Large Hadron Collider
-
Heres the retort to the original article you posted toxic: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7608803.stm
Makes quite an interesting read.
-
My point is quite simple. There are tens of thousands of scientists involved in the project at CERN in one capacity or another. One must assume that they actually support what they, themselves, are doing.
You cite a single scientist who makes a statement in Liverpool that the media seem to think they can get some mileage out of in terms of a counter view and then accuse us of being unscientific in prefering to believe the viewpoint of thousands of specialists over the opinion of one man...who is not a specialist.Of course I will find many scientists who support his point of view...I support his point of view to some degree. I have supported his view for years against those that claimed there was no such thing as global warming. What I don't support is the slant that the media have put on his address....which had very little to do with what is going on in Geneva. It's a complete red herring.
Your whole argument on this thread has been one that this is a complete waste of time and that the money could be spent better elsewhere.
@unknownuser said:
If you think that this experiment will explain 'how the universe works', you are decieving yourselves.
Perhaps you'd like to supply your academic credentials for that statement? You challenged others for theirs.
@unknownuser said:
Circumstantial evidence gentlemen. Demonstrate to me that you have a technical understanding of what is going on today.
Or are you supporting an idea that you do not understand?@unknownuser said:
There is something wrong in this world when we spend billions on finding answers to problems that don't exist when real issues go unattended.
What's that if it's not an either/or argument?...and if you don't think Brian King is supporting that argument, why mention him?
My argument is perfectly straightforward. I can't understand why you have such problems with it. Put simply; why cut back and denigrate any area of scientific research when there are far more laudable and lucrative things you could cut back on instead...like the arms spending that Marian mentioned?
-
I hear the black holes, if created, will not last long. Now I can sleep better.
Problem with black holes, you wouldn't know what hit you. No chance to say "cool, a black hole", just "swish" it's lights out.
-
Alan, you deliberately distort my statements in order to make your point.
Let me use an analogy that will hopefully make my position clear:
As the head of my household my father can decide to spend a part of family budget on stocking the family library with the most current books on space exploration, physics and alternative technologies. Knowledge is a good thing, there is no disputing that. Then he can spend some more on a very expensive security system for the family home. I may reason that is the right and honourable thing to do to protect the family. He can use more of the money to finance and support the neighbourhood watch. I may reason that is a reasonable thing to do for the common good of the community. It is not difficult to find justification for supporting my father in all this.But if I have even one brother at home who is going to bed hungry and a sister who isn't getting the best medication , then it brings his administration of the household resources into question. It certainly would not be good enough if he takes the position that there will always be sick and hungry children. At the end of the day this is not an either-or argument, it is one of balance, priority and responsibility. If I challenge my father on this, is it acceptable that my other brothers and sisters who are well fed and healthy should dismiss and ridicule my position?
While S. David King is not a specialist in quantum physics, he is a specialist on global warming. The focus of his statements are about global warming, not particle physics, and from this perspective it is important not to dismiss his arguments. He is certainly more qualified than you or I to take the position that he has.
-
A family and a nation state are uncomparable, their priorities are different, the state is not obligated to take care of it's citizens as a father is. And the countries that contributed to the LHC are not the poorest countries in the world, and they have fewer issues than the rest so it is their right to do whatever with their money.
And i'm pretty sure that the EU spends more money on eco projects and eco laws and eco things than most, just think of the euro standards for engine emitions.
In the real world problems can't be solved by just focusing on one problem at a time, most of the time solutions for problems come from completly unrelated research and development, like space technologies permiated to douzens of fields and products. Think of the LHC's magnets, or super conductors maybe some of that technology will go into making better MRI's or some other gadget may prove to be the cure for the common cold, i don't know but why oppose something this fantastic...maybe one day those small particles will be at the core of computer hardware or some machine to regulate the global weather.
As others have said before those resources wouldn't have been sufficient to change global warming or world hunger etc, and people have the freedom to study and work in whatever field they like.
I guess these arguments are useless, cause you can't be convinced in any way..so the discussion is pointless. -
I'm not distorting your arguments at all. Claiming that I'm distorting you or Prof. King doesn't make it so.
That argument about the family budget is totally specious. Why are you only limiting it to "worthwhile" expenditure, so that you are forced into making painful decisions?
Why don't you include items such as trips to the movies (when you could wait a while and see it for free on TV) or season tickets for the local match (ditto), or unnecessary car journeys, or spending extra money buying packaged salads from Tesco's instead of buying fresh vegetables and chopping them up? There are a million and one other savings that could be made first without cutting into areas that you regard as priorities.The same is exactly true of society. Why advocate a cut back in areas that are potentially of huge benefit when you could cut back on something lightweight and peripheral and not even notice?
It is you that is claiming that the LHC is the target of choice for such savings. It's up to you to justify that, not for the rest of us to defend our position.
Of course everyone agrees that more research into the items on David King's priority list is of vital concern...but why should that result in a cutback in particle research?
You earlier asked for credentials when discussing the usefulness of CERN. My son, the astophysicist (and FormFonts modeller) gave them...yet you conveniently ignored him. Like Marian, methinks you are only hearing what you want to hear.
-
You are right Alan, I should not have neglected to include the expenses on dog food.
-
@toxicvoxel said:
While S. David King is not a specialist in quantum physics, he is a specialist on global warming. The focus of his statements are about global warming, not particle physics, and from this perspective it is important not to dismiss his arguments. He is certainly more qualified than you or I to take the position that he has.
i suspect the amount of money piled into research on "global warming" has far outnumbered that of the LHC.
personally i think global warming is the biggest pile of horse crap i have ever heard of, while i agree there had been a difference in climate change, i refuse to believe we are responsible.
global warming is one of the biggest commercial industries on the planet, the more we are scared into thinking we are responsible, the more we spend on "being green".the LHC may actually yield something useful, in fact i'm pretty sure the development of the machine itself probably has.
i've said it before and i'll say it again, serendipity.
pav
-
Oh pav, so the hundreds of millions if not billions of tons of CO2 emitted in the atmosphere had no effect on climate at all, that's just wishfull thinking.
-
Pav wrote:
@unknownuser said:
personally i think global warming is the biggest pile of horse crap i have ever heard of
Lol@ watching too much BBC.
-
@unknownuser said:
personally i think global warming is the biggest pile of horse crap i have ever heard of, while i agree there had been a difference in climate change, i refuse to believe we are responsible.
global warming is one of the biggest commercial industries on the planet, the more we are scared into thinking we are responsible, the more we spend on "being green".Whatever you think (I don't agree, but you are entitled to your opinion), it doesn't make doing nothing about it a good idea. There is the counter theory that we are now being told globing warming doesn't exist because it absolves us all and all the multinationals from any responsibility. Also I think you'd find that most business people would not agree with you that "being green" is commercial, it might be marketable, but it is not directly a commercial benefit. The old school attitude of no accountability is still more profitable.
As for the collider I'd laugh if it doesn't work at all.
-
the theory of Global Warming works on the basis that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. the next "logical step" was to say that as humans were producing more(though only very marginally) CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had even been started, and now it is just widely accepted despite many prolific scientists opposing arguments.
the consensus was reached before the research had even begun, and as such any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic.
Politicians have done little to help, feeding the fire, yet more scare mongering.
it has already been proved that the worlds climate fluctuates, and there is a very strong link between climate change and the earths magnetic poles flipping, which we are due to have soon.the human race's contribution to "global warming" is about 0.28%, and water vapour (which is largely ignored as it is not counted as a gas) is aporximately 95%.
any vain attempt we do have to reduce our emmisions, will go laregly undetected, as our output is dwarfed by natural causes.
rante over
pav
-
Well we're still here and the world is still flat unless viewed in Google Earth
Prof Hawkins did say it would be like two mosquitos crashing into each other compared to the Big Bang!!
I'd like to see a sketchup of the LHC. Anyone interested? -
I must say that I am less convinced about the human contribution to global warming than I used to be. Ice core and related studies have shown an exact correlation between global warming and increased CO2 levels going back many thousands of years.
Unfortunately for many theorists, the results are back to front...the ambient temperature level actually preceded the CO2 increase by several hundred years. This is exactly what we are seeing now since the "mini Ice Age" of the 16th and 17th centuries. Think of the regular Ice Fairs that used to be held in London on a frozen River Thames. It's the increase in temperature that causes the rise in CO2, not the other way round.
This is not to say that we shouldn't do our utmost to avoid pollution in general and atmospheric pollution in particular; and of course, trite though it may sound, much greater efforts ought to be made to deal with poverty, disease and malnutrition.
Rather than slamming CERN, it would make far more difference to feeding the poorer nations if governments took action against the practices of companies like Monsanto in selling what is effectively sterile "Terminator" grain to 3rd world countries...grain that produces a sterile crop that farmers cannot set aside a portion of to use as seed corn for the following year...thus forcing them to keep coming back for more rather than standing on their own two feet.
-
@unknownuser said:
This is not to say that we shouldn't do our utmost to avoid pollution in general and atmospheric pollution in particular; and of course, trite though it may sound, much greater efforts ought to be made to deal with poverty, disease and malnutrition.
That is what I was trying to say, well put Alan.
@unknownuser said:
Rather than slamming CERN, it would make far more difference to feeding the poorer nations if governments took action against the practices of companies like Monsanto in selling what is effectively sterile "Terminator" grain to 3rd world countries...grain that produces a sterile crop that farmers cannot set aside a portion of to use as seed corn for the following year...thus forcing them to keep coming back for more rather than standing on their own two feet.
They are doing this in Iraq too, Farmers are not allowed to store the original grain to plant again. Its all Monsanto from now on.
-
Alan,
My fondest hope is that somehow the LHC's scientific discoveries will lead to a breakthrough that will in turn permit genetic engineering making all human stupidity painful. I can think of no greater benefit to mankind. -
it is rather ironic that stupidity is only painful for those not possesing it
he hepav
-
Just to add to the mix somewhat...
There are those who argue that money should not be wasted on these scientific experiments but should instead be spent on more worthy issues such as solving global climate change or ending world hunger. I am curious as to where this line of thinking goes.
Presumably, these people want everyone in the world to have the same standard of life as experienced by those in the "first" world. It simply wouldn't work to just end hunger in those poor countries. Once that was achieved, they would then want the material benefits of the "first" world.
That means everyone in China, India and Africa and other "third" world countries owning their own homes, cars and all the other modern technology available. That would involve the building and development of property, roads and a whole infrastructure on a scale the like of which the world has never seen before.
Assuming you find this a desirable goal, what impact on global climate change do you think all this activity would have?
I have always wondered whether those of a liberal disposition, who obviously have the best of intentions, have ever considered the end results?
Of course, none of this will ever happen, for many reasons.
A couple of reasons being:
There simply is not enough arable soil on Earth to feed over 6 billion people.
(Even including genetically modified food).
There is not enough fresh drinking water for over 6 billion people.
At the moment, there is not enough energy resources to meet the demands of 6 billion people.
(There is going to be a struggle just to maintain the energy levels we have).All this warm fuzzy thinking about "world peace" and "ending hunger" is just that.
Fuzzy thinking. It should be confined to beauty pageants.I'm afraid these issues are usually solved they way they have always been solved.
By War, Famine or Disease.
Not a pleasant thought I admit.Regards
Mr S -
Paul, Pav
Personally, I'd just ban all warning labels and signs; and let nature take its course. Darwinism at its finest.Back on topic; just a couple of days left to catch this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dccnror a rather shorter and more concise presntation at Monterey, here.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html -
the CERN institute where the LHC is being built invented the World Wide Web, as a fastest method for sharing information with its scientists from around the world, working on LHC components. You are talking here thanks to the LHC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dare anyone to say that the web is useless.
For another example breast cancer sensors came directly from particle collision research in the CERN
How anyone can anyone think that nothing good will come of quantum physics research?!
Advertisement