBeth New Haven CT — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:13:06 GMT

How much energy is this "thing" wasting? or better yet- can the energy it will produce be harnessed to some type of machine that will give our country a new source of non-petroleum fuel. Have anyone one of the rocket scientists thought of that--Sounds ridiculous that this country would spend time,money and energy on this project.

Big day set for big-bang machine

D.N. Cental, Mo. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:19:06 GMT

To quote a famous man in SOME of our historical beliefs, "Father, forgive them, for they KNOW NOT what they do"
Some scientist are really egomaniacs, that care not what they do to the rest of the world and would be better off writing science fiction books.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Merlin Kansas City, MO — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:20:17 GMT

I'm not sure how all these theories relate, but I hope you find the answer to the big bang question, the understanding of and a way to control magnetism, and it's relation to the time-space question (time travel?). I also hope you find an answer to controllable fusion as an energy source and while you're at it, maybe figure out how to get control of gravity and use it to the advancement of interstellar exploration. Big questions to answer, but who would have thought after almost anialating ourselves in WWII that within 30 years, we'd be walking around on the moon picking up rock sameples? Scientific progress since and as a result of WWII has been exponential. There are factions in the world that are afraid of progress and would take us into the Dark Ages again in a heartbeat. They are afraid of change.

To not move forward in science is a death sentence for mankind or the possible extinction of our species! Failure to understand our universe and adapt to changes in the universe is to accept that sentence to extinction of mankind. So press on with your work people! I hope we're not too late to save our species!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Ronjj. Toms River, NJ — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:25:31 GMT

This all sounds wonderful, but what does this machine actually do and why do we need it?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Rob "Lonie Anderson" Gilleo — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:26:08 GMT

Will this have any impact on the Heisenberg Theory of Uncertanty? I guess what I'm asking is will this help me get my transporter working?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Priti, Orlando, Florida — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:27:13 GMT

If it was not for Science & Research, we wud have not be here & not doing what we are doing today. Internet for instance has made our life so easy, we have access to free knowledge at a click of button. The balance of life shud be maintained by spending time & money on all aspects of life on the face of this Earth or even outer-world. No particular field of science is more important to mankind than the other, so lets not compare Health-science to Astro-physics. We have managed to acheive bigger things from smaller-sizes of m/c which infact when began were gigantic in size for instance, computer!!!!!
You never know, we may be able to travel around the earth in just few seconds using m/c like this1. Did our great-grandparents ever imagined travelling over 7 seas in just few hours or receiving a mail in just 2 seconds from across the world??
2 Thumbs up to all the scientist and researchers of this great world!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Kenny, Gering Nebraska — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:27:42 GMT

I love the constant hypocrisy of those in support of science on this discussion board, and those who support the big bang theory as a whole.

It amazes me that "educated" people who try to challenge societal norms, and strive to think "outside the box" refute any opinion other than their own. I was always the kid that asked teachers why I had to memorize theories if they may be disproved, but I was always shot down by my teachers and professors and now I feel this discussion has taken that same "because I say so" turn.

Science is like the kid who picks on everyone, but can handle being picked on.

It is completely acceptable and even encouraged for scientists to challenge what the masses believe. They are hailed as sages for believing that something they cannot see or prove exists. Even if it is only the theoretical design of a few.

However, when confronted by someone who believes in a divinity greater than man, those beliefs are dismissed as short sighted and ignorant. Just because someone thinks hunger, poverty, and religion are more important than quantum physics does not make them ignorant.

Science has its place in the world, and has given us countless discoveries that make our lives easier. Unfortunately, science is all too often viewed as the magic bullet that will unlock all the answers to the world.

For those of you quick to laugh at those of us who believe in something greater than science, just keep in mind that science is based upon numerous theories, some laws, and lots of hypothesis. Until you can disprove my beliefs or prove your theories, remember just because you can't see it or prove it doesn't mean it's not true.

Big day set for big-bang machine

JonsPlayground, Cleveland, OH — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:28:08 GMT

In response to Gary, Indianapolis Indiana- I think there's an inherent benefit that comes from learning of our creation and the creation of the universe that we are floating around in. The work being done today to harness the understanding of the many mysteries of outerspace may benefit your children's children's children's children someday. Galileo Galilei didn't think his studies were a waste of time. Maybe some of the people around him did - in fact there were some who persecuted him for simply gazing into a telescope. But look at all the things we know today because of the efforts of past generations. I bet you have a cell phone, a TV- with satellite service, perhaps? Wireless internet? A GPS tracking apparatus? On-Star? Chances are you one or even a few of these tech-gadgets. You may have even Google-Earthed your address a time or two. None of these things would exist without the pioneers of our past researching, harnessing and then applying the technologies grasped from exploring the universe.

I do not, however, disagree that we have abused our environment. But, I think the more we learn about the universe, the more we learn about outerspace, the more we can better understand our own planet and how to prevent any further damage. Maybe even how to repair or cure the damage already done. Afterall, isn't Earth is just a by-product of outerspace?

Furthermore, no matter how much a waste of time you or I or anyone else believes such things to be - the people passionate about their cause will never see it that way. Same principal applies to war. To a civilian the cause of war may seem unworthy of the fight, but to a soldier who puts his/her life on the line will NEVER agree with that.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Liz in Brooklyn — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:31:45 GMT

I get the feeling those of you talking about black holes and the end of the earth have never even taken a physics class before.

My sister works at CERN. She is tired of explaining to people who know nothing about physics that it will not destroy the earth. It is about 1/10000000000 that is will make a black hole, and if it does it will be the size of a particle and instantly implode leaving no impact on earth.

As for those of you complaining about the money, do you really think it's wise to abandon all pure science? We need pure scientific research to advance the human race. Or do you want the only science being done by Americans to be in the hands of corporations like Nike trying to make a bouncier tennis shoe.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Zirbasjian, Pro Scientia — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:35:03 GMT

I know that these physicists do not expect that they will ever see a resonance cascade much less be responsible for causing one anymore than the scientists at Black Mesa did. Fortunately it is being seen to that at least someone at ground zero will be properly equipped to handle any unforseen consequences.

http://www.redditall.com/2008/08/great-idea-reddit-crowbar-for-cernlhc.html

The only thing remaining to do is to lay odds on when the Seven Hour War will begin.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Bob, Oklahoma — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:35:31 GMT

The amazing part is that this is so controversial. Christians should realize that this could possibly lead to discoveries that will prove the Bible and disprove the evolution theory. Atheists should realize this may lead to discoveries that prove there is no God (Creation Theory). If everyone is confident in their theories, then no one should be concerned about the outcome. Hold on to your own faith, and the truth may really be known someday.

Big day set for big-bang machine

TLL, Beaverton, OR — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:35:57 GMT

For one thing while I do not necessarily believe that John Titor was telling the truth he was telling of a possible truth. Common sense says he was just a brilliant futurist and writer, however this falls into the category of paradox..something we can niether prove nor disprove. If one was to find a way to go back in time thier very presence in thier own past would change thier future timeline. However even to travel forward in time would require immense energy resources and backwards even more if it would even be possible. I do believe we will someday find an FTL drive and also find that time and space are closely enough related this will result in the ability to travel forward, never backward. However I also am a firm believer that this new collider is not the method that will attain this. Perhaps a new energy source that is clean and I do believe that like most of our vaunted technology we are NOT ready for this. We cannot contain something we cannot even see or understand the nature of and this collider does stand a good chance of ending in dsaster if acivated.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dave — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:40:46 GMT

still dont understand why a judge in hawaii has any say so in different country, i would of told him to go suck rocks,i mean this thing is in france right? screw the u.s. laws lol

Big day set for big-bang machine

xenon, NYC, NY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:41:51 GMT

Quote: "The answer to how we got here and what makes things work is in the first line of this book. Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

This just a way of proving what god is - which is the realease of energy in the form of Tachyons which caused the universe to expand. God is just a metaphor for the physics that created the universe and allowed us to settle in the "Goldilocks" zone which is an are which is "just right" for producing life.

So mr. Chuck Kapplinger - please explain how the Big Bang is obviously wrong because everything I have ever read proves that God is the theory in this case. The big bang is possible one of the best theories as to the creation of the universe, unless you count the string theory.

Big day set for big-bang machine

James Conyers PHD Atlanta Ga — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:44:12 GMT

Several comments:
John Titor's rantings are far from scientific or factual, or credible.
Thomas Baker, Greenville, Texas, has a valid point. The known Universe is far too large for us to make absolutely confident predictions about simply because we are so enormously distant from parts of it. The size and scale o fthings are indeed too vast for us to fathom.
I think the collider is exciting and promising and a great deal will be discovered or understood more clearly. But there are limits. Also, we have so much to explore going smaller. I am very confident there are numerous physical entities smaller in size than quarks. After all, there is no limit to the (lack of ) size when you consider downsizing. See "Men in Black".
The entire notion of time travel AND being in one piece at the end of it is silly. We have prima facia evidence that it has not happened yet. By the time we are able to realistically attempt it our planet will be long gone and so will we.

Big day set for big-bang machine

JoAnne Carr, Oklahoma — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:47:12 GMT

This may seem strange to most, but I nearly fell out of my chair laughing about this John Titor person and his (I quote from the first post)"creating mini blackholes by accident" and "time travel". This is directly from the plot of the 1980 book "Thrice Upon A Time" by James P. Hogan.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Mary Ann Poole, Golden Valley, AZ. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:48:14 GMT

Let us put things on a simple track. Before this world or any other there was nothing. So where did these dust bunnies come from to cause the big bang? Or no big bang? Something or someone had to create the very first one, to start this world of ours. I perfer to think it was GOD. God and science go hand in hand! And I'm all for science and GOD too. I can't believe this beautiful world was made by mistakes. Man makes mistakes (and sometimes wins by them) but GOD does not make mistakes.

Big day set for big-bang machine

PM — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:51:42 GMT

why does religion have to be involved with EVERYTHING?

if we were still faithful to old truths then the sun revolves around the earth along with hundreds of other things we would consider stupid to even waste our time on.

it just smashes things. it does stuff that none of us truely understand (though we can read the dumbed down version - we're not physicists).

Big day set for big-bang machine

terry, evanston,wy — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:52:18 GMT

Dont come crying to me when Darth Vader pops out of one of those black holes and cuts your arm off with his light saber.

Big day set for big-bang machine

mike — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:52:31 GMT

Remember this 0n 12/21/2012 when it all comes due.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Gavin Greenwalt — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:52:59 GMT

To the person who asked for what this is about in plain english:

Big Gun shoots tiny bullet at speed of light using very cold magnets (like in an MRI machine). Scientists will study the bullet collision and debris to better understand the composition of the bullet.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Rob Robison, Collegeville PA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:53:33 GMT

This thing might just suck the paint off your house and give you a permanent orange afro! :)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Darrell Messbarger — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:58:29 GMT

Reading some of these comments makes me painfully doubt whether humans are, in fact, an intelligent species. Let's shut down the LHC and all join the flat earth societies.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Science Steve, Princeton, MA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:58:37 GMT

I can't believe this. People are still falling for such utter nonsense as an "Army-guy from the future" and an unknowable god that will answer all our prayers and be waiting for us with open arms when we die? Come on people...

Big day set for big-bang machine

Beth, Dayton. OH — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:59:06 GMT

This is all very interesting...I must comment that we can believe world hunger is a terrible problem that needs attention and that scientific exploration into sub atomic particles is also worthy of attention, they need not be mutually exclusive. We need to use our imaginations and reasoning power to creatively tackle problems of a human nature, and we also have a need to keep digging into questions such as: what are we made of, where did we come from, what created the universe,etc. Really scientists, philosophers, and religious figures are all grappling with these same questions, albeit through different avenues. These also need not be mutually exclusive, they are just different ways of looking at the same picture. I find all of those avenues to be equally fascinating, and hope that we continue to search and dream, to revel in the mysteries of life, and not to ever get too rigid about what we are certain of. It is also my hope that as humankind we use our varied interests and ways of thinking to solve concrete problems such as the disequality in the human condition as well as more philosophical questions such as those listed above.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tawni, Indiana — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:00:12 GMT

I feel that what they are doing is absolutely wrong, however, that is just my opinion, until you can collide some particles and a human jumps up starts talking there is no way i will believe the bigbang theory... and as far as the time travel thing is concerned, some things i think should be left alone...you never know what could happen if you meet yourself in another time.. that could be dangerous to your being.. but like i said its just my opinion and i don't discourage other people from their's. everyone has the right to believe what they want.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Don Pointer, Buckhorn, New Mexico — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:01:00 GMT

Concerning Einstein...he did not reject quantum theory. He won his Nobel prize for a quantum effect. He rejected the idea that EVERYTHING was quantized. Gravity is about the only thing we can't show is quantized and those who are trying to show this are living in the past. Gravity is a condition of space/time and is NOT an action at a distance.

Big day set for big-bang machine

DannyV, Mission Viejo, CA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:01:07 GMT

Read Dan Brown's book Angels and Demons. It's about CERN and the Vatican. Not completely true but it is about this subject.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Brian Adkins, Baltimore, Md — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:02:43 GMT

I thought I was a smart guy, until I read the article, all links in all these responses and these responses. I realize now I am basically a monkey who can use a spreadsheet. I hope the collider does not open a black hole and swallow us all into another dimension. I just became a father; I want to enjoy some of this before reality goes bye-bye.

Big day set for big-bang machine

tyler, cant tell connecticut — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:14:53 GMT

I personally love the idea that were going to take a huge leap in science, but by doing so arent we proving to christians, muslims, budhists, etc., that there is no such thing as god? You tell me what the outcome will be, because i think its rather hard to imagine. On the otherhand, doing so will help us find ways to rid ourselves of some of the problems we created. So the project is neither good nor bad, it's just that theres too many damn ppl arguing over it that WILL make it a problem.

Big day set for big-bang machine

RocketMan, suburban detroit michigan — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:16:13 GMT

I think the master plan is to find a way off this planet. Without new technology, we can't do it.

What happens to us when the big light in the sky goes out or another huge meteor hits us?

Big day set for big-bang machine

RLSH Geist, Rochester, MN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:20:22 GMT

Because of the possibility, no matter how remote, of global annhilation, I do not believe we (mankind) should take the chance to power up this device. An arrogant very few are risking very many who aren't even aware of the danger or asked to be part of the decision in which the outcome could be the demise of us all.

Big day set for big-bang machine

RLSH Geist, Rochester, MN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:25:43 GMT

John Titor supposedly visited my city of Rochester in the 70s or 80s to obtain an outmoded computer for some reason. A computer engineer said that only he and one other person knew about the hidden feature the computer had that Titor later blogged about.

Big day set for big-bang machine

John Zielinski, Des Plaines, IL. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:27:43 GMT

Belgian Roman Catholic priest Fr. George Lemietre is the one who came up for the theory of the Big Bang. It does not deny the existence of God or intelligent design.

Big day set for big-bang machine

B. Wallace, Dover, DE — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:34:53 GMT

It has the potential for creating energy in amounts unthought of, as well as the unknown results of operating the apperatus may stumble apon a discovery useful to man kind. It's an experiment; that's what scentists do... experiments. You never know unless you try. It's that simple people.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Don Wilson, Marietta, GA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:35:00 GMT

This has been the most interesting read I think I've ever seen on MSN. Clearly some very intellegent and articulate people have participated and helped me understand some of this facinating science. I tip my hat to you.

I only want to comment on the convergence of religion and science: It seems to me that two truly go hand-in-hand. Clearly, God gave man the desire to understand all things around him. But as we are all different, we "choose" to research different things. For some of you, it's physics and all that is related. For the rest of us, we look deeper into other things. And all of this is good! But I don't believe it realistic to suggest that science will prove or disprove the existance of God. But from a laymans standpoint, it seems to me that everything we've learned to this point regarding physics offers(at the very least) plenty of circumstancial evidence that He in fact exists. It is difficult to me to think that everything we know (and/or don't know) happened by chance. The incredible complexity of all that's been discussed further suggests this.

I know some of you will want to temper what I've said with these facts about me: I am a conservative Christian. However I believe I'm "enlightened" enough to know that are other pressing issues in our country (and the world) that need to be addressed (i.e. hunger, homelessness, etc.). However, I support projects such as what's been discussed as they do contribute to the betterment of man. Science has brings new medicines to the market almost everyday. New farming techniques and fertilizers have been created to feed more people (the US is truly the breadbasket of the world!). I know we can all go on and on about the benefits. My point is, science is no less (and no more!) important than anything else. But to those who want to focus on social issues - we will never be able overcome these until we recognize that these problems are matters of the heart - the very thing that God is more interested in.

For you non-believers: I'll encourage you to challenge God to reveal Himself to you. It's simple to do. Just bow your head, be frank with him about your disbelief, and ask him "if he's there and listening, please help me hear you in this noisy world".

Big day set for big-bang machine

Colman — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:37:40 GMT

I too am currious as to whether we can solve some perplexing and as yet, unanswered questions. I am not science minded but that is not by choice, I am designed to be more of a dreamer. But dreams often come to reality by trial and error, persistence in the face of adversity, and the courage to at least let our dreams be tested and results reviewed. Let's all be friends and work together by putting our religious vs. non-religious views aside, for the sake of possibly making our dreams come true. My dream is to see a world where we truly care about each other concerning health and well being, and strive toward thatwhatever the cost! Ciao.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Paul Ennis , Granite Bay , CA. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:50:29 GMT

Please allow me to quickly address the concepts of "truth" and "fact" as they regard theoretical investigations of this kind. It is my opinion "truth" is subjective. It is that which we believe to be fact and often changes as new information is provided. "Fact", on the other hand, is ultimately objective and unalterable. These types of research tend to add information ( and more questions ) to our collective journal and as such are stepping stones toward a more dependable human knowledge of ourselves, our planet and our universe. Scientists must act responsibly as they delve into matters which may hold potential hazards, but the thwarting of investigation holds hazards as well. If you were born in a valley surrounded by high peaks and are quite satisfied that this is all that exists...all well and good for you. Please don't deny your curious neighbor his efforts to climb away in search of a wider experience. Perhaps he'll return with something you didn't know you needed.

Big day set for big-bang machine

GW — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:50:30 GMT

I have come here from the future. The LHC makes this all possible, but it doesn't happen for another three years. I was granted a time travel visa by the government of the world. Britney Spears is head of the United Nations

Big day set for big-bang machine

NY Science Fan, NYC — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:51:00 GMT

I can't stand ignorant people who always point to starving kids and homeless people- go hug a tree- projects like these create a better world- maybe not directly but knowledge and striving to better ourselves as a race will help fix certain things on this planet. Pollution? Well, what if particle acceleration could break down the pollutants into less harmful substances? Nuclear energy is the most efficient, cleanest and safest type of energy- but it's waste is horribly dangerous- if we could break down those wastes into materials with shorter half-lives we can eliminate that as an issue.

Open your minds people- seriously- you are the same type to say that fighting wars is never effective too, right? Why spend money on defense- that could go to school books for kids in the ghettos in Detroit- where the social consiousness of the people is what is keeping everyone down- not spending money on science. It's "not cool" to go to school in many of these areas- go fight that- or create a world where there are so many opportunities due to human progress those people will be quieted by the world around them being something they want to join- not fight against.

Read up on NASA's "spin-offs" to see what benefits science gives us- if it wasn't for the money spent on the space program we wouldn't have alternatives to oil (and if funding wasn't constanly being slashed we might have been further along in this area), preemie babies wouldn't have such high survival rates b/c their incubators wouldn't have been created, batteries for electric cars wouldn't be as advanced- those advances happened due to the need for better batteries for science/space projects- the needs created by these "out there" projects FORCE us to think outside of the box and GROW- they create solutions that benefit ALL eventually. The only other thing that creates such benefits is war on a large scale- the assembly line was conceived of in war time- standardizing parts and making repairs and life more efficient...what would you rather have...

and science and religion CAN work together- and maybe help you understand the creator you believe in- I think these puzzles were put here for us to discover, learn and grow. what creator wouldn't want it's children to develop?

Big day set for big-bang machine

The Devil's Advocate — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:58:27 GMT

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:28:46 GMT

> We've already proven the big bang, two or
> three years ago, and the two scientists who
> did received the Nobel Prize. Might want to
> check it out, it's some interesting information.
> Most powerful telescope in the world was used
> to see farther than ever, and therefore farther
> back in time, all the way to the aftermath of
> the big bang going back to where the "explosion"
> was too bright and nothing more could be seen.
> The big bang HAS been proven, but naturally the
> attention it received for such a huge discovery
> was absolutely negligible. You'd think that
> proving something so big would be something
> talked about all over the world, but while it
> doesn't disprove that some version of a god-
> thing didn't make the Big Bang happen, the
> media seemed rather reluctant to make much
> mention of it. Heck. one paper gave it one
> small paragraph in the very back section, how's
> that for respecting science and facts?

This is absolutely ludicrous, and a borderline scandalous statement. It is not even possible to definitively "prove" the Big Bang.

The idea that the Big Bang can even be proven without first directly observing the universe's purported primary constituent (dark matter) is simply absurd. Dark matter has been invoked to explain numerous astrophysical observations by now. So long as we don't capture one of those particles here on Earth, all of those theories remain suspect. RIIIIIGHT???

All too often, what you find in astrophysics is that we in fact have a house of cards. The idea of dark energy, for instance, is based upon the idea that a specific type of supernova all unanimously emit a very specific amount of energy, and can therefore be called "standard candles" that we can use to accurately measure distances. What you find, however, when you actually listen to the people who write the textbooks on those supernova explosions talk is that, in light of all of our observations of them, THEY STILL CANNOT EVEN CONFIDENTLY EXPLAIN THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANICS OF THOSE EXPLOSIONS. Their uncertainty, however, did not stop other people from building upon that speculation. And so the house of cards builds.

There still remain many great mysteries -- at least to establishment scientists -- concerning things like comets, our own Sun's behavior, rilles observed on the planets of our own solar system and the heat of the various planets we can see, for example. Some of these enigmas are sufficiently vital to the operation of the systems we are observing that it is pure hubris to say that we currently have a complete lock-down on what is happening. For instance, there remains no good theory in the mainstream as of yet for why the charged particles emitted by the Sun fail to appreciably slow down as they pass by the planets of our solar system. This is an incredibly important point because, taken as a whole, that structure is called the heliosphere and it is the largest structure of our solar system. To think that we don't understand the dynamics of the largest structure of our own solar system (!), hopefully this induces some measure of humility in people. The fact that no believable gravity-based theory has even been devised by now to explain this observation should inspire significant doubt within the public of our stellar models because as you know, it's certainly not for lack of trying!

In fact, the enigma only exists when you assume that these charged particles respond more to gravity and/or mechanics than electromagnetism, and when you minimize the influence of the Sun's electromagnetic environment on the behavior we generally observe in our solar system.

Let's all try to be more cautious in our claims of how great we as humans are. I know it's tempting to think that we are in full command of our environment as we are surrounded by such amazing technology, but our confidence in our astrophysical *interpretations* also blinds us to better theories. Don't ever forget that it takes some pretty creative mathematics to make the micro and macro theories of the Standard Model meet up. Why does the problem persist for so long? To an honest skeptic, that would suggest that there is something wrong with either one, or even both. What's the saying? ... The sign of a madman is to try to do the same thing over and over, even though it refuses to work ...

Big day set for big-bang machine

S Guess — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:38:28 GMT

It is interesting to me that anyone might use this experiment to defeat the idea of intellectual design.

When intellectuals designed a machine to reenact what might have happened according to theory.

I'd say that the success of this experiment will help the creationist in this argument. My point; in a sick twisted bit of irony, scientist will "re-CREATE" the big bang in a feat that might take another million years to prove if anything happened or not. All the while inside this machine tiny particles of matter are drawing together and evolving... oops - there's another theory...

By that time, the inhabitants of matter will argue that these protons just happened to smack together, while others will say that an intellectual was behind it.

Then again, maybe we are inside this machine and the time warp everyone is speculating is happening on a small scale somewhere else.

Big day set for big-bang machine

RH, Phoenix, AZ — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:17:39 GMT

OK, I have a high respect for scientist and the work that they do. After reading the article it is obvious that there can be big benefits to this project. That being said, much of science world has been trying to disprove the fact that there is a divine Creator. Every thought has to have a preceeding thinker. I firmly believe God created the universe (and by the way so do many current and past excellent scientists). An interesting point in reagards to Christ: in the God/Christ were/are omnipresent and the Scripture states God "was, is and is to come"...hmmmm maybe it jives with quantum physics more than folks think.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Crystal, Seattle, WA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:44:25 GMT

Folks ask what good this is, as people in the world are starving and warring and such.

Well, perhaps if we can better understand how the universe works, we can find ways to do useful things - like turning gravity into a consumable energy source for our civilizations.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Hakan Ozalpasan, Santa Monica, California — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:26:01 GMT

Yes indeed, HOW LUCKY WE ARE TO BE ALIVE ! We are the ones who will experince the most advance science in the history of mankind, within a couple of months.
It's in our genes. No matter how much opposition out there, the unknown will pull us and force us to explore as fast as we can as humans...

Big day set for big-bang machine

David, Hazleton,Pa. — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:50:01 GMT

I was just thinking, what would happen if we in fact create life confirming the "big bang theory". Will we maintain its existence. And if so, what says we're not a product of someone elses test.

Big day set for big-bang machine

incident 51, New York, New York — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:52:25 GMT

Defenses that work are layered defenses.

It seems that the only defense we have against the swarm of planet devouring black holettes is theory. If the theory is mistaken, oops!

This wonderful, fabulous, exciting project would be well situated on one of the moons of Saturn rather than in the heart of Europe, no?

And think of all the cool things we'd learn on the way there.

We just set to bar too low in the first place.

Is it too late to motion for a change of venue, your honor?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Keywan Waters, Philadelphia, PA — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:57:45 GMT

How do we really know that they haven't used it yet?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Scott Reed Mooresville, IN — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:53:38 GMT

Thank God for physicists. My daughter was just treated for a brain tumor using proton beam radiation. It's a powerful type of treatment with fewer side affects than other forms of radiation. This is done in Bloomington, IN; Jacksonville, FL; Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA and Loma Linda, CA. If you know someone with a brain tumor or pancreatic cancer have them ask their doctor because few doctors are aware of this new treatment.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:04:48 GMT

"We have polluted the Earth, its waterways, its oceans, now we are looking to rocketing trash into space to further pollute it."

Hmm. Fourteen billion light-years wide, containing gamma-ray bursters, supernovas, galactic cosmic rays, stellar black holes, solar flares, magnetars and assorted other things dangerous to 'children and other living things' as they used to say, and you think, with a sliver of the stuff of this one speck of a planet, that we can somehow 'pollute space?'

It's not the rest of humanity that seems to have the hubris here...

Big day set for big-bang machine

Frank Glover Rochester, NY — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 21:08:07 GMT

Daniel, if religion (in general, or any specific) can't cope with facts, it deserves not to exist.

If it can encompass them, well and good.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jean Rios — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 23:02:41 GMT

I agree with the person that said about the kids starving and so many kind of needs in this world but yet they spend 10 billion dollars on some machine that can blow up on their face, I personaly think that science is trying to play a God role to changing the world but one day they will find out that you cant play with God

Big day set for big-bang machine

JD, Seattle, WA — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:35:37 GMT

As a bit of follow-up to my previous post, although the concepts are there, an example might be helpful . . .

If I understand everything correctly, then when we gaze at the sky on a cloudless night, what we see is from our perspective a real-time stream of light and other electromagnetic waves and particles, with this real-time stream of information actually being the historical record of everything that happened in outer space starting, as a few theorists believe, at the origin of the universe (and perhaps also the beginning of time, although maybe not) . . .

From our perspective, it is a bit like watching the streaming video of the latest episode of Stargate Atlantis, sent to use by the clouds at the iTunes Store, which is fabulous . . .

Fabulous!

So, when one presumes that all the truly old stuff is very far away, quite a lot of it has left the iTunes Store and is on its way, but it is not here, yet. Nevertheless, according to current thinking, it is somewhere, and it is streaming to what in our future will become our present or current time--and, it is entirely possible that as it is streaming toward us, we might be moving through spacetime toward it, since our galaxy and planetary system are moving through spacetime at this very instant, unless time actually is discrete and sequential, in which case all this stuff happens in frames or snapshots and actually is not moving at all in any continuous way, which is a bit odd when you ponder it for a while . . .

Or, perhaps we are moving away from it, and what we see is a slow-motion or time-distorted version, in which case it should be easy to detect gaps in the stream . . .

Does anyone make very high-speed recordings of outer space and then study them frame-by-frame to see if stuff appears and disappears illogically or in paradoxical ways?

Continuing with the example, the history of the universe from its beginning is streaming toward us, and the stream is continuous. From a simple perspective, this stream can be considered to be a bit like a very long string or perhaps an extraordinarily long strip of video tape which has all the episodes beginning with the first, which is a bit confusing, because if the first episode actually was sent at the start of the stream, then we probably missed it, unless we appeared in spacetime somewhere in the middle of the series and will not actually see the first episodes until we loop around and encounter it again, presuming that once it is streamed, it streams forever until something sees or intercepts it, at which point it is gone, and if we were not the ones who saw or intercepted it, then we might never be able to perceive it, or maybe not . . .

So, in our timeline, the upcoming events at the start-up of the Large Hadron Collider happen in the future, except that if the upcoming events include creating or spawning tiny "black holes", then one of them might make it possible for something to jump from one timeline to another, which is where the confusion begins and the clues might be found . . .

In other words, one of these tiny "black holes", which will be created or spawned in the near future, somehow does something that changes the streaming history of the universe which already is out there heading our way--effectively making a change in the historical record that already is in the queue streaming toward us--but in this particular instance it does not make its changes so far into the queue ("our future") that the consequences of the changes arrive much later rather than a tiny bit sooner, with the consequences of the changes actually arriving here in the real-time stream we will see if we gaze into the nighttime sky in what soon will be our present but at a time BEFORE the Large Hadron Collider actually creates or spawns the tiny "black holes" . . .

To make this more clear, consider that there are a pair of parallel horizontal lines extending through spacetime, with one of the lines representing the streaming history of the universe and the other line being our relative time, such that at present everything we perceive pretty much is aligned or synchronized correctly and is the available real-time stream on August 9, 2008 (today). A bit to the right on the timeline, we find September 10, 2008, which is in what we call the "future". We cannot perceive it, but it is there, because if it were not there, then reality truly would be a grand illusion . . .

The confusing or perhaps paradoxical aspect occurs when in the "future" on September 10, 2008 the Large Hadron Collider creates or spawns a tiny "black hole", which opens a strange portal that allows something to jump backward through spacetime and to cause a change in the streaming history of the universe, perhaps making this change on the particular frame(s) of the streaming history of the universe that will be what we will see perhaps two weeks from now on August 23, 2008 . . .

In other words, if time is measured with integers, then at t+32 something happens that affects t+14, which we see two weeks days from today (t), effectively before the event at t+32 happens, which is pretty strange but then so are tiny "black holes" . . .

Hence, my suggestion is that if something quite unexpectedly "just appears as if from nowhere" in a few weeks somewhere in outer space, then it might provide a clue about what already happened in the future when the Large Hadron Collider starts creating or spawning tiny "black holes" next month, which then makes me wonder whether there is anything we can do to prevent it if we somehow get advance warning based on its already happening, which of course normally would be a bit of a paradox, except that perhaps when stuff like this occurs due to a distortion or convolution in the spacetime horizon of a tiny "black hole", it does not create a paradox which cannot be undone or unraveled, which has great possibilities for being pretty cool, really--noting that intuition suggests that if something like this is possible, it is most likely to occur over a very small amount of time, perhaps just a few days or weeks, since these are predicted to be TINY "black holes", hence probably do not have huge regions of affectation (the inverse square proportionality thing and so forth) . . .

Consider, for example, that an astronomer has been looking at the same location with a telescope every night for a decade and then a few days or weeks from now, sua sponte, an object appears where previously there was no object (perhaps an asteroid, planet, star, galaxy, or a big curly blue cloud which is shaped like a Duncan Butterfly yo-yo). That would be a bit beyond strange, but so what . . .

If the dots were connected in sufficient time to stop the start-up of the Large Hadron Collider (or at least to postpone it for a month or two), would the big curly blue cloud shaped like a Duncan Butterfly yo-yo simply disappear once the decision to stop or to postpone the start-up was made?

Is the ability to conduct this strange experiment--where one examines data for a week or two looking for stuff appearing and disappearing instantly--entirely dependent on the ruling of a federal judge in the great state of Hawaii?

If I were trying to find stuff like this, I would compare photographs of known locations in outer space over time to determine if strange stuff appears and then vanishes in a way that makes no logical sense (or at least is a bit paradoxical)--kind of like it somehow was erased instantly rather than fading gradually--because, intuitively one might expect that undoing or unraveling a spacetime paradox maps to an instantaneous event or a singularity, similar to what happens when one heats mirror popcorn in the Hilbert Space hopper drive of an alien spaceship like the one now circling our planet in low-Earth orbit . . .

Thanks!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:14:37 GMT

Phillip J. Calamatas,
What is it that you feel is unsafe about CERN? Following your examples aerospace, railway and etc. only concern themselves with the vehicle. In those terms CERN is on better ground. I keep reading about parts of airplanes falling off or exploding, tressles collapsing, bridges failing. The military has it’s problems also. None of that safety is about ensuring a train doesn’t plow into a car stuck on the tracks or preventing a plane from flying into a building, (or an army from attacking civilians.) The LHC will operate (move particles around) quite safely. The concern I think you have is with the reaction. Maybe we should have Smith & Wesson design guns that can’t shoot so nobody gets killed when they operate correctly. Those concerns are okay to have, but I’ve read your comments before, you can articulate them as results issues without pulling in front end concerns.

Enlightened,
Have you read your post? Your defending your position. If your belief in God were worth anything, you wouldn’t have to defend it (your logic.) I can only deduce that you consider your relationship with God to be of no value. I won’t argue with you.

Drew A. Solberg, Sr.,
Man I wish you’d read the comments if you wish to make one. Or perhaps by no tangible benefits you mean that they’re not tangible because they haven’t occurred from these experiments yet. In language you might comprehend: You’re whining because we don’t have benefits from something we haven’t done yet. Cause I’m sure that you don’t mean the advances in medicine and farming aren’t beneficial. Chief after 21 years. I have my answer.

Micah,
Nobody said catastrophe can’t happen. In fact the opposite has been duly explained. Certain types of catastrophe won’t happen. Like the Titanic will not absorb all the water of all the oceans and leave the earth a dry ball of dust. Things could definitely get out of hand and cause a very disastrous and very localized accident.

Welcome back Mr. Lane, haven’t seen anything from you in over a month.

Drew A. Solberg, Sr.,
You have well defined “experiment.”

Walter L. Wagner,
What happens inside a star? How often? Has any local star you may happen to know, say, collapsed?

Thinkin small,
Effects like that will be localised. In NC you need not worry. Birds will be fine once away from the field.

George McKinney,
Right.!? And after years and years of that process, we’re not in the dark ages.

Karl Smith,
Things will definitely go wrong. I’d give an 8% chance that someone dies before it’s at full power. Of course, I’m saying there’s a 100% chance someone is killed by a drunk driver between the time I submit this and the time it gets posted.

Michell in OK,
No, it won’t suck the planet in. The black holes your thinking of have a bizzillion times more mass than you. Therefore a gravity well and they suck things in. These black holes will have a bizzilionth of your mass, gravity that is dwarfed by that of air, and may not be able to eat.

Duncan, Indiana,
I think the people who cry the loudest are those who assume they’re wrong and are afraid that someone might prove it.

Brett,
That’s a different specialty.

Joe P. Doe,
That’s all right. I think there’s a giant frying pan in Oklahoma.

MaryBeth,
It’s practically free.

End of p=2. How did this get so popular as opposed to the numerous other topics on the same thing?

Big day set for big-bang machine

MTJ, colorado — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:41:00 GMT

TO the CERN-LHC engineers - Bravo. What an engineering feat. I am an engineer in the oil business and we too have progessed far in capabilities in the last 30 years, and suffered the slings and arrows of bystanders who eagerly utilize the products of our applied science while labeling us as bad. Our advances have provided access to ever more remote and difficult to reach oil and gas.
My job has taken me around the world and I too have seen masses of poor hungry people. I have watched it long enough to conclude the handing out of massive volumes of food and medicine has made the problem worse and worse. Education is the answer IMHO. Giving food to hungry uneducated masses results in many more babies and western medicines results in those babies staying alive, growing up, and having more babies. The answer, I think, is education, not food and medicine.
Ignorance solves no problems.
Thank you scientists and engineers at CERN for pursueing the advancement of human knowledge and understanding.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Mitch B., Las Vegas, Nevada — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 18:24:18 GMT

"fumbling around, twiddling molecules and playing with physical phenomena that are not truly understood." Is likely to be how we come to understand them. Denying research into one theory on the basis that all theories haven't been researched - appears to me (an admitted uneducated layman) to be a circular self defeating approach.

We will do this, because we can, and because we haven't done it yet. Curiosity is the only unstoppable force in nature.

Big day set for big-bang machine

John I Doe no — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 20:35:01 GMT

Bill asked "why. What difference does the knowledge of subatomic particles even do for us? I understand man's quest for knowledge but dumping billions into a system and a science that provides no real-use benefit seems like a gross waste of time, money and resources."
But Bill, look what the electron has done for humanity! It would be better to spend the money used for weapons rather on research of all types, all be it medical or particules. Bu just giving money to the poor isn't the answer.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 03:45:11 GMT

> Draft review of "The Electric Sky" from
> astrophysicist W. T. Bridgman:
>
> [...]

It was only a matter of time before somebody posted an attempt at critiquing the Electric Universe paradigm. Don Scott has responded to many, if not all, critiques that have been done to date. What's unfortunate about these critiques is that they typically attempt to recast the debate into a non-debate. This ultimately convinces people to avoid actually reading the book to judge for themselves what the paradigm says. And that's extremely unfortunate because the Electric Universe paradigm is quite logical, bases on rock solid science and requires no imaginary particles or strange concepts like force particles to work.

If you want to understand a debate, you need to listen to *both* sides, right? If you find that reading that review acts as an excuse to not read the actual book, then you're really just listening to one side of the debate. This is the fundamental problem with the way in which science is dealt with in our culture today. We are inundated with information and our minds try to figure out tricks that can help us to cheat in forming opinions on subjects.

What you have to realize though is that The Electric Sky is exceptionally short. The paradigm can be summarized in principle within 3-4 days of reading time. We're talking about an entirely new paradigm here that any layperson can grasp sufficiently to very quickly start re-interpreting the astrophysical imagery you see every day in press releases.

Now that I understand the Electric Universe paradigm on a basic level, I can look at space stories on MSNBC's Cosmic Log, Slashdot, physorg, and so on, and understand where it is that conventional science has gone wrong for that topic. Where they express confusion, the EU very frequently already has an answer that follows directly from laboratory plasma physics principles and observations. The Electric Universe takes science back to its common sense roots. The universe is not really the absurd and strange place that people have been led to believe by the mainstream scientific community. It is the gravity-based models that MAKE IT SEEM WEIRD, but plasma science is EASILY understandable to non-scientists.

And once you understand it, it becomes a very frustrating experience because it's as if you've been told a very great secret that only a handful of people know about. You want to teach more people to understand what you've learned, but you will find that people just refuse to open their minds and accept this alternative paradigm as a possible reality. Without giving it a chance, most people actually just decide to only believe things that are popular in science.

This is why I advocate for the Electric Universe. If I can get just one or two people on this board to read that book and learn about the amazing work that these people are doing, then those people will tell others and over many years, we will eventually get the word out. And then we can have a logical debate about it. Until then -- and trust me on this folks -- we are really spinning our wheels here. If the Electric Unvierse people are right -- and there is a very good chance of this -- then there can very possibly be no major advances in the space sciences until it is recognized that the universe operates according to a plasma-based cosmology.

We could literally go our entire lives and find out near the end that everything that we've been told about space is in fact wrong. And listen carefully: This realization can occur overnight and with just one single time-lapse observation. At some point in time, I can assure you that astronomers will observe a star fission into two, or observe a planetary expulsion from a star in great detail. We've already seen stars that are shaped like dumbbells, but these still images leave a lot to infer about what's actually happening. Once we see video of what's happening, then people will come to realize that planets and stars form extremely rapidly.

The telescopes are getting stronger. When they make these observations, there will first be attempts to refuse to accept it for what it is. But eventually, people will come to terms with the fact that our theories regarding stellar and planetary formation are completely off. And then, they'll go back and read what Wallace Thornhill has been saying about comets for years now, and they'll realize that everything they thought they knew about comets is wrong too. Few of the topics of the space sciences will be spared. Across the board, astronomers will eventually make the observations that will change our perception of our surroundings. It is just a matter of time.

But the sad thing is that this might happen at the ends of our lives. If we want to see REAL technological progress in our lifetimes, we have to take a more active role in understanding these debates. Treating science like a spectator's sport -- where we believe everything we are told like programmed robots so long as the person has credentials -- has real-life consequences to our culture, our technology and our lives.

So, I encourage you to read that review. But, don't let it stop you from reading the book as well. In fact, I would read the book first, and expect to see a rich and fascinating debate.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 04:05:15 GMT

> Yes, the standard model works with particles
> we haven’t yet seen. It used to be much more
> so, but since then we’ve seen some of those
> mysterious, previously theoretical particles.
> You have, for quite some time, preached for
> the Electric Universe view. Are you saying
> that it has no holes? You, or anybody else,
> are quite free to pursue experimentation down
> that avenue. There’s money out there, go thump
> for it. The fact that government sponsored
> research pursues the standard model, worldwide,
> follows the fact that the theoretical parts of
> the standard model continue to be proven
> factual. Tell us about the advances in the
> electric world view.

You may find it strange to hear me say it, but there are actually far too many successes to list here. So, let's just pick a single topical example: Enceladus.

Today is Saturday night where I'm at. On Monday morning, Cassini will fly by Enceladus to take close-ups of one of the poles. Hopefully, those images will turn out. The Thunderbolts crew has written numerous articles on Enceladus that I encourage you to read. On the subject of Enceladus' hot poles ...

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050809hotenceladus.htm

Electrical machining occurring at the south pole ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050908enceladus.htm

Enceladus' electrical scarring ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051213enceladus.htm

Enceladus' comet-like jets ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060313moonjets.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051202enceladus.htm

And Enceladus' moving "geysers" ...

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070315enceladusgeysers.htm

If you want to observe a quick test case, then read those articles prior to Monday. When Monday gets here, you will observe that many of the claims in these articles will be confirmed by these new observations.

It happens just about every week actually. I've actually come to just accept this as a regular occurrence. The real problem is that people just refuse to listen to what this new paradigm says. And so, these guys can keep on having their claims validated with amazing frequency, and yet nobody pays them any attention because they are not peer-reviewed. All that means is that some other guys whose theories are threatened by the Electric Universe did not want to admit these outsiders into the club. So what? That doesn't take away from the fact that this new paradigm looks to be a lot more predictively useful than the Standard Model. The large majority of the people who talk about the successes of the Standard Model have never actually taken the time to read what the Electric Universe says for the sake of contrast and comparison.

If you do this, you will see what I'm talking about. Then remember that Enceladus is just one example. These guys are having success like this across the board. The Electric Universe dramatically simplifies our understanding of the universe, and it makes the universe seem rather logical.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 04:38:58 GMT

> Based on my reading of this blog, you both seem
> quite knowledgeable on this subject, but appear
> to have opposing views. I am curious, what do
> each of you think are the real dangers, if any,
> of the LHC startup? Is there a possibility of
> catastrophic results should something go very
> wrong?

No, I find it very hard to believe that there is some sort of impending catastrophe with the experiment. The problem is that black hole theory doesn't even mathematically work. I refer you to Stephen J Crothers' website ...

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html

We need a new theory as to what these things are, and we should be looking to plasma physics for what to base it on.

What's unfortunate is that within the Electric Universe view, the dangers we face are completely different than those within the conventional gravity-based paradigm. Within the EU view, planets for instance rarely, if ever, collide. Before physical collision can even occur, large bodies in space will trade electrical charges. They will also trade massive amounts of material. One planet can actually even transfer all of its oceans to another planet during such an exchange (*cough* *cough* Mars ...).

In conventional circles, planets do not acquire or trade electrical charges. But, the Earth is filled with molten iron. When volcanoes erupt, we oftentimes see lightning. Very importantly, we sometimes see the lightning actually precede the expulsion of material. An electrical pathway permits a charge transfer between the Earth's atmosphere and its core. When lightning bursts occur on our planet, we see the Van Allen Radiation belts blink. Although it was once disputed, we now see lightning (sprites) that go to the edge of space, threatening the theory that electrical storms are closed systems near the ground. The entire Earth is an electrically connected system. Somehow, astrophysicists have convinced themselves that between a small iron ball that you can fit into your hand and a large iron ball the size of the Earth, bodies stop possessing the ability to acquire and trade electrical charge. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Of course they do, and these electrical charge transfers can affect their rotation and orbits, and even cause them to "bounce" off of one another (more technically, off of each other's plasma layers -- the "magnetosphere").

We should expect that if the Earth and Sun, for instance, was to enter into a more electrically active environment, then more electrical energy would flow into our poles. Our poles would heat up, and they'd do it faster than the rest of the planet. Global warming is not necessarily a man-made phenomenon. It could be our solar system moving closer to the Milky Way disc, where the density of charged particles would be higher.

The Electric Universe universe is more interconnected, and therefore a bit more dangerous than the traditional paradigm. Planets are connected by filaments of charged particles to their host stars, stars are connected by filaments to other stars, galaxies to other galaxies, and on and on. The data already exists to support these claims. These interconnections can be pulsed, and these pulses can actually move through galaxies. You might be surprised to learn that the incredible Christmas earthquake of a few years ago was preceded by a similarly incredible gamma ray burst. We'd be wise to investigate the possible link further.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Philip J. Calamatas Montreal Canada — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 05:01:49 GMT

Mr. Tim Rommes, Washington, Ut

It seems that you didn’t quite comprehend my statement. I have no fear what-so-ever that CERN is perhaps the most complex machine ever built and that its operational safety has been well modeled and analyzed to the smallest detail. My fear is that the analysis that is supposed to prove the by-products of this machine are safe, is based on theories speculations and assumptions.

The point I was trying to make is that good engineering practices never use “theories”, “speculations” and (worst of all) “assumptions” when attempting to prove the safety of a particular system.

To give you an example of why I think that CERN’s safety report is reckless is the fact that two prominent items that they use for the safety analysis are Steven Hawking’s Theory of Black hole radiation (also known as Hawking radiation), and the fact that there is no (known) conservation law to stabilize a micro black hole.

Although many (including myself) believe that Mr. Hawking is perhaps one of the most gifted intellectuals of our time, you should be aware that no one has seen or proven Hawking radiation, moreover some rather big holes were recently shot into this theory (the part pertaining to the aspect of information loss in a BH).

As for the fact that there is no conservation law to stabilize a M-B-H and thusly it must rapidly decay according with the second law of thermodynamics, is ludicrous. How do they know this, what makes them such experts on black holes, how many black holes have they held, measured and analyzed, what is the mechanism(s) that creates BH particle jets, are electrons micro black holes, does anyone believe in holographic theory? There are probably a hundred questions that can be asked for every fact that is known about black holes.

Now tell me how anyone can use these arguments to which they can conclude that making a micro black hole is safe. Well I can tell you that in any industry that deals with human safety, a submitted safety report of this type would be thrown out as junk because “theories, speculations, and assumptions”, ARE NOT FACTS, even if Einstein himself signed it!!! (By the way Einstein didn’t believe in black holes and tried to prove that they could not exist).

Furthermore in any safety analysis the worst case scenario must always be addressed and mitigating systems must be proven effective in controlling or minimizing the event. In this respect CERN is almost denying (by their complete avoidance of the subject) that a worst case event can occur and there are NO MITIGATING systems what-so-ever.

You see it would be impossible for CERN to prove (using standard engineering practices) that the Earth would be safe because there is very little proven facts about black holes (most everything is either theoretical or speculative) and as such there are too many unknowns for them to claim with any level of confidence that there is no possibility for something to go wrong, and worst yet, they refuse to face the possibility that something could go wrong because there is nothing that can be done about it (no mitigation systems). Thusly they paint a rosy little picture using acceptable practices with unacceptable data to try to placate the populace into believing all is well.

Nuff said.

P.s. There are many other questions that should be answered such as, does quantum mechanics encompass gravity (as String & M-Theories strive for), or as Sir Rodger Penrose considers a Relativist theory encompassing Quantum Mechanics”. Right now there is no firm understanding of which is right. This alone could make a big difference in whether CERN is safe or not, however you could point out that we would need CERN to answer this (a classic case of chicken or egg).

Big day set for big-bang machine

Mohan Vaidya, Warren NJ — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 05:13:04 GMT

Every time a big science project goes online, we talk about the world hunger and starving children. This is hypocracy at best, and intentional misinformation at worst. There is enough food to feed the world not two, but four meals a day. What is keeping this food from starving children is not science but power-hungry dictators, religious exploiters and greedy politicians intent on keeping their electoral power base. Science is helping us loosen this grip of selfish power brokers so that food can finally flow to the starving millions. So let the scientists do their work ! They are our last hope to bring out the best in us. And don't lose sight of where real problems lie.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:18:29 GMT

Kenny in Nebraska wrote, “Just because someone thinks hunger, poverty, and religion are more important than quantum physics does not make them ignorant.” I agree. This is not the thing that makes them ignorant. Many people with those inclinations are absolutely not ignorant. However, many, many people who are ignorant take up these views with no other reason than someone said, “because I say so.” With so little reason behind there beliefs the ignorant take them on with a passion. What you see on boards like these are people intelligent enough to have reasons for their beliefs responding to people who are ignorant and have their (sometimes valid) beliefs with absolutely no reason. If you want to play with the adults it’s not enough to know the answer.

Chris Reeve wrote, “For instance, there remains no good theory in the mainstream as of yet for why the charged particles emitted by the Sun fail to appreciably slow down as they pass by the planets of our solar system.” Is there any reason we should expect them to slow down? How close a pass are you talking about? Through effective atmosphere, magnetosphere, …?

Keywan Waters,
It’s a little high profile to think that they could have done the alignments on the sly. Getting this thing to work will be kind of like lighting the end of a convoluted mine shaft with sunlight using rotating mirrors. Each mirror has to be carefully aimed and timed so that the light is passed from reflective surface to reflective surface. If it goes astray then you light a small patch on the side of the tunnel and no light gets to the end. If the timing is off you light the back side of the next mirror. A similar, and yet completely different, process has to take place to get the injected beam to go all the way around, and then turn it into a collision. With all the attention given to CERN it would be difficult to pull this off without being noticed. You’d have a better shot at having a secret tabletop orgy in a crowded restaurant.

When did “hubris” become such a popular word. I don’t think I’ve read it in 10 years and now I’m tripping over it. I guess that’s the fall.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 07:50:25 GMT

Any time we have a topic like this there are people who express the thought that the money would be better spent fighting world hunger, homelessness, or some other social issue du jour. The response is generally that these projects result in a net gain for those social issues. We could have directed research money to food distribution and fed 100,000 people once, a noble cause. Instead the research resulted in an improved food supply which will feed 500,000 for their entire lives. If you feel the need to post the sentiment that the money should go elsewhere, after all these are generally good causes, please have the decency and intelligence to state how much money is being spent for the research and how much is already being spent on your cause generally. (Governmental funds, not private sector.) DOE contribution $200 M for construction over 12 years before overruns, let’s say 25 million per year. US funding to third world countries $15 B for AIDS (5 years or 3 Billion per year), Food for Peace $1.2 B FY2004 alone. We’re spending about 50 times as much to feed people as to do this research. Past research has proven to be critical to being able to feed them now. Would you really rather have $51 dollars go where $50 is going now and give up future developments that might make that $50 go 10 times as far? Also, let us know that you make six figures but live in poverty yourself so that others can eat.

Big day set for big-bang machine

matthew gillaspy, buffalo, ny — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:18:00 GMT

the new frontiers of physics are where we can find Truly revolutionary means by which we as a species can rise out of obscurity in our little corner of the milky way and truly take our civilization to the stars. Short sighted policy that cuts the scientific research budgets worldwide is shooting our species in the foot.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:20:37 GMT

I am totally awe struck at the kinds of responses on such a simple concept as smashing particles together with greatly enhanced energy. (not to say the physics is simple). I guarantee, this whole thing will blow over exactly the same way Y2K did. You won't wake up in another universe, the world won't grow a black hole etc. and certainly won't open up "the electric universe". I sure wish Chris Reeve would spend a lot more time describing just what this paradigm is rather than spending reams of time complaining. After all, according to him, he learmed it all in 3-4 days of reading. (oh pleeease don't come back and say...read the books)

Oh and for all you God and intelligent design fanatics, this whole project says nothing of any kind of creation from an omnipotent force that happens to "look like us". I mean we are in "his" image so "he" must look like us..ya right. But anyway, I sure wish some real particle physicists would comment on this rather than a hodge podge of this and that.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:26:36 GMT

Thanks Chris, that will take me a while.

Philip J. Calamatas,
Aerospace. All the safety reporting they do has to do with the vehicle. The make sure it’s steerable and won’t fall apart. Although they are frequently wrong, even with the very diligent job they do. We still need air traffic controllers. And even with them you can’t guarantee that a plane will land instead of crash on the runway. This is because a fast moving plane is inherently unsafe. The comparable safety concerns for LHC are it’s ability to run protons/ions around without exploding itself. They’ve shown this safety. It’s not even a new science. Your argument against them is for them to do something they’ve already done. (Although I expect mishaps.) You’re asking that the aerospace community ensure that their planes won’t be driven into the ground in an attempted landing. That’s a completely different safety issue. It’s also a lousy metaphor. Your concern, if I do understand it, is about the resultant particles, waves, conditions. I have no problem with those concerns. I just wish you’d support them better because you can. I wouldn’t say that about 85% of the people who post here.

Also, or separately, any concerns about the possible formation of MHBs should be mitigated by the fact that we’re not even sure about regular black holes. They might not even exist, as noted. We could just be seeing the effects of dark matter, assuming that exists. And then for MHBs to exist our two protons, or ions, would have to change state. Otherwise every nucleus would be a MHB. I haven’t even seen theories for a state of matter that would allow for the collapse of matter into a state that would allow it to reach the concentrations needed for an event horizon. I dismiss the idea that nuclei or electrons are MHBs because of the interactions that we see. So there’s no way to get normal matter to the requisite density with so little mass. Will conditions exist for the transformation to another, as yet unknown (and to my knowledge untheorized), state of matter? Who knows, but if so then this would probably be it, with the protons. Maybe just a little bit faster? Maybe it’s not possible with particles that carry charge and we can’t, at present, accelerate neutrons like that.

Assuming they are created, I don’t know about the rapid decay. In chemical science we see an excited electron that falls back into it’s normal, stable shell. If the incredible energy present at the time of the collision does cause the transformation to a new state of matter I’m not sure it wouldn’t spontaneously change back, kind of like an electron falling back into it’s stable shell.

Further, and most importantly, if we get a MBH it’s not a gravity well. It might keep anything that crosses the schwarschild radius but that doesn’t mean that it would convert it. It would probably just hold it there. Remember, most of an electron would be in a gravity neutral area of space even when it touches the core of a MBH. Then it’s just a heavy electron. (Although I can see the possibility that it would rip the particle apart into fundamentals and keep one fundamental particle. I doubt this could happen though, because it would require energy to break up a particle from it’s stable state.)

The only legitimate reaction fear I can see is if matter has incredibly more energy than we think and we’re only measuring the difference between positive and negative energy. Think an ac signal riding a dc voltage, oscillating by 2 volts from 1001 to 999. In some cases all you see is the 2 volt oscillations. 2 vac is perfectly safe to touch. 1000 vdc, not so safe. The energy released in fission may be nothing in comparison. Do two protons contain enough energy to crack a planet in half?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tyerial-Sòban, Lloydminister, Alberta — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:56:20 GMT

wow, i remember watching a documentry about this a few years ago.
i cant understand why people are bereating the scientists myself ... their furfilling another side of human nature, to discover truth, and explore.
if you close your minds now, you have closed them for ever.
who knows, maybe stuff like this will lead to those funny charged partical cannon guns featured in so may sci-fi offshoots, i mean, it supercharges particals of matter, and sends them hurteling toward eachother at unimaginable speeds, right?
so (and please dont slaunder me if im wrong), couldnt this sort of thing be used on a considrablely smaller scale (when our technology permits) to throw supercharged 'beams' or 'pulses' of energy at an object?
it could provide us with so much information about how the universe was made, maybe through all this we could discover ways to propel spacecraft without huge ammounts of feul - resolve energy crisies with groundbreaking methods of generateing energy, the possibilities when confronted by an object of this magnititude are limited only by you.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 07:58:27 GMT

> So many of the comments here seem to center
> on "We know (almost) everything, and with
> just a little more effort, will know it all."
> Once we get hold of the Higgs Boson/
> Philosopher's Stone/Original Cellular Life,
> we will have everything quantified, and the
> golden age will begin. Then some
> Copernicus/Newton/Einstein comes along and
> kicks the elaborate convoluted house of cards
> down and replaces it with a simplified model.
> WHICH THEN STARTS GETTING CONVOLUTIONS, to
> explain OTHER items which it doesn't fit.
> Does anyone really expect the LHC to do
> anything greatly different? You will get
> new, unexpected data, and will have a choice
> of either creating more convolutions of
> standard theory to fit the data (the old
> middle ages epicycles), or else you act like
> an intelligent scientific person, and find a
> new theory that fits observed data, and
> hopefully can extrapolate just ten percent
> from where we are.

OMG!!! Somebody actually got it.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:40:23 GMT

Chris Reeve,
That didn’t take as long as I thought. Your Thunderbolt guys are not the shiniest stones on the pile. One of the most obvious examples of this is in the moving geysers movie. Their analysis of the footage has the moon rotating in one direction and the geysers moving in the opposite direction. The axis around which the moon rotates is in the lower right. The apparent direction of rotation is left to right in the foreground. The geysers are moving right to left. They are simply on the other side of the axis. The 911 memorial shoots a beam of light into space. From an observation point over Russia you would see the foreground of the earth (the Russia side) going opposite the direction of the lights rotation. This is the nature of a rotating thing. Which way do you turn the valve to get water? Left. Is that the top going left or the bottom? That puts the geysers behaving exactly as electric arc machining would not. // The earth has a magnetic shield. The “current” coming from the sun is an outflow of charged particles. Moving charged particles interact with a magnetic field in a way that causes them to curve. A continuous flow of charged particles would behave as, for the sake of consistent terminology, twine. These would isolate themselves because of the magnetic field they produce by nature of being moving charged particles. Multiple strands of twine would interact with each other because of the fields they produce. In times of high flux the complex interactions could easily produce the flux ropes referred to. It would be similar to wind or water eddies. This offers no sense of connection to the sun more than being sprayed by a stream of water offers a sense of connection to a fire truck. // Enceladus moves through a magnetic field stronger than Earth’s at a pretty quick clip. The extra heat could be from internal radiation or could occur internally due to hysteresis. // I see nothing that indicates EDM. These look more like flow channels. For EDM they should have a more stepped appearance and recombine (like trails around a bush). For any given layer these start as separate and combine as they come to a common point. // The outbursts don’t stay as confined as they would be if they were electrically induced. Rocket discharge exhaust diffuses because of high pressure, which this lacks, and turbulence, which this lacks. // The writing comes across as someone who wholeheartedly believes in what he’s saying and grabs on to anything as proof. I’ve seen this plenty in Bible interpretation. If you believe that God created everything is six 24 hour periods then the Bible offers proof when it says that creation took six days. The word “day” becomes proof positive, as long as you stay in English. If you look at the Hebrew the word translated to “day” could mean about any length of time, and different lengths for each “day” of creation. The writer of your examples suffers from “self-review,” a problem even worse than “peer-review.” In peer review someone else has to agree with you. In self review you are your own validation. I find nothing in your examples that compel me to consider the electric view. I also couldn’t find any reason to endorse the star division or planetary birth ideas. Filaments are well explained by standard model physics with dark matter.
That being said, I did find some parts intriguing, but they are isolated incidences where this works as an easy to understand representation. Like most easy to understand explanations it only works for specific cases and at the cost of precision. It does work in some cases. I find this to also be the case with the Standard Model, Arps theories, etc. Personally, I think we’re at the level of Aesop’s blind men trying to describe an elephant. These diverse theories work well for the particular observations that led to them, but have failings on the whole. With my arms wrapped around a leg I may not be able to imagine an ear. As we continue to explore and experiment we’ll get there. The Standard Model started at the trunk and now we’re pawing around on the face. This experiment may well move us out a little more. Still not a comprehensive view, but taking in more. And that is how theories of the unknown work. Start with what makes sense for what we know and adjust to include what we learn. One day the correct elements from many theories will be justified. That one day probably won’t be tomorrow, and the correct parts don't make any one theory correct on the whole.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chris Reeve, San Francisco, CA — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 09:26:45 GMT

> Chris Reeve wrote, “For instance, there remains
> no good theory in the mainstream as of yet for
> why the charged particles emitted by the Sun
> fail to appreciably slow down as they pass by
> the planets of our solar system.” Is there
> any reason we should expect them to slow down?
> How close a pass are you talking about?
> Through effective atmosphere, magnetosphere, …?

Stars are claimed to have gravitational influence over great distances within the standard paradigm. At a minimum, if popular theories are correct, then our own Sun should be able to control the particles that it emits according to gravity. Gravity is the dominant paradigm, and it's used to explain just about everything according to conventional wisdom.

The problem is that what we see are effectively particles that ignore gravity. What we observe in space is more complicated than that. It is primarily an electrical environment.

The fact is that stars emit charged particles. Space in fact is filled with these charged particles. They are everywhere once you leave the Earth, no matter which direction you go. It is not a vacuum. Our satellites have observed them for decades now. It was a surprise that we are still coming to terms with.

The idea that gravity controls these charged particles is not based upon any reality. The distances for the most part are really too great for that math to even be realistic. Gravity is in fact quite weak compared to a plasma filament -- which tends to naturally form a twisted or braided structure and which has no actual limit to its total length. Plasma filaments can go on indefinitely. They are essentially power transmission lines that form according to fundamental plasma physics principles that can be observed within a plasma laboratory.

If they happen naturally in laboratories, then shouldn't we be looking for them in space too?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jim — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 13:35:48 GMT

I take offense at the "liberal bashing". I am a liberal, I believe in the scientific method, I believe in this project, but I see much waste in science. The man's point about the less fortunate is well-taken. If we redirect our priorities, we can make a better cleaner world. I would rather have them doing tests here than sending a few people to Mars(using rocket fuel), a planet which is not inhabitable. Until we find a clean self-replenishing source of energy, we will not be able to go beyond our own solar system to find habitable planets. Let me remind you that a "liberal" named Roosevelt funded the Manhattan project and "liberal" democratic presidents won WWI and WWII. When you label other people, you are neither Christian nor an inteliigent unbiased Scientist.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dave - PA. — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 15:43:41 GMT

I don't have problem with science searching for new ideas to cure current problems or diseases. If we didn't we'd still have people dying of Polio. I'm all for what the future might bring or what fascinating discoveries lie ahead. But do we have the right in the name of science to open up a door that we have no idea what might be behind it. I'm sure Columbus felt the same way when he sailed for the Americas. I hope that the research and money spent will further our understanding of the universe in which we live, make our lives better, and cure those that current medicine can't. But to talk about going back in time or forward into the future. Do I believe it? I'd like to think it would be possible. It's way out of my league to think that deep. But it's very interesting to think that maybe someday it could be as commonplace as driving a car. But if we
could, should we? Do we have the right to change the course of history or prevent it? And searching black holes or worm holes for worlds beyond our own! it's exciting to think about isn't it? What if....and I'm not a sci-fi person by any means...but what if by opening these doors to other worlds we welcome something in that destroys ours? Far fetched? Yeah maybe! But so was the idea of man being on the moon prior to July 1969! I don't know alot about these colliders from what I've read they can do alot of good. But so can nuclear reactors and sometimes they fail. If this collider gets overheated or produces more light beam energy than they ever thought possible, could it destroy earth's gravitational pull or throw it off it's current axis in any way? I don't know that's why I ask these questions to those that do. Like Forrest Gump said........I'm not a smart man! I got one more question before I go. The Universe, is it vertical or horizontal? I know they say it goes on forever... but does it?

Big day set for big-bang machine

DAVE-PA. — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:20:59 GMT

THIS COULD GO ON AND ON. LONGER THAN THE IDEA THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL NEAL ARMSTRONG LOOKED OUT THE WINDOW WHILE CIRCLING THE BIG BLUE MARBLE AND SAID, HEY THAT'S MY HOUSE! BIG BANG THEORY OR NOT, WHO CARES? IT HAPPENED! WE'RE HERE NOW AND IN TIME WE WON'T BE. WHO'S TO SAY THAT A DIVINE PRESENCE DIDN'T CAUSE THE BIG BANG? WE'LL NEVER KNOW AND MAYBE WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO KNOW UNTIL WE MEET THAT DIVINE PRESENCE. THEN ALL THE SECRETS OF EARTH AND THE COSMOS WILL BE REVEALED. LIKE IS ELVIS REALLY ALIVE AND WHAT HAPPENED TO D.B. COOPER AND WHAT DID MY EX-WIFE DO WITH ALL THE FURNITURE SHE MOVED OUT WHILE I WAS AT WORK, HOW DOES THE CLAPPER WORK? UNTIL THEN ENJOY LIFE AND LET THOSE THAT ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THIS WORLD DO THEIR JOB. I JUST HOPE THIS THING DOESN'T FALL INTO THE HANDS OF DR. EVIL.

Big day set for big-bang machine

logic A — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:46:15 GMT

look at it this way the last time we did something like this we got the atomic bomb, so if you look at it that way you might understand were they got all there funding to pull this off.
as for the time travel thing that’s just funny and far fetched why would the future need us to make the technology wouldn’t they have it already, to much star gate watching on tv going on.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dr Mike — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:30:01 GMT

Speaking in layman's terms so everyone gets this:
The CERN is not even close enough to having enough energy in the least to cause any harm; It will NOT be causing any catastrophe of any scale, at least not outside the compound. The worst thing is it might explode and hurt the people working there, but not because of any magical particles. There won't be any dimensions opened and no spider monsters eating people etc...
Much more powerful particles are penetrating your body at this very moment from distant black holes etc.

I only hope that: perhaps even by accident, "they" discover and prove that light is NOT the fastest "thing" in the universe by far. By the way, the practical use of what we now know as WWW from the 1950/60's was originally a world of modem networking etc. for Universities and government/military communications, and it was not global for a very long time.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Melody Martin, Florida — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:21:26 GMT

To Chris and Alan,

I love the interactions of your minds... One of the first steps in adding to a body of knowledge is to address the many viewpoints from which one's subject can be observed. There is much to "see" and much to understand... There are infinite ways of interpereting the facts, and no one view may neccessarily be wrong, merely unsupported; thus it is also a valid assumption that MANY of these views may be supported.

It is our goal as researchers and scientists and observers to postulate a theory and a mathematical system to encompass it all, so that every view which finds support will be represented. It is the ultimate and elusive "Theory of Everything" towards which so many of us have dedicated our lives, whether one studies astrophysics or quantum mechanics... It is all relevant.

I am sure Alan has read some of what you have suggested, Chris- as well as I am sure you, yourself, have studied much of what Alan has described; therefore, you two boys should be playing nice, as both of your great minds could probably benefit from the open and honest interaction of common intellectuals.

I find the LHC to be quite fascinating, and I feel whatever new knowledge or support for theory that may be found through its projects will be nothing but beneficial to not only the scientific community, but to society as a whole, because let's admit it- life does not exsist just so that we can go to work and pay our bills and watch cable TV... No, life is an extraordinary event that all too many people take for granted- and no matter how far-fetched these experiments or projects may seem to the common individual, they are, in fact, finding ways to re-connect our inner conscioussness (observer) to that of which it is constructed, allowing us as the observers to remember all we have forgotten since our lives arose. Sounding "new-agey"? I'm sure, but ask yourself- what made YOU first delve into these mysteries?

I respect you both- and look forward to further investigating the exchange of information that has taken place here.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:39:55 GMT

I am amazed Alan bothers posting Chris Reeves' constant diatribe ( prolonged discourse) that has nothing to do with the CERN project. [...]

Let the collisions begin ! Light that candle ! There will be plasma.

[ALAN ADDS: Thanks, Thomas, for setting me straight. I guess we are starting to wander into territory that's far afield, so let's set aside the Electric Universe for a while. I edited down Thomas' observations just so we don't fuel another flare-up of argument and counterargument.]

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jason, Annville, PA — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:42:37 GMT

Well alot of interesting things have been said... But I think the best thing that can come out of this is to better understand the universe we live in reguardless if the big bang happened or not... I believe that it will benifit us in the long run... If anything maybe it can be used for a cleaner power source so that we dont destroy what we have now... Even if it does make a black hole we are pretty much slaughtering our planet as it is whats the diffrence if its a black hole that consumes it?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:44:50 GMT

Tyerial-Sòban, Lloydminister, Alberta wrote, “and please don't slander me if i'm wrong.” We only do that if the post is incredibly dim, unsupported, and ignorantly impassioned. Real inquisitiveness is respected. No worries. And yes, it could be a weapon. It would have to be a smaller ring, unless it was on a Death Star. And I’m not sure how effective it would be as a weapon – sting or blow stuff up?

[...]

Jim,
I think this is the thread I posted the financial evaluation on. For world hunger issues redirecting all we put into this would make a change from $50 to $51. That for a one time shot, as opposed to the continuing benefit that these projects bring. It’s not that you’re liberal, and it’s not that your heart is in the wrong place, it’s that you’re shortsighted. (Alan, that’s the general “you” not the specific “you.”)

Thomas Ashby and Alan,
I think Chris raises a great point. I think he’s wrong and I wish he’d actually support what he’s saying. There are all kinds of holes in the Standard Model and many observations that are ignored because there’s no easy explanation in the Standard Model for what we see. (And the Electric Universe isn’t an answer for our observations, either.) The way his diatribe relates to LHC is that it is his intelligent consideration that the premise the experiment is based on is wrong. Of course, this won’t effect the outcome of the experiment and the results can be independently evaluated by the Thunderbolt guys. It would be nice if he would throw up something accelerator related evaluated through EU. I am all for cutting down the long posts that amount to nothing more than “I believe it.”

Big day set for big-bang machine

RS, New Orleans, LA — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 16:31:44 GMT

Titor is a fool if he thinks he can convince a truly thinking person that he traveled in time. If he truly traveled in time then his assertions would be completely correct without fail. Because some of his statements are not correct then he did not travel in time. If he traveled through alternate universes then he did not travel in time.

As far as wasting money on science, what about all that money wasted on religion? Or, even better, money wasted on people who won't help themselves? Not those who can't but those who won't?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Robbie, Tokyo, Japan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:21:33 GMT

Thanks Allan for the down-to-earth (pun intended) explanation of what LHC is all about. Reminds me of the Peanuts character Linus explaining to Charlie Brown, and to the audience, what Christmas is all about.

And the similarity doesn't stop at cell animation, either.

Like you pointed out, science must move forward if we are ever to evolve. Certainly, there was war, poverty, and human suffering on the planet when JFK announced the country's goal of the space program.
He knew, as did most scientists, that if we were to wait until we solved all of humanity's ills before venturing forward, we'd have been extinct long ago. We never would have made it out of the caves.

Let's hope the boys at CERN come up with something beautiful.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tom Roberts, Tokyo, Japan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:50:05 GMT

Peer review? That's another way to say you found people who agree with you to agree with you. Big deal. I can find 100 people in as many minutes to agree that the earth is cooling. I can do the same with another 100 that the earth is warming. Peer review? Good grief. And that is all that stands between our present safety and some horrific outcome if CERN scientists are wrong? Remember, 'Duck and Cover'. That was peer reviewed to be sound. Good thing we never tested it, eh?

Here's some other peer reviewed, scientifically sound ideas: Thalydimide, DDT, Drinking radioactive dye for medical procedures, napalm, Agent Orange, UV 'lights' for cleaning the kitchen, X Ray radiation is safe, etc. etc. etc.

I mean, when laptop batteries can explode, when they can't tell if it will rain next week with accuracy above 97%, when roads can't be paved competently, when boxcutters can kill 3000+ people in an hour, I begin to wonder just how stupid smart people can be.

Sure, fire it up. Who cares that you aren't sure what will happen? What does it matter? The only thing that is important is that you keep to your schedule and that investors aren't disappointed, right?
That's real great 'science'.

By the way, New Scientist published a very interesting study where they proved that scientists were very subjective and unscientific when a theory or topic close to their own views and beliefs was questioned. The study showed that scientists were more likely to be closed-minded and dismissive about alternatives to their own 'pet theory' than the average non-scientific person was to their own beliefs or theories, even when the alternative was the correct solution. Furthermore, even after the scientists were let in on the study, and informed of the correct solution, a vast majority STILL REJECTED IT.

Revealing? Hardly. New Scientist could have saved their time and money. I think we all knew this already: Human nature.

Let's hope CERN doesn't remove either one of those words from our world.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Philip J. Calamatas — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:53:54 GMT

Mr. Tim Rommes, Washington, UT

Let me try to simplify my responses to your comments one item at a time in super easy terms so that you may start to understand something.

1st. Get over the aerospace, I used it as an example to try to get people like yourself to understand the concept of human safety engineering. It looks like I failed in this respect, so I will try to explain it in another manner.

As for another (I quote you) “lousy metaphor”, let’s try this one:
Imagine you live in a town just below a site where the world’s biggest dam is to be constructed, this dam is 7 times the height and its reservoir withholds 7 times the amount of water of that of its nearest rival. In an attempt to convince the townspeople that its safe, the dam builders hold a big ritzy press conference and present all the engineering papers explaining how its to be built and how the town will benefit from all the clean power it will produce. One small child stands up and asks if it would still be safe in the event of an earthquake, and the engineering manager laughs and looks down at the inquisitive little person saying “we didn’t have to design any protection into our system because there never was an earthquake in this location and as such we have no need for such safeguards”.

Now Mr. Rommees imagine you are a seismologist, knowing full well that earthquakes do occur and oftentimes in unexpected areas, would you remain in that town once the dam goes into service? Would you not feel betrayed that the engineers did not heed common sense practices and design for the worst case possibility? Would you not feel more secure if they had designed in mitigating systems to handle an earthquake? Would you feel concerned that these same engineers may be withholding other important details that they don’t want the general public to be aware of? And perhaps most importantly, would you not try to tell others that there is a problem with the concept? Well Mr. Rommees that’s what many knowledgeable people currently believe is happening with CERN.

Note, the problem is not with the dam’s design but with its application. There may never be an earthquake and the dam may last for a thousand years, but does that mean that its safe?

2nd. I would like to know where they have shown this safety you mentioned, apart from their recently released safety report which also addressed the possible fabrication of exotic particles (micro Black Holes included), of which I have reservations that it may be based upon unsound data.

3rd. For your information EVERYTHING about CERN is NEW SCIENCE, nothing of this size or power has ever been attempted before. It is so much more that an up scaling of previous designs, I suggest that you read up on it, you might see it a different light.

4th. Contrary to what you believe, I do support them. I have said this before in earlier blogs, the only point I am trying to make is that I think that they are rushing into this a little too fast, and without PROPERLY evaluating the uglier possibilities!!! They should take some time to better understand the nature of the beast that they plan capture. It would do no harm get some data from the GLAST probe, the Auger Cosmic Ray, and the Fly’s Eye observatory before the full power tests.

5th. I have never mentioned or implied that Black Holes of any size does not exist. The effects driven by them (quasars) can be clearly seen across the visible universe, the size , mass, and gravitational effects of the Super-Massive B-H at the center of the Milky Way has been measured, and the first widely accepted stellar B-H was Cygnus X-1. What remains to be seen are Primordial B-Holes (a Steven Hawking prediction), and Micro Black Holes. I only mentioned that Einstein did not believe in them because this fact could have jeopardized his Theory of General Relativity due to the infinities at the Schwarzschild radius, and normally with any theory, when you encounter infinities this usually tolls the death bell for that theory. I attempted to show that even the brightest minds can be wrong at times.

6th. When you mention that the protons change states in order for it to turn a M-B-H, I have no idea what you are talking about. I do know the anticipated mechanism by which a M-B-H can potentially be formed, I suggest that you do a little reading on the effects of Special Relativity on moving bodies especially as they approach the speed of light. However, if you are denying that CERN can produce a M-B-H then you should read up on CERN, for they themselves are the ones that claim that there is a very slight possibility that a M-B-H could be produced. In fact there are predictions that CERN (under the most optimistic conditions) could produce as many as one M-B-H per second (ref. Giddings & Scott Thomas). Nevertheless, in an attempt to minimize concerns, they also claim that these holes will self destruct before they have a chance to grow. Unfortunately, if they remained stable, they WILL eventually devoir the Earth, and that is a FACT! It may take hours, days, months, or years but the end result would still be the same.

7th. I have never said that the nucleus has a M-B-H, I only mentioned that there is currently a theory floating around that electrons may in fact be micro black holes. You may have heard of one of proponents of this idea being “Dr. Brian Green”, he’s the guy on Nova that tried to explain String Theory, or maybe you missed that episode. What I was trying to present was that there are too many unknowns when dealing with B-H and not everybody is going to be right, there will have to be some wrong ideas out there and lets hope its not CERN’s.

8th. You say that there’s no-way to get the requisite density with so little mass, well again Mr. Rommees I suggest that you do a little more reading on String or the newer “M” Theories, because these physicists are the one that are hoping that CERN does produce a M-B-H since it will prove that our universe is made up of more than the 3 spatial dimensions + time that we are currently aware of. There may perhaps be as much as 11 dimensions (including time) meaning that the gravity affecting the particles could be 1024 times more powerful than that we ourselves experience. I could go into more details but this response to you inanity is already starting to get over extended.

9th. What the h-ll does “Chemical Science” have to do with sub-atomic particle physics? If you want to talk about quarks and now you might be a little closer to the size that CERN will be working with.

10th. I won’t even justify the remaining paragraphs because you obviously have no concept of what is happening to those two protons (or more correctly Hadrons) as they approach the speed of light. If you would have taken the time to read Alan’s article you would have seen this statement “send beams shooting through the collider's ring with the energy of a bullet train”. Instead of wasting your time and mine criticizing the other bloggers I very strongly suggest that you click on some of the links that Alan so very kindly supplied, who knows you may even learn something.

My Grandmother always said “If you have nothing nice to say about someone, then don’t say it”, well Mr. Rommees I suggest that you follow that advice. [...]

Stop it.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:23:58 GMT

RS, NO, LA,
If he did travel back in time his presence could change things and therefore alter the new history from what he was familiar with, but only within his sphere of influence. It’s hard to say how far that would extend, six degrees of separation and all. Astronomical events would be pretty immune, unless the time travel has effects we’re not familiar with. Never having time traveled myself, except for the traditional second by second forward stuff, I’m not familiar at all with the effects of it. So I couldn’t say with any certainty that he’s lying. I will say it without that degree of certainty. But I won’t try to prove him wrong with things I know absolutely nothing about. You go ahead, though, it amuses me.
And wasting money – sports.

Philip J. Calamatas,
See, this is the thing. You’ve articulated yourself so well in the last reply. Using aerospace “safety” procedures is akin to spreading panic with hype that you know will get people worked up even though it has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You have real, valid concerns and you’re able to address them as such. I just prefer it when those that can do. If it’s more fun for you then you could instead equate this to political genocide, a lot of people will react to that even though it’s way off course. (that was #1)
#1(a?) The lousy metaphor was because the problems with it are operator error and not, well see #2. This time, again, your safety concern example is with the ability to hold back water (read contain a proton flow) but what you’re really concerned with is how safe the produced electricity (read exotic resultants) will be. Apples and oranges, geese and moose, different (also valid, just like oranges are still food and moose are still dangerous.) (Yes, the implication is that I’m afraid of geese.)
#2 That was it. The statement refers back to #1, it’s the safety of moving protons / ions. This safety has nothing to do with the safety of the results of their collision. This is why your use of industry was so ill conceived. F-16s are piloted into the stern of aircraft carriers, cars are driven by drunks, these things aren’t addressed by the industries’ safety engineering. From a safety engineering standpoint CERN has satisfied you. That’s not where your concern lies. It’s not whether the plane is safe to fly, it’s whether it’s safe to fly the plane.
#3 None of it is new science. It’s going from muzzle loaders to modern rifles. The change in energy levels will, I expect, give rise to new reactions that require higher energy levels than we’ve used in the same technology already. Somebody put water in the freezer and made ice. There was no new refrigeration science just because the next person put fruit juice in and made a popsicle. Or, more directly, my freezer has a temperature control. Turning down the temp from freeze to deep freeze isn’t new science, but I am able to freeze more things.
#4 I never presumed anything other. I fully support the political system used in the United States. It uses politicians. I definitely have arguments against the politicians and the system. I am in no way floating the idea that we scrap it. You can definitely support and question / disagree at the same time.
#5 I know. Still we don’t even “know” that they exist. There are other feasible, completely benign explanations for our observations. The MBHs in question and so feared are only theoretical possibilities and the same theories used to predict them, when taken to an end, declare them safe.
#6/7/8/9 The possibilities of MBHs being created by cosmic rays has generally netted the idea that if created they would be zooming away at a high rate of speed and unable to do any damage to us here. The concern has been with MBHs created with a net 0 speed. Those effects of Special Relativity that you mention, can you tell me what they are at near rest? That brings us back to the mass of 2 protons, later 2 lead atoms. (9 here) The chemistry part was a reference to how matter seems to prefer a stable state. I am assuming that this extends beyond chemistry, you’re welcome to presume otherwise. An excited atom returns to it’s stable state. If the collision is able to excite the particles into a MBH I see no reason to believe it would continue to exist at rest when the mass effects of Special Relativity no longer apply because they’re at near rest. I see it changing back to regular matter, or it’s parts (white hole.) (6) Changing state: For any given mass of normal matter, let’s pick a proton, there is a Schwarzchild radius (I’ve been spelling that with an s instead of z, is there a way to fix that?) For a proton that radius is much smaller than the volume it takes up. For an atomic nucleus that radius is much smaller than the volume it takes up. For a brick, made up of atoms which contain all that empty space between the nucleus and the electrons, that radius is much, much smaller. With sufficient gravity to collapse the atoms down and remove the excess empty space you can get something like a bunch of golf balls and a bunch of BBs. I’ve never worked things out, but I don’t know if you could get enough mass close enough to be inside the Schwarzchild radius or not, I’ll assume, as I always have, that it is the case and then you come up with your conventional black hole using normal matter. If you can’t pack enough matter close enough together to fit it inside the Schwarchild radius then the only way to get a black hole is for matter to stop being like normal matter. (B-E Condensate as an example.) (Of changing states of matter, not creating a black hole.) Once the protons aren’t traveling near the speed of light I can’t conceive a way to pack them so close together as to have their mass inside the Schwarzchild radius while they are in a normal matter state. For it to be an issue, for their continued existence at rest, the matter I’m made of won’t work (String theory aside.) The reason you have no idea what I’m talking about with that is that it’s kind of absurd. Making the continued existence of a low mass MBH at rest an absurdity. To address the string theory problem, since I am made of the matter I’m made of, protons and such, wouldn’t I be just as likely to generate a black hole in any of the elements having more than one proton in it’s nucleus? Unless you’re a proponent of the opening doorways to other dimensions guys. And if you’re in that school, I don’t know if it was with this article or another so similar as to call this just an update, but in one or another I put forth the idea that these reactions would be taking place internally in stars, and produce their products near rest. That being the case anything we could create would have already been created in abundance, for millions and millions of years, inside the sun, which seems to have survived reasonably well. I’m open to the idea that there are no high speed collisions outside of a particle accelerator but would want some kind of justification for the statement.
#10 What do the effects on the protons near the speed of light have on the results at near the speed of us? If this is really an issue please school me. “It used to have a greater mass so now it behaves oddly.”
#11? Your grandmother sounds very nice.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:29:25 GMT

Possible methods of black hole creation.

There is a lot of speculation going on at this time about the formation of black holes by the LHC at CERN. I’ve been considering the possibilities and am currently entertaining two methods by which a conventional black hole could be created, resulting in two distinct types of black hole, only one or the other of which I believe would actually exist. I think the mechanism by which a conventional black hole comes into existence, if it really does, would shed some light on the possibility of forming a MBH.

The first type is the one that I learned. So much mass is present that the pressure at the core becomes so great the atoms begin to shear, causing the mass to collapse. This would cause the matter to pack together in what would look like a crystalline structure if you considered protons, neutrons and electrons to be like atoms themselves. Once the collapse initiated the radius would decrease causing the gravity profile to increase causing pressure to increase and the entire mass would collapse into a “marble sized” object with incredibly high density. Presumably the amount of mass necessary to precipitate this collapse would have a Schwarzchild radius greater than marble sized and would become a black hole during collapse, continuing to collapse so that there would be a distance between the surface of the core and the Schwarchild radius at the time it was created. In this method pressure shearing tears the atoms apart. At the surface there would be no pressure so you would expect normal matter to exist until, at some radius reached during collapse, gravity became so great that it tears atoms apart before they reach the core. In this model the entire black hole would be densely packed parts of atoms.

The other method is more complex to understand. Assuming that a given object will pull itself into spherical under it’s own gravity it’s volume is 4/3*pi*r^3. 4/3*pi being a constant you can see that the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius. Double the radius and the volume increases by a factor of eight. Assuming a mass of a constant density, no compression under pressure, the mass and therefore it’s gravity also increase in kind. Each amount of mass has a Schwarzchild radius. I have an amount of mass, I have a Schwarzchild radius. Fortunately for me that radius is much, much smaller than I am, so I am not a black hole. As the size of our object increase it’s mass increases and at some point it’s radius is equal to it’s Schwarzchild radius. This will happen with lead, it will happen with marshmallows. At the point it’s radius and it’s Schwarzchild radius are equal it becomes a black hole, and this is possible without shearing the material it’s made of. As the object continues to grow the Schwarchild radius continues to increase and moves out away from the surface of the core, but when created the two radii are the same. This object has a pressure profile that is greatest at it’s center and zero at it’s surface. It has a gravity profile that is zero at it’s center and greatest at it’s surface. At it’s surface we have a condition where gravity is so great that not even light can escape. Under this condition the electrons around the nuclei of all the atoms of material coming in would presumably be unable to move away from the object. As soon as the Schwarzchild radius breaches the surface all atoms coming in would be torn apart. At the very least stripped of their electrons, possibly having their nuclei separated. At it’s creation this model would have regular, uncompressed matter at it’s surface. The free electrons would be pulled toward the center by the immense gravity and the surface would consist of protons and neutrons held together by that gravity. A black hole would be a shell of protons and neutrons with an interior of regular matter (taking on more and more electrons as more material fell in.) It is possible, perhaps even likely, that shearing gravity would be reached before the Schwarzchild radius breached the surface, in which case it would be a naked anomaly, a black hole in every regard except it would be visible. Every condition this model reaches would be reached faster if pressure and gravity caused the material to compress as it piled up.

Either method would require / result in shearing the electrons from atoms. The first uses pressure as the initial shearing force followed by gravity, the second uses gravity. The great difference would be the size of the resultant black hole. The first would be as small as a marble, the second would be larger than a neutron star. Both would appear the same from the outside.

For proton collisions at the LHC, using 8 sections at 3.3 km, and 11245 trips around per second nets a speed of 296868000 m/s (99.0245 %c), gamma = 102.51214, the apparent mass of the two protons combined at the time of collision will be 3.43E-25 kg. Assuming the combined protons form a sphere (minimum volume) of the same volume as the combined two when separate (using the smallest value found) the radius of the sphere will be 1.93398E-15 m. This is the Schwarchild radius for a mass of 1.3E+12 kg. The speed calculation could be off. To have the necessary apparent mass would require a speed of 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999934 (9s carried out to 75 spaces followed by 34) %c (approximate). The difference between the speeds they’ll produce and the speed necessary to get 2 protons to “flash over” to a black hole is an enormous amount of energy. It takes more than that if they’re not in the theoretically impossible 2 proton sphere (double proton, six quark thingy). Or if protons are larger than the smallest value I could find published. I’m going to go with theoretically impossible to produce.

Now, let’s assume I’m wrong and we can get them to “flash over” to a black hole. If they became a black hole traveling side by side then they’d zip off away from Earth before they could do much. If they became a black hole from a head on collision they’d stop and visit for a while. At rest. With an apparent mass of their mass. This will be ever so slightly below the 1.3E+12 kg necessary to be packed into that ridiculously minimized r(s). Theoretically, they couldn’t stay a black hole any time at all. You wouldn’t even have time to welcome them to CERN. Their system gravity would fall way, way, way, way, way, way below what it would take to even bind them together. Minimum binding energy for a proton seems to be 3.5 MeV and that’s for a normal situation binding to a nucleus with neutrons. We don’t see proton-proton binding normally so I personally expect that this value would be much higher. Now you have a black hole changing back to just regular matter along with a release of energy about equal to the difference between two protons worth and that of colliding bullet trains. Shields up and close the blast doors.

I’m still going with black hole – no, naked anomaly – maybe.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 12:14:48 GMT

To clear things up. If the matter doesn't compress at all then double the radius, the amount of mass goes up x8, at the new surface radius effective gravity will have doubled. On reread it seemed like I meant the effective surface gravity increased by x8, I didn't mean that. 9 out to 75 spaces s/b places. I used anomaly, singularity is more commonly used.
In the previous reply, the new state of matter thing is because matter in any state I now know of can't pack down small enough to be inside it's r(s) at small masses. For a MBH to stay the small amount of mass would have to take less volume than r(s). It would have to exist as some sort of wave or break down into individual quarks that settled down instead of orbiting or something. "something" can be read as nothing I've even heard speculated.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tammy A — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 00:58:45 GMT

Thanks for inventing one more thing to muck up our world. Take your billions and clean up our polluted waters, tainted food and starving people. Let God take care of the rest.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:48:08 GMT

Why not leg God take care of the polluted waters, tainted food and starving people? Or do you not think he's up to it? What's that you say, he can do anything! But the waters are still polluted, the food is still tainted and the people are still starving. I guess your conclussion is he just doesn't care. I'm just delighted you thought it would be a good thing to pull God into the conversation.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:23:33 GMT

THE "GOD" CONCEPT
"-- pull God into the conservation." Some concepts of God include the concept of omnipresence and< with such< there is no need for any pulling in. Some say that the concept of God is ridiculous for them (and do their best to convert others to this position). What follows can be ignored by those who doubt their own existaence and the existence of our universe. Once we acknowledge that our universe exists, it makes sense to consider its properties. One of our great discoveries is that the speed of light in our universe is finite. Why this speed has the size it does seems to be connected to the development and preservation of our universe. For example, if the maximum speed of light (usually indicated by the letter "c") were orders of magnitude (maybe one order would be enough) higher or lower,the "whole show" would be off. This "special" size for "c" probably has close to an infinite number of other cosequences. One such consequence might be to protect itself, with us included, from our creating catastrophic consequences, another, perhaps, to keep us from visiting other galaxies (or other planets in our own galaxy) before we get smart enough, There is ample evidence of a very non-benevolent universe to make an army of atheists; nonetheless, most would consider the fact that we are here at all requires an enormous amount of benevolence (again, those prone to atheism would replace "benevolence" with "chance" or "good luck"). One can readily see that those who have a certain concept of God can rest easy about the LHC (and many other things) while those leaving it all to chance may be uneasy (but why should it really matter to them, if they are consistent, if we due to a totally by chance happening get destroyed?). Either way, by the hands of benevolence or chance, it seems all can relax if they want. As for me, my faih is that the sun etc. will come up the day after the LHC hits its maximum power. Benevolence (our universe knows what it's doing even if we don't) or good luck, which can be seen as benevolence if one wishes. Those with a certain concept of God, that may include benevolence, can take the success of the LHC as evidence of benevolence (diviune protection or guidance?) others may cry "What great luck!". The odds are fantasticlly, (perhaps, even infinitely for "believers") great that all can be happyin their own way. :-)
P.S. Thomas, see what an encouraging word or two can do. Thank you. (Hope this stuff does not make you sorry.)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Carlton, Kamuela, Hawaii — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:17:20 GMT

WHOOPS, SORRY and MAYBE
Whoops, never knew conversation and conservation resulted by switching "v" and "s". Anyway conservation should have been conversation.
Sorry, Tim, your good writings (everyone seems to have bad writings also) should have kept me from using "Thomas". Again, sorry, Tim. It is, also, refreshing, Tim to see your writing that we are trying to see how God did it rather than how chance did it. God is still a useful word and we should not let our freedom of speech and other things be hampered by those who don't like hearing, seeing, or whatever the word God. God is a useful concept and does things that "chance" finds problematical or opening cans of worms. "Chance" (some may define it to avoid some problems) seems so antithetical to intelligence that seeing it as the source of intelligence comes close to, if not actually being, self-contradictory. However, intelligence does not rule out chance while "chance" defined in certain ways (absolute chance?) could rule out intelligence.
Maybe: I'd, also, like to say that there is so much about our universe that makes it seem partial to our being able to uncover how it works. Example? If our universe were not expanding and, thereby, producing red-shifts that require light to have a finite speed to be seen, we would find uncovering its physical truths far more difficult, if not impossible to verify.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:53:11 GMT

If we have more conservation conversation there will always be a butterfly to flutter by.

Carlton,
Strong believer that we're just peering in on God's handiwork. The very unsciencey thing we stand to learn is how God did what he did. And that will just tell us more about him and his character. It just irritates me when people treat things like if we didn't do this then all the woes of the world would be fixed. Personally, I think the only way we'll end the woes of man is getting rid of man. So let's keep those woes going. You know, the Garden of Eden was the perfect place for man before God put man there.

Big day set for big-bang machine

fxgj — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:21:37 GMT

So whats the point of the machine? Is just to say "Hey we built the most expensive machine"?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:42:21 GMT

fxgj,
You don't have to be embarassed about your question, you could put your name. Be chicken when you put something really stupid. The point is discovery. At issue are the consequences. Some fear consequences that are so bad as to be Earth ending, some hope for consequences that are so scientifically advancing as to make us now look like cavemen. The undocumented "experiments" that nature has conducted for millions of years make the first concerns look like complete nonsense. Equally nonsensical is the idea that we'll develop a technology that let's us beam to a star system in a far off galaxy and back again. All of our experience tells us that we'll end up comfortably away from either extreme, there may be casualties but we'll wind up with knowledge that drastically improves all of mankind.

Big day set for big-bang machine

james marsh, Kalamazoo, MI 49009 — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 06:51:45 GMT

11:05 PM 8/24/2008

How can you get Eternal Life and Eternal Death from the same Big Bang explosion, that created the whole Earth and the Universe also? It would have been either Eternal Life or Eternal Death but not both. Einstein's equation E=MC2 proves this to be a fact! You are looking at two separate entities. The Life (Eternal Life) that the Big Bang created, would have been destroyed by the Death (Eternal Death) that the same Big Bang explosion created also. Therefore, THIS Big Bang was doomed before it left the drawing board! The Earth and the whole Universe would have been reduced to NOTHING! THE BIG BANG CAME FROM NOTHING AND NOW IT'S REDUCED ITSELF, THE EARTH AND THE WHOLE UNIVERSE BACK TO NOTHING! Is this what you plan on doing with your BIG BANG MACHINE? Until you can answer this question I am going to start a movement to stop you from testing your Big Bang Machine, you are planning on testing. I have tried to answer this Life and Death question myself in the Evolution theory, Creation theory and even Aliens from outer space creating the Earth and the Universe and it just doesn't add up. Therefore, if you blow up this Earth, then where is my Family, myself and Loved ones go to live? I for one am not going to let this happen. If you can not figure out how Life and Death came from this same Big Bang, and no body has answered my question yet. Then I am going to put forth every effort to STOP YOU FROM TESTING YOUR BIG BANG MACHINE!!! Everybody, this is your World also. Give me some feed back on this. The Titanic was unsinkable, but now it lays on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:14:55 GMT

This won't happen from nothing. It's not a "big bang" anymore than a stick of dynomite. Beyond that I'm not sure what the life and death you're talking about are. Perhaps a little more detail. There is as much uncertainty here, as say, testing high power magnetic tunneling. You don't know exactly what will happen, but nobody knew exactly what would happen when you add baking soda to pyrotechnics either. Nobody thought that would end the world because they were smart enough to know that there is a realm of possibilities and pyro + baking soda creating a wormhole to another universe was outside that realm. You have to look at this and wonder how much credibility is involved in the naysayers. Some are obviously just paranoid crackpots. Some are credible scientists. For those with credibility you have to wonder how much of what they say is just questions and how much is actually backed theory. All of it starts as just questions, as happened with atomic bomb testing, but after examination those questions have been set aside because they were answered, as happened with atomic bomb testing. Are your fears just based on the fact that there were ever questions or are they based on something with substance?

Big day set for big-bang machine

james marsh, kalamazoo, MI — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:35:10 GMT

Einstein's equation E=MC2. Are you saying that he was a crack pot? If so, then all scientists must be because they all use his equation, in the Big Bang theory. My question is this, Where did life come from and the Earth as well as the whole Universe? The Evolution theory is it all came from The Big Bang. If this is true, then this gigantic explosion would have created Death not Life. We are not talking about a wormhole here. We are talking about common sense as to what could happen to the testing of this Big Bang Machine. What is there to keep it from setting off all the atoms in the Earth and the whole Universe. If this happens, then everything will be reduced to a nothingness. And at last Mankind will destroy the whole entire Universe as so many scientists believe will happen.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:50:06 GMT

James,
If you're going to refer to Big Bang theory then this can be a Big Kapow machine, but not a Big Bang one. In the Big Bang everything was created out of nothing. Everything has a whole lot of energy. Enough energy to kill any life around it if it hadn't been a bunch of nothing instead of life. Out of the Big Bang we got plasma, a hot soup of all the little stuff that atoms are eventually made of. Out of the Big Kapow machine we may also get plasma. Now to compare. Falling into a vat of hot oil will kill you, having the mist that rises off of hot oil land on your arm won't do you any harm. On the one hand we have the Big Bang with all it's energy, like a giant vat of hot oil. On the other hand we have a reaction in the LHC, the mist that floated off the top of the vat. There's more energy in the spark when you flic your bic than a collision in the collider will have. Well, maybe more than the spark, but less than the flame. What little energy it does have will be divided among and dispersed by the stuff that gets loosed (plasma?) Walking on the sun will bring death, walking on the earth in the sunlight is still way to close to the same for this comparison, walking on Pluto in the sunlight is still way to close, in fact, to make a reasonble comparison to the difference in energy levels we're talking about you'd have to move so far from the sun that other stars would give so much more energy that you couldn't continue to separate out the energy you receive from our sun.
And life is not a direct result of the Big Bang. It's far more credible to say a story is a result of the paper it's written on. All the direct results of the Big Bang would bring death. In that observation you are correct. But only because of the great quantity of heat, the great quantity of plasma, the great quantity of radiation. In these experiments those things are present in itty, itty, itty, itty, itty, ... , itty, bitty quantities. And the leftover energy in the parts isn't enough to set off any other particles, so no chain reaction.
Unless the question I posed earlier here or another article is actually right. What if matter contains vast undetected amounts of both positive and negative energy? Then, if we seperated those energies, we could be dealing with an atomic bomb's worth of positive energy and an atomic bomb's worth of negative energy. But that's just a question, there is no basis for it.

Big day set for big-bang machine

james marsh, kalamazoo, MI — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:45:38 GMT

The Big Bang theory says that there is no God. So where did EVERYTHING come from that created the Earth and the Universe? If it all came from the Big Bang, then this gigantic explosion must have set off all of the atoms on the Earth and Universe and that is how the whole Universe came into being. Even though it was itty, itty, itty, itty, itty, ... , itty, bitty quantities. And it must have created light that travels at the speed of 186,000 miles per second. Then this Big Bang must have had the power to create this positive power and blow up every atom in the Universe in order to do this. As we consider the Orion Star, it is about 9,000,000,000,000,000 miles from our earth. 6,000,000,000,000 miles= 1 light year.x 1500 light years to the Orion = 9,000,000,000,000,000 miles. WOW this Big Bang must have set off every atom in the whole entire Universe and then some. In an itty, bitty atom explosion there is a mushrooming effect and this is what created our Earth and Universe. We know this for a fact because of the Atomic Bomb that exploded in Japan in World War 2. But this explosion didn't create anything but rather it destroyed EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. Then how do you get Life and EVERYTHING came from the Big Bang? My question still remains unanswered, how can you get Eternal Life and Eternal Death from the same Big Bang explosion and are we sure that this Big Bang Machine test will not reduce everything on our Earth and Universe to NOTHING.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:21:34 GMT

[...] First, separately, the Big Bang theory does not exclude God. People exclude God and then grasp for anything to support the idea. God could have created the universe as it is right now, with people in the middle of conversations. But God is a god of process, he didn't create everything in it's finished state. We are only seeing some of how he did what he did. One day we may produce life in the lab by simulating the conditions in which life started. This would only be the discovery of how God did it, not proof there is no god.

Any way, back to the previously stated: Big Bang = huge quantities, Big Kapow machine = itty ... bitty quantities. Big Bang had the power to blow up every atom around it, quantity of atoms around it, 0. Number of things killed by Big Bang, 0. Number of living things available for Big Bang to kill, 0. If there had been 10 living things near Big Bang then it would have killed 10 things. There weren't 10 living things because there was nothing. Number of atoms the Big Bang set off, 0. Number of atoms that eventually came into being from the stuff of the Big Bang, well, I don't think anyone's ever counted them, suffice it to say, all. I'm not sure what the "mushrooming effect" you're talking about it, my guess is that of one atom exploding, then the stuff from that atom causing other atoms around it to explode, then the stuff from those atoms causing other atoms to explode, etc. This is how an atomic explosion happens, on a slower scale it's how nuclear reactors work. For this to work, however, you have to have the other atoms, prone to undergo this explosion, in the immediate vicinity in sufficient quantity. In nature these atoms are generally spread over great (relative) distances. The fuel for the reaction has to be mined and then very highly refined. In nature an individual atom will explode, this happens all the time, but it rarely results in another atom exploding. That's because the atoms near it aren't prone to this explosion. That "mushrooming effect" was because there was a lot of highly refined fissionable material all crammed together. That allowed for a chain reaction that set off all of them at the same time. One big explosion. That's like one domino tipping over into 2 dominoes, and each of those tipping into 2 more dominoes, and ... What happens in nature is usally like 1 domino falling over. That's what will happen here. The Big Kapow machine will set up the extremely difficult conditions to smash 2 things together. The stuff that explodes out from that collision will not have the immense amount of energy to cause anything else to explode, no chain reaction, no "mushrooming effect."

For all you wise people out there, I know about the way I just hacked that. It was not written for you with some physics finess. Consider the audience before you rip me a new one.

Now, as to how I get Life and EVERYTHING came from the Big Bang. The Big Bang produced this hot soup of stuff. As that hot soup boils around some things happen into each other under the right conditions to stick together and form bigger, more complex things. Eventually, in that soup, we have the makings for simple atoms. As those parts are stirring around they form simple atoms, Hydrogen. The Hydrogen groups together and forms stars. The stars distill out heavier atoms.

Those atoms are flung out across the heavens. They come together through gravitational attraction and form the stuff we see around us, in the big sense. Now we have the primordial earth. Again we have a kind of soup, large molecules are formed, then amino acids, then proteins, then, somehow, life begins.

Big Bang, lot’s of destructive power with nothing to destroy. I guess that’s your “Eternal Death.” From that, eventually, life. I guess that’s your “Eternal Life.”
And as far as the atomic explosions go, very little was actually destroyed, in the sense you’re using it here. Mostly, things got knocked down. That by a pressure wave, a strong wind. Things got destroyed only in the sense that they get destroyed by a tornado. This was a loss of engineering structure, not the obliteration of matter. Even in the core of the bomb, most of the matter just broke into smaller pieces. No explosion we’ve ever made, or can make today, would even tickle a star. So yes, we’re sure that the Big KAPOW machine won’t reduce us to nothing.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Ray Sparrow — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:10:02 GMT

I have to ask, have you guys ever put a religious aspect on you theories? Do you think that this earth was made from nothing and you were made from thin air? I believe that's total bull. I can't even believe you guys are even doing this. Putting lives at stake. Watch, the Lord will find fault with those who find fault with what he says.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:41:31 GMT

Chris Reeve,
On 8/10 I posted a reply to one of your posts that had a question you quoted on 8/11 but failed to give any information on. As you quoted it, I assume you wished to address it somewhat directly. Perhaps you just got off track once you started answering. I think we're all prone to that. As a general restatement, you asked about solar wind slowing as it passes the planets. In what terms do you mean passing the planets?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:40:04 GMT

Ray Sparrow,
Nothing in any of this (the science) finds fault with anything God says. Your interpretation of what God says, maybe, but that all depends on the spin you add. What your particular spin is probably depends on what denomination you're in. All the various denominations come to different conclusions based on the exact same sayings of God. While definitely a work in progress, scientific discovery could only ever hope to answer how God did it and never why. If you've got a real gripe about people discovering the how you've got plenty to keep you busy in medicine. That science that has extended so many lives.

Big day set for big-bang machine

james marsh, MI — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 23:40:21 GMT

Einstein's equation E=MC2. I am going to break down Einstein's equation in the Evolution theory. What is Einstein's equation?
E=energy, M=mass, C=speed of light and 2=this equation squared. So what the believer's of Evolution is saying is simply this. E=energy (the power of nothingness) created a Big Bang explosion. M=mass amount of and in the E=energy of nothingness. C=the speed of the E=energy and M=the mass of the nothingness. 2=Squared, this Energy of the Mass of nothingness going in every direction. When you therefore square this equation (according to Einstein's theory, Then every itty, itty, itty, itty, itty, ... , itty, bitty quantity is made up of a nothingness. How fast does the Energy of the Mass of nothingness squared travel? Who knows. But regardless of how slow or fast it would have traveled. It would have created nothing because this all that the Mass of Energy within it represents. What are we then saying about Einstein's equation? that he was a crack pot? If so, then all scientists must be because they all use his equation, in the Big Bang theory. Now, if we take Einstein's formula and keep on squaring it over and over again you will soon discovered that this nothingness goes into infinity. Therefore, the only thing, according to his theory, that the Big Bang could have created, on this Earth or the Universe would have been in a state of nothingness. 2 x 2= 4 x 4= 16 x 16= 256 x 256= 65,536 x 65,536= 4,294,967,296 x 4,294,967,296= 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 x 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 x= 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38. All you end up with is infinity of nothingness. Therefore according to Einstein's equation, the Evolution theory is just that a theory because it can't be proven and then therefore it is not a fact. Ops, no itty bitty this or that but an absolute fact of nothingness!!! Time to go back to the drawing board again. And scrap your Big Bang Machine because there is no Big Band that created anything, but rather it would have created a nothingness.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:45:23 GMT

Only the c gets squared, not E=(mc)^2. And this only works if you've got energy or matter. That is, post Big Bang. It doesn't address, at all, the Big Bang itself. If you want to look at the state of things prior to the Big Bang, assuming time, it still stands. It would be 0=0*c^2=0, or simply 0=0, which is, of course, correct. Correct but meaningless.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On 8/29 I posted a comment, you edited my opening. I stand by what I wrote.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Nat, Hinckley, England — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:47:44 GMT

Even if there is the smallest chance possible of something bad occurring - isn't that enough for them to say "let's leave this alone". It frightens me that people are being given the "go-ahead" to to do something that (small possibility or not) could destroy the planet??

Im scared about this happening.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jason ,glasgow,scotland — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:23:36 GMT

you sientist guys are idiots why spend 10billion on makin a crappy stupid pointless machin when u could have used that money to end poverty in africa ect and help people live better lives rather than muck around with black holes an atomes wich could potentialy end the earth ,that has got to be the most stupidest thing i have ever heard seen a read u all should put a bit more logical thought in to theys kinda things why fool around with something that is potentialy so dangerouse as to wipe out the whole of mankind an no one will ever know we existed if this happend , u guys are stupid!

Big day set for big-bang machine

kent england — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:55:44 GMT

how stupid can they be. that money can go to other contries that need it.there should be a world vote on it.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Danny Neely — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:36:02 GMT

Me again... ive just read the "France builds Doomsday Machine" article on www.misunderstooduniverse.com and ... well ive read a good amount of comments from both pages now... worryingly both sets of people (those who believe it will end us all and those who believe it'll be fine and we will discover new things) are both simply raising there arguments based on THEORIES nothing more..
I'm 16, I can make theories too, it's is essentially an educated guess into something that we cannot be educated about as all we have to base it on is theories (stay with me on this one :p) so no matter how reassuring these guys are , they are simply using "proven physics"... which is also just theories... just coz we detect radiation in universe who says its there? the machine that detects said radiation could only have been built on the back of a "theory" coz b4 the machine was invented there was no way of knowing...
To sum my post(s) up... 'messing around' with things never tested on this scale before , nor never proven (as these tests we done on the back of theories) ... there are things in this world that should'nt be underestimated... adding peanut butter to Kit Kat's is messing with things we KNOW have minimal consiquences is fine... but i mean come on... we are taliing about a force that is of infinite power essentially and we wanna try to conceal it in a tank... THIS WILL NOT END WELL , pls dont reply to this psot with scientific equations about how much energy was created in the big bang and how much is gonna be created by this LHC because it will further prove my point about theories

Finally, as i said earlier, i am in no way religious however if there is a God i desperately hope he will be wathing over us... we are going to need it as we are merely an inquisitive race who make mistakes on a bit rock in an unknown and unknowable creation ... there's a line you scientists shouldn't cross... you've sorta spat on that line and ran passed it this time... I will be praying for us all

Big day set for big-bang machine

Danny Neely — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:40:28 GMT

One Last thing from me,
sounds ridiculous... actually no more ridiculous than this whole experiemtn seems to me but w/e
how do we know that the original "big bang" that we theorise repeatedly in this experiment wasn't simply a universe exactly onewe live in, with everyone and everything the same... and this was what they did after X years of existence... they bang on and on about timeloops... how do they know that that wasn't how the orignal 'BB' happened? ... another useless thory to throw into this mix of dangerous endeavoury and massive fear.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jyothsna, bangalore, karnataka — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:22:27 GMT

what is this machine exactly does. is the explosion of the earth causes due do this machine starts up on sep 10?. Is all this talks are just like the talks that had in our olden days when the rocket invention done newly. Can you clearly explain the thing how this machine is going to be useful to mankind in future. is this only like the satellite kind of thing or what? what we are going to do by seeing the whole universe or by seeing our future / past. what should happen is going to happen by the timeset of god(super natural power). how much sum did u spent on this invention. that the smae thing if u spent on some useful thing to the people. that could be the great thing. is this machine is really worthable to the mankind?

Big day set for big-bang machine

chris manchester — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:49:03 GMT

if nobody has read yet that this "machine" could destroy the world your crazy...

for starters what does this machince do????
and why doit they are endangering all that we know

Big day set for big-bang machine

IQBAL KHAN, HANUMANGARH (RAJASTHAN) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 10:04:28 GMT

BEST OF LUCK. GOD HELP YOU FOR THIS RESEARCH.
(IQBAL)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Suman chary, Hyderabad, AndhraPradesh — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:34:30 GMT

Science is used on objects and tested 100% by scientists, only then the experiment is said to be success. funding that huge amount and experimenting a good cause, i feel, will never end in some catastrophe. i am with the LHC. we will speak face to face with STRANGELET. :)

Big day set for big-bang machine

TTerindoors, Cheltenham UK — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:39:42 GMT

This is really big! What going to happen? TomorrowTimes.com is taking your predictions now at http://www.tomorrowtimes.com/technology-big-bang-day-will-the-earth-be-destroyed

Big day set for big-bang machine

setu bhopal (city) MP(state) — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 14:25:39 GMT

just now i came to know that great explosions might take place while making big bang.if any one knows about it contact me.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Capt. Falcone — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:40:46 GMT

Joy! Maybe when people realise what science has done for us all, then we can all go home happy. As for the whole "Big Bang Theory" and "Genesis", well the first person to die and come back from the heavens to tell us what really happened will get a drink on me. Until then, just keep speculating, the bible was written years after JH Christ, by very old guys, and science...well it is all trial and error, or sometimes just a mistake...like rubber...

Let's all just wait and see, be patient...keep pestering and picking fights with eachother, until the questions you ask are actually answered, from one or the other...hell maybe even both. Maybe God made it this way to see if we could figure out how to cure diseases or poverty that was stricken upon us by Eve...ouch...i know some religious groups didn't like that whole, "God punishes people, even for the most gullible reasons," comment. Anyway, I'm getting off work...it's about that time. Keep up the debates, just don't get too upset folks. :)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Matt St James MO — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:27:08 GMT

I Think it will be awesome to see what results they get from this machine i am looking forward to the big day. Good Luck to you guys and hope you get what your looking for.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Matt St James MO — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:28:20 GMT

I Think it will be awesome to see what results they get from this machine i am looking forward to the big day. Good Luck to you guys and hope you get what your looking for.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Darie Puica, Florence, NJ — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:21:06 GMT

ok we still don't know what's gonna happen until we see it on TV , its either something good, like they're gonna find out how big bang was, or new portals to other worlds, or, it could be a disaster, where there will be a small black hole for a millisecond and the next thing u know, we're all dead, well u never know whats gonna happen till YOU SEE IT

Big day set for big-bang machine

Rebecca Ibbs London England — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:05:18 GMT

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bigbangmachine

Big day set for big-bang machine

Ravi kathet, Delhi, Delhi — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:36:36 GMT

best of luck for the experiment whose success will be the greatest acheivement ever by science and the biggest gift to the mankind.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chloe Else, Sutton, UK — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 12:36:36 GMT

If the scientists start the big bang machine and it works then they will kill everyone and everything in the univerce so i dont think they should do it they are doing it to prove a point but they wont have anyone to prove their point to because we will all be dead!!! and people are really starting to worry when i first heared it i was a bit ohhhh no but they after about 5 mins of looking on the internet there was a bit of prove but then i stopped beleving that it would happen then this morning when i woke up i thaught oh no its going to happen tomorrow and im getting kinda scared but hopefully it wont work. The people who want it to work are mad becuase it will kill every inocent person and thing in the univerce please dont turn it on.

Big day set for big-bang machine

john doe, seattle, wash — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:00:30 GMT

it going to be the end of the world?!?!?!?!?!?! isnt it???...

Big day set for big-bang machine

northern ireland — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:50:00 GMT

i dont want to die !!! will this thign kill me can someone explain it to me!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Elvedin — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:12:57 GMT

Good luck Team i hope all will be good .the machine is really cool but it can destroy the world.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Clayton, Raleigh, NC — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:30:47 GMT

This in no way would disprove the existence of God. The Bible never said how he did it, just that he did it. What makes you think God could not have used a big bang to create the universe. Oh, but some of you think it was an accident. If it was an accident, why did humans have to spend 10 billion to TRY and recreate it? If it happened as an accident all those years ago, seems like it probably would have happened again. But it has only happened once, and it probably took something devine to do it. I know I'd rather believe in God......if Im wrong, oh well. If Im right, I've gained everything.

All that said, Im still for it. The progression of science does not bother me as a believer in God. They just might find exactly what they werent looking for.

Big day set for big-bang machine

The Dolphins — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:39:09 GMT

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Big day set for big-bang machine

anna megson — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 20:54:02 GMT

i hope everything goes well but if not im gunna be really ticked off because ive only been alive 11 years and so far this worlds been ok. a bit of a pig sty but ok

Big day set for big-bang machine

freya wiltshire england — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:03:48 GMT

if you think about it, what if this has been done i the past, creating a mini universe as a result. thast would make those people technically god and us in his universe, yet we are an experiment. if this does provove the theory however does this mean we will have a religious war as it messes with the concepts of religion and gods. i think that maybe we should not go ahead with this, yes it may open doors but at the same time it may close a special door, our entire being! i know this seems o so exciting but what is the risk we are taking, all of this is just theory, the theories oculd be wrong and this could end in genius or catastrophy. i think we need to think about this, we as the general publlic had no say in this, 100 thousand have the say to the lives of 6billion people? all our lives are at risk for and experiment. maybe we should just leave well alone. by posting thisi mean no harm to those who support this experiment, but am 14 and i dont want to die, we are all happy with life and the world is good. we are risking humanity for the sake of a theory created by one man. if we always go by theories then we will get ourselves into trouble. please remember we only get one chance, if we mess this up there's no going back. on the whole i geuss what wil be will be, i just wish this was moore planned out and that cern would have asked the public aobut their views, but did they fear we would say no. i think we need a vite, after all the money that the governemnt are using is the publicsmoney. how do you feel knowing your money is being spent on a possible mass murder item? please sighn the online petition against it, please consider the public and remember so many are against it. maybe this experiment could be done in 50 years time, but not yet, not whilst we are unsure of the result, thid takes time and tests need to be carried out first with atoms at a slower place. we are asking for suicide. please help, i,like many others, dont want to die. thank you for reading and sorry for the spelling its late. freya x

Big day set for big-bang machine

Me in the UK — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:44:39 GMT

I predict, on the day before the LHC is fired up, that the Higgs will never be scientifically found. It is a real but, unfortunately for scientists, paradoxical particle (or event symbol). Don't try and understand that unless you feel like going insane. It's not called the 'God particle' for nothing.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Sam Moncton NB — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:18:27 GMT

Can someone just explain it simply. In layman's terms what exactly will be happening?

[ALAN ADDS: Try this: For almost 80 years, physicists have been learning how atoms work by colliding them together and seeing what pieces fly out. If you wanted to learn how a watch worked, for example, and you couldn't pry the cover off, you might eventually have to smash the watch open and see what pieces were inside. Same with atoms. But physicists found that they didn't have to stop with atoms. The smaller pieces of atoms - subatomic particles - were made of even smaller things, and so physicists smashed the particles together to learn about those even smaller particles. This new experiment smashes particles (specifically, protons) together much more energetically than any previous collider, and they expect to see things happen that could explain some of the puzzles that have been troubling scientists for years. These things happen in space all the time, because cosmic rays are much more energetic than the protons smashed together in the new collider. But they don't happen in a controlled setting where they can be studied on Earth.

[Some people are afraid that some of the things that happen could harm our planet, but after taking a hard look at previous observations and what we know about atoms and the pieces of atoms so far, the physicists who know the subject best say there's no threat of harm. Other folks, who don't have credentials in the field, aren't convinced and have been pressing to hold up on the experiment.

[The new collider, called the Large Hadron Collider, has been sending protons in beams around an underground tunnel during months of testing, but on Wednesday, protons will be sent all the way around the ring. No collisions will occur, however, because these protons will not be hitting an opposite beam. The first collisions, at energies that have been achieved before at a different collider in Illinois, are expected to occur in a month. The new collider won't reach its top energy until next year.]

Big day set for big-bang machine

dj hall,cleveland — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 23:57:05 GMT

hey who gives a crap on what this thing does. i would rather live my life then found out something stupid about the big bang theory whats the point if we could ALL DIE ARE YOU PEOPLE SUPID think its our life were talking about is it worth it because i dont im only 18 and i want to live me life in safty.. please stop this if you can.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Sarah — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 01:18:10 GMT

They shouldn't do this i think.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Chelsea Q, Cabot AR — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 02:51:06 GMT

Don't believe any of this non sence at all. I'm fifteen years old and I possibly don't believe any of this foolish, childish, and stupid stuff. This will not make the end of the world come, I'm pretty positive. I didn't hear about this crap until today, so if it was such a big deal for the world to come to an end, how come I didn't hear about it months or whatever ago? Don't waste your time looking up stupid stuff on this machine, the world ending, or what ever else you believe. This is rediculous. Good luck with your stupidity.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Bob Chance, Vancouver, WA — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 03:35:43 GMT

@Charles Kapplinger Jr:
Would you like to back up your claim that the Big Bang theory is incorrect, through empirical evidence and research?

I'll be waiting.

Big day set for big-bang machine

jemma , glasgow ,scotland — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:38:14 GMT

this experiment worried me, because there were rumours going about saying if the experiment went wrong it could end in the extinction of man kind i have a whole life in front of me and i would rather live it. My teachers tell me that there is no cahnce that we could be swallowed up in a black hole however if they are recreating the BIG BANG something could go wrong

Big day set for big-bang machine

Matthew Garduno — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 12:06:52 GMT

Honestly, If they do succeed, why would you want to make an explosion that big on Earth? How do they intend to control this "BIG BANG" if they succeed?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:45:10 GMT

Itty Bitty Bang, people. This is a firecracker, you're talking about a planet sized ball of TNT. Same "explosion" presumably, so they'll be able to study like resultants, different scale.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Katie, grandville, MI — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:37:47 GMT

just because a process can be replicated doesn't mean that it happened by impossible chance in the first place. theistic evolution. the question remains where did the particles come from that where supposidly used in the first place.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Albi,Guce,Gurnee,Illnois — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:31:42 GMT

The world total messed up this time risking the world to try a stupied experment it is useless ok the world will learn that the bigbang could have been than what all that money and time wasted for what?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:45:05 GMT

Okay, its cool if you don't believe in god. Some people actually do though. I think it makes sence. I do not believe in the "Big Bang" its my opinion and right. Heres one you can't answer how did the matter which started the "Big Bang" get here. How did anything start. Aha. Look at both sides next time before you go around dissing. ;]

Big day set for big-bang machine

SciKid, Detroit, MI — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 22:01:25 GMT

If this thing really does screw up and generates a black hole, I have one thing to say for everyone.

PARTY AT MY HOUSE!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Oliver Osorio,Tustin,CA — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:00:25 GMT

I swaer what does the world get for all this. Just knoledge but ya knoledge that risks billions of human lives here its stupid why cant we just not research just forget big bang theory, there could be maybe trillions of universes around this one we are in, we humans expect to much of us humans we just have to live on earth and protect life not risk it on a stupid project that know one will care about.I only bealive that there is more universes out there maybe with life that has done the same as us of making a project like this one.Just remember we are not the only living things in the universe,the core must have mysteries like old rocks from begining of time or maybe life.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Charles Kapplinger — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:26:33 GMT

Bob Chance,

If you have an e-mail address that you can post, I can send you my information.

Charles K.

Big day set for big-bang machine

kevin, Hayward, Ca — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:44:28 GMT

Hi folks.
It's kinda sad knowing that even if the majority of the world was against this madness, there's nothing we can do about it. This venture into the unknown can only go three ways. (Good, bad or ugly).
Sounds a lot like a gamble. To bad they don't try this in space instead of on earth. At least we could aim some of our missiles at it if it were to come after us.
On the other hand, if time travel becomes reality, say goodbye to the lotteries. Could you imagine what you could do with time travel. Unlimited.
Then theirs the 3rd thought that comes to mind. Possibly nothing will happen. Wow what a huge waste of money. I wonder if Bush is using our tax dollars to fund this one to. Hmmmm.

Big day set for big-bang machine

catherine hill, Princeton, N.C. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:33:43 GMT

Sounds like these people have a God complex. What makes supposed intelligent educated people think that if they actually succeed in this experiment, that it can be contained. Sounds prideful, and we all know what happens with that. ( Pride cometh before the fall.) I think we are headed for something man can not handle, and they need to leave creation to the one that can.I just hope that these people are ready to accept the consequences of their actions if something catastrophic happens. I pray that the machine just won't work. aman

Big day set for big-bang machine

Frank, Rocky Mount, NC — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 13:36:05 GMT

It sounds like scientists are trying to receate something that NEVER happened.

Big day set for big-bang machine

catherine hill, Princeton, N.C. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:09:50 GMT

Even if this experiment does work, you can't dispell the idea of God. You'll just add to his glory. It will certainly show humans how vulnerable we are to a God with so much power, that all He had to do was speak a word, and it created. We have to spend billions, and have no assurances that this whole thing might destroy all of us. I have a great respect for science. I have no desire to put down anyone who does research that can improve life. I believe it is a God given gift to someone who can understand science. But once again, I come with a warning! Make very sure you're ready to accept the consequences of what your about to do. Think about Heroshima. Maybe we should ask the inventor of the bomb how he feels now about this advancement in knowledge. Even if we discover wonderful solutions to worldwide problems, how long will it take before man tries to annailate each other with it. We can idealize this as much as we want. We are still humans and someone somewhere is going to put a price tag on thism, and try to sell it to the highest bidder. We make what we do sound so wonderful, full of great humanitatian motives. But we don't put in the greates equasion. Human deficiencies. Greed, pride, lust for power. All these will be a part of the wonderful things that "MIGHT" come out of this. Are we really ready for this? (PRIDE COMETH BEFORE THE FALL)

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dan Massengill Aurora Il. — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:01:44 GMT

Well people, wake up, LHC is old school. The new and improved version is RF Cacities. I have been working on these for 3 years, before that I worked on LHC for 8 years. Look up Superconducting RF Cavities.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Zach. Canada — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:24:20 GMT

I Dont Quite Understand Why Scientists Need To Do This, Why Put Our Earth In Danger, And Have People From Everywhere Fear About The Black Hole.
And Instead Of Blowing Off Billions Of Dollars On Somthing That Makes Some Sense To Some People. That Money Should Be Put For A Better Cause.
I Wanted To Just Put That Out There.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Abdul Haq Jamaldini Nushki Balochistan — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:44:45 GMT

In this time the world is in a war and in a high cricess of food and dustribance and a huge of spand a lot of many i dont understand?what is this

Big day set for big-bang machine

Sarah Mae E. Aguilar, Koronadal City,Philippines — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 07:25:37 GMT

can i ask if what's the difference between a particle collider and the big bang...it's for our chemistry assignment.....thanks....

Big day set for big-bang machine

Raveesh Khan, U.A.E, Dubai — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 19:45:37 GMT

hi everyone,
just want to ask if the (Large Hadron Collider) can prove the big bang theory?
P.S: [please, to be answered by an expert].

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tim Rommes, Washington, UT — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 16:33:33 GMT

Sarah,
The big bang happened from nothing and produced the energy that would eventually become everything. This experiment will take small peices of stuff and attempt to break them apart into a state that existed shortly after the big bang.
Brick makers pour mud into a form to make bricks. The bricks are stacked into walls. The walls form buildings. This experiment is like busting a building into bricks.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Tawana, Fortaleza, Ceará — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:32:08 GMT

How play this machine?
(Como funciona essa máquina?)

Big day set for big-bang machine

das nuo , philipine ,w — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:33:18 GMT

hey i want to know that when it will be the day for doing the last experience . the last test

Big day set for big-bang machine

tili tshitande , thohoyandou , south africa — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:06:02 GMT

is there any chance that the machine can tested in other planets like juputa or others through the spaceship as it might be posible that the machine can have the severe impacts on the planet

Big day set for big-bang machine

Andrew Givens — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:53:11 GMT

in my opinion this thing is not going to destroy the world but if we prove the bigbang is real its a middle finger towards religion if we prove this is real then we have proof that "God" didnt make the world in my opinion there is no god its a figmant of your imagination to help yourself guide you everybody is god :)

Big day set for big-bang machine

BRITTANY STATEN HOLDEN WEST VIRIGINA — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 22:47:27 GMT

I HOPE YOU HAVE FUN WITH ALL OF THIS STUFF THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING AND STUFF IHAVE BEEN RESEARCHING ON THIS FOR ABOUT FOUR WEEKS I REALLY THINK THIS IS NEAT HOW YOU ALL CAN DO THIS STUFF THAT BIG BANG MACHINE IS PRETTY BIG!!!!!!!! SO PLEASE BE CAREFUL WORKING ON THAT MACHINE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Crash, Tacoma, Wash — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:45:00 GMT

Listen up...This is NO JOKE. I know what CERN is all about, check into it...Have you ever heard of future memories? I am NOT talking about memories of the past. Lets just say for one moment, that someone(I won't mention names, thats for you to solve the mystery) did in fact discover the ability to travel back in time. Hint: Old guy, gray beard, glasses. Good Luck. That whoever is involved or will be involved WILL eventually remember every "trip" they have been on, but yet they havent reached the point of time when they travel...Because, they were eventually born, but somehow remember. Doesnt make sense does it. Well, try living with the stuff for nearly 27 years, and I am 33 now.

Big day set for big-bang machine

james marsh, Kalamazoo, MI — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:00:53 GMT

Figures don't lie, but liar's make figures. And then these liars try to dig up facts to try and prove their lying figures to be the truth. Where is your BIG BANG AT? Must be some body is believing a lie some where!

Big day set for big-bang machine

12 yr old scientist — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:36:43 GMT

I think this is a fairly well idea considering that this can change the lives of thousands scientists all around the world. The fact is though, is that you guys aren't thinking about the small chance that we could create an 11 mile black hole within this machine if something goes wrong. It would be a huge discovery, but it may break the entire machine. I cant wait to see what happens!

Big day set for big-bang machine

joe Mainstreet, USA — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:13:42 GMT

the whole thing sounds like a way to blow up the earth!

Big day set for big-bang machine

The Ed — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:33:17 GMT

Does anyone know the exact date when the collider will be activated, if it's 2012, it could relate to the Mayan calander ending.

Big day set for big-bang machine

ramu , kathmandu — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 08:58:18 GMT

GOOD LUCK !!!!!!!!! for the thing you made!!!!!!!!!

Big day set for big-bang machine

Angie Gad, Eden Prairie, Minnesota — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 20:30:59 GMT

those guys from france or italy or whatever shouldnt have ever done the big bang and spending all that money because what when they smashed the 2 atoms together and it started a black hole in the end of the world they spent all those years for nothing and all that money for nothing thats a bad waste of time im just saying they can do whatever they want but it would be there fault if they destroyed the world and they had a good point doing the lawsuit im just saying my opinion they shouldnt have done that and shouldnt do it next year.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Alex Montreal Quebec — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:02:07 GMT

Why are people bitching about this project are gonna further our knowledge or are we just gonna live on agriculture gee weez thanks to science we're now finding remedies for kinds of stuff one thing also i am going to say even if the United States goes broke let NASA continue to live on they are doing amazing even when accidents happen ........ I hate whiners and cry babies.

Big day set for big-bang machine

Dee — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:40:12 GMT

I realize science is bent on proving they are biger than G-d, but I have dreams that actually do come true. Recently I had one involving a black hole sucking objects into earths orbit and slamming earth. I know you think it is possible that this machine could create a black hole, what makes you think one outside our atmosphere is safe?

Big day set for big-bang machine

Serr Brown, keene, Texas — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:41:40 GMT

ok my lovely scientist, lets all gather our super small marbles together (in comparison to yours) and think about exactly what the ramifications of your childish actions could turn out to be. September 10th arrives, glasses are all foggy due to heavy excitement and finally the red button is pushed! The big bang machine is a success...now what idiots, you have proved that your idiotic theory of how life itself was created has now been proven and established as the true process. Now what? do you honestly believe that any good what so ever will come out of your actions in playing God? Understandable, you are trying to prove that there is no God, but think in the terms of if your wrong?

Your the ones with the big marbles, you tell me if the possibility of a black hole being ripped open? science fiction is being turned into reality with this choice of action and you know have to factor in the science fiction possible outcomes. lets not forget about the actual outcomes. Explosions on a nuclear level could be the the result or it just be a dud. why risk it? do you really think any good is going to come of such actions? so your theory will be solid in every txt book in generations to come...so what?

Use your brains if they aren't already fried...you are possibly placing everyone s lives in danger, not just your own.

Big day set for big-bang machine

lida diyet zayıflama r10seoogle — Sat, 09 May 2009 18:35:48 GMT

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jim Rehkopf, Toledo, OH — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:17:54 GMT

I just hate all the people that are so simple minded in their way of thinking. Every person that looks at life to see it as it is and is happy with it. I hate every person that looks at it like that. A person to find out more about the universe, where we came from, where we are going after life and all that give us more wisdom on the matters of your life is much more to say than those who don't care and want to just live life and not worry. How boring and lame can you get? You only have one life and you might as well enjoy figuring out something while you are here!!! For God sake, use your brain to be something more than a day-to-day useless being of life. Talk about a waste of time and energy....those careless people on this page that don't see much farther than their own nose. For everyone else that are positive towards this collider, thank you for the open mind towards something knowledgeable and towards living life to find out the "truth"

Big day set for big-bang machine

lida diyet zayıflama r10seoogle — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:09:53 GMT

Big day set for big-bang machine

jesse johns — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:30:51 GMT

who do these scientists think they are god if there is one why did they spend 10 billion dolars on a worthless machine that will destroy the earth?all they want to prove is the big bang thoery and if it is real than they arent going to be credited for very long beacause as soon as they prove it if they do we will probably be all dead because of it. most people beleive in god and some theorys but if scientists are going to make a machine to prove the big bang theory why does it have to blow up the earth and why isnt it all over the bloody news and how come the idiots keep failing why dont they give up and try in another 1000 years.beacause its not going to happen nn if it does the well good on em they can enjoy there last nanosecond on earth because it will kill us all. like i was saying why is the government and the pentagon allowing such stupidity they built it because they dont even no what it will do.WTF.

Big day set for big-bang machine

michael — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 14:38:38 GMT

listen im thinking that a lot of you dont know wats going on here but there is about a 43% chance that that thing will make a black hole and will suck up the earth

Big day set for big-bang machine

Jonatan Aquino, Phoenix AZ — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:59:09 GMT

If the machine really works, why don't they make this news a public thing. Or is it because they are still testing it.