CERN's Large Hadron Collider Reveals New Type of Matter

Thought I'd post a link to Cern's youtube channel www.youtube.com...

Some really cool info there. I just thought of checking if they had a youtube channel today because of this thread.

Here is a cool BBC documentary on the LHC from 2011 explaining how the collider works and what they are trying to do with it.

reply to post by happykat39

I mean no disrespect to all who are thrilled with this and other similar findings. But does anyone else have a nagging concern that these particle-smashing people might just collide particles in some specific way, causing these sub-atomic particles to react/interact in unexpectedly harmful ways?

They basically admit they don't know what they're dealing with. (Discovering new matter.) It seems rather like leaving a bunch of really curious kiddies to their own devices in a science lab!

"Wonder what this is?" "Wonder what would happen if we did this?"

You know what I'm trying to say, right?

Originally posted by new_here
reply to post by happykat39

 

I mean no disrespect to all who are thrilled with this and other similar findings. But does anyone else have a nagging concern that these particle-smashing people might just collide particles in some specific way, causing these sub-atomic particles to react/interact in unexpectedly harmful ways?

They basically admit they don't know what they're dealing with. (Discovering new matter.) It seems rather like leaving a bunch of really curious kiddies to their own devices in a science lab!

"Wonder what this is?" "Wonder what would happen if we did this?"

You know what I'm trying to say, right?

A lot of worried people have brought up the same concerns and even filed law suits to stop the work at CERN. But they are working with such small amounts of matter and particles that are confined to such small spaces that they are dwarfed by real events that happen every day from the solar radiation and cosmic rays colliding with each other and other matter out in space as well as inside our atmosphere. The only real difference is that they are producing many more collisions per square centimeter of space per second in the Collider than nature produces. But it is still no more likely to cause a catastrophe than the natural collisions are.

reply to post by happykat39

Thanks for explaining that. I guess I am not alone in my 'uh-oh feeling' if others have filed lawsuits. You are probably right though, that it's highly unlikely anything catastrophic could happen.

Obviously 'impossible' would be a better answer.

We know about 5% of what we exist in.... yet we say it all came about by accident !

What faith that must take to believe that! I tip my hat to all who believe such. You have more faith that I could ever have.

Whilst that's slightly tongue in cheek, it is also sincere. You have more faith than I who believe in a being that lives outside our time and space.... much, much, much more faith than I.

reply to post by pacifier2012


You are right. It actually takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation if you study the complexity of living organisms. Here is a link to part one of THE SIMPLE CELL SERIES. It is a 26 part series that examines every aspect of a living cell. You will have to do a site search on www.creationrevolution.com... to find the rest of the archived sections if you are interested in reading the whole thing. THIS PAGE will help in finding the sections in order.

But the point is that once you understand the amazing inner workings of even the simplest cell you will have a hard time believing that it could have come from some primordial soup on it's own.

Originally posted by happykat39


You are right. It actually takes more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation if you study the complexity of living organisms. ....


But the point is that once you understand the amazing inner workings of even the simplest cell you will have a hard time believing that it could have come from some primordial soup on it's own.

So you just invent an intervention by something you don't have to bother explaining, and THAT 'explains' it? That's not faith?
It takes no 'faith' to believe in a working hypothesis, just an experience of its application and familiarity with examples of it at work, something all those who play the 'science is just a belief man' card all lack.
And it's not even necessary to 'believe' in it, it's just a theory that is referred to as an explanation for what is seen. That can change if better information comes along.
A theory in science is not just some random guess someone comes up with, it's something that continues to explain what you see. It's known as a theory out of respect and humility for truth and our relative ability to see it, and the knowledge that one day it potentially could be surpassed by a higher understanding.
Uncertainty is built into science, it's what makes it great.
Faith on the other hand implies certainty and has no such humility.

Couple more posts until the radical New Agers come with their "yes conscious and quantum particles we consciously wished for this info and 4D and yesss". Jk

In all seriousness, I expected this from CERN. What is amazing to me is the rate at which we are discovering these news particles. Not too long ago we discovered the evidence for Higgs-Bosons and now we have evidence of Gluons. It's also sad, because other fields of science have yet to advance past the baby stages while this is taking leaps and bounds, like the space programs, which has downgraded to just observing and collecting data using probes. Hell we haven't even had a machine that passed the Turing test yet!

reply to post by delusion


The mistake you are making is thinking that people who believe in creation all take it on just blind faith. However, many of us have actually studied enough science to come to a conclusion that does not require blind faith. If you take the time to go to the link for the simple cell series and read it you will find that there is a lot of hard science presented and examined in the series as well as some well thought out conclusions for creation. Just one of the examples examines irreducible systems where the parts would have to have evolved separately to make up the whole but the parts by themselves are evolutionarily useless and in some cases would prove to be seriously disadvantageous to the organism by themselves.

For those of you that are interested in the happenings at the LHC, you can go here for live updates. LHC status

Here you can get a good overview of the LHC, with forums, etc. www.lhcportal.com...

If you want to read more about LHC or particle accelerators in general, Wikipedia is your friend

I think the LHC and other accelerators will open a huge plethora of new physics, and I am still struggling to try to understand String theory, lol. Unfortunately the new physics will sound like mumbo-jumbo to the average person.

Originally posted by Vortiki
I believe the deeper humanity delves into the quantum world, the more of these "unexplainable" particles they are going to find.

My personal belief is that there is, at some level, physical evidence of thought creating matter; Or even observation collapsing wavelengths into reality. Perhaps all these newly found particles and properties of such particles are just that, the physical evidence of how consciousness interacts with reality on a sub-atomic and quantum level.

You are of course right and there are schools of thought which interpret the observations in quantum physics in exactly that way.


The "problem" and paradox here is that we try to "observe" something which is not observable out of the context of the human brain and how it works. It's the classic example of trying to get to find "the truth" behind something - to realize that this "truth" can only be that sort of "truth" we *are able to* perceive.... and an example where a materialistic view ("THINGS ARE") is entirely in contrast to the idea that some reality might maybe created (or changed) by thought/observation alone etc.

So...meaning..that a statement like "something IS"...say the "speed" or position of an electron...or "length of a wave" but then of course even broader in a more general sense ("something IS") literally loses its meanings..

The funny thing here, of course it would also be paradox to use those observations as "proof" that we now see how, for example, thoughts might create reality. Because this as well would be a statement how "something is"...which is paradox since we just learned that we cannot use those absolutes. So..saying "the electron is at position X around the nucleus at time Y" (which we can't, obviously) makes as much sense as coming to a "conclusion" that thought influences matter. (If we can't get information, we should not come to a conclusion).

Ok...as for my own, not so professional opinion, I think the problem might have to do with the speed of light and the limit where information just cannot be transferred anymore.

Let me give you an analogy:

You have a measuring stick with the smallest unit on it being a mm. You can measure things to the meter, centimeter and millimeter. But you can't use the same measuring stick to measure thickness of a hair (or atom etc.). We try to get "information" from quantum physics experiments, but we already exceeded the limit to be able to get any information. This would be another scenario - the question here would be is there still an "absolute" reality, beyond what we can "process".

Here are two interesting quotes from the original link whereas Daily Galaxy linked.

The CERN team’s methods have been called into question by a group called the Heavy Ion Alert, which fears the experiments could trigger a catastrophic reaction capable of destroying the planet. CERN maintains that the Large Hadron Collider presents no danger despite the massive amount of energy it generates and undergoes regular safety inspections by independent scientists.

AND...

The Big Bang theory was first proposed in 1931 by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, astronomer and physicist who had observed a reddish glow—known as a redshift—around distant galaxies and clusters, an indication that they are moving away from us. If the universe is constantly expanding, Lemaître reasoned, it must have begun at a specific moment in time with a “primeval atom.” His model remains the most widely accepted explanation for the origins of the universe within the scientific community.

A Priest who was an astronomer and Physicist within the scientific community is the one who proposed the Big Bang Theory. Not sure why I never learned this... but Im glad I finally did.

Like I said in my earlier post.... Im excited with the results BUT this Big Thing scares me. lol

ETA: Im sorry.... I thought I read this from the original link in the OP but I was mistaken. It was from the link.. www.history.com...

Originally posted by happykat39
reply to post by delusion

 

The mistake you are making is thinking that people who believe in creation all take it on just blind faith. However, many of us have actually studied enough science to come to a conclusion that does not require blind faith. If you take the time to go to the link for the simple cell series and read it you will find that there is a lot of hard science presented and examined in the series as well as some well thought out conclusions for creation. Just one of the examples examines irreducible systems where the parts would have to have evolved separately to make up the whole but the parts by themselves are evolutionarily useless and in some cases would prove to be seriously disadvantageous to the organism by themselves.

Okay I'm glad you are coming to your conclusion based on science and not blind faith, but then I don't understand why you would accuse other scientists who come to different conclusions based on science of doing so on blind faith? Faith is more or less eradicated in the process of doing science, it's not a necessary crutch.
(and yes I'll look into it, thanks, but what if there's a process that explains it without need of planning or intervention?)

whats the significance of this?


im trying to wrap my head around it. new form of matter? new physics?

reply to post by new_here


people had the same fears when we first tried to harness electricity

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by happykat39
reply to post by delusion

 

The mistake you are making is thinking that people who believe in creation all take it on just blind faith. However, many of us have actually studied enough science to come to a conclusion that does not require blind faith. If you take the time to go to the link for the simple cell series and read it you will find that there is a lot of hard science presented and examined in the series as well as some well thought out conclusions for creation. Just one of the examples examines irreducible systems where the parts would have to have evolved separately to make up the whole but the parts by themselves are evolutionarily useless and in some cases would prove to be seriously disadvantageous to the organism by themselves.

Okay I'm glad you are coming to your conclusion based on science and not blind faith, but then I don't understand why you would accuse other scientists who come to different conclusions based on science of doing so on blind faith? Faith is more or less eradicated in the process of doing science, it's not a necessary crutch.
(and yes I'll look into it, thanks, but what if there's a process that explains it without need of planning or intervention?)

edit on 28-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)

I simply stated that it takes more faith to believe in evolution. The fact is that both positions are based on some degree of faith and will be so unless and until we die and meet God face to face so we can ask Him for the true answer. I just base my faith in creation on the science I have studied, of which the simple cell series is a major component, and my belief in the bible which I have also studied extensively.

Originally posted by FuturePeace
reply to post by new_here

 

people had the same fears when we first tried to harness electricity

Really?

I would think the same fears arose when we split the atom. The Atom Bomb. No one knew what would actually happen, yet they did it anyway. Look at us today. lol

reply to post by happykat39


1) "It's complicated therefore it must have been designed"
2) "We can't fully explain it therefore it must have been designed"

The logical integrity of your argument is fatally compromised by these two fallacies.

Evidence for evolution: overwhelming
Evidence for designer: none

Anyway, all of this is com

Originally posted by MamaJ

Originally posted by FuturePeace
reply to post by new_here

 

people had the same fears when we first tried to harness electricity

Really?

I would think the same fears arose when we split the atom. The Atom Bomb. No one knew what would actually happen, yet they did it anyway. Look at us today. lol

You are right on that one. There were even some scientists involved with the Manhattan Project who feared that setting off an atomic bomb would ignite the atmosphere. Yet they did it anyway.

reply to post by happykat39


1) "It's complicated therefore it must have been designed"
2) "We can't fully explain it therefore it must have been designed"

The logical integrity of your argument is fatally compromised by these two fallacies.

Evidence for evolution: overwhelming
Evidence for designer: none

Anyway, all of this is comletely off-topic for this thread and forum, there is a dedicated forum called "Origins & Creatonism" for this type of discussion. Must this thread be dragged off topic any further?

Back on topic: go LHC! Awesome to see how far down the rabbit hole this awe-inspiring piece of machinery will take us. Has this thing been kicked into full gear yet?