









The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider2. Comment #116389 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 11:39 am
3. Comment #116393 by wonder on January 26, 2008 at 11:47 am
What a great article! I'm really looking forward to soaking up all this great info. Fascinating stuff!4. Comment #116396 by quill on January 26, 2008 at 11:49 am
5. Comment #116408 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 12:14 pm
6. Comment #116409 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 12:18 pm
And then states that since a fourteen year old can't explain it then the whole theory is "bunk" and no one can explain it.
And when will someone come on here and say that this will destroy the universe?
7. Comment #116413 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 12:27 pm
You should point them at some of the trickier theological questions, and use the same argument back at them :)
8. Comment #116414 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I will sleep easier tonight because I know the universe won't be destroyed. But what would happen if we were to create antimatter in the collider? Whould it just be in such small amounts that we wouldn't blow up too much of the surrounding countryside?
9. Comment #116418 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm
10. Comment #116419 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm
11. Comment #116420 by quill on January 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm
12. Comment #116427 by JFHalsey on January 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I'm so excited about this! This is, without a doubt, the most exciting scientific news of our time. We may be /this/ close to discovering the Theory of Everything! I'm extremely excited to see what we find.13. Comment #116432 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I'm so excited about this! This is, without a doubt, the most exciting scientific news of our time. We may be /this/ close to discovering the Theory of Everything! I'm extremely excited to see what we find.
14. Comment #116438 by HarryHUK on January 26, 2008 at 1:37 pm
It seems strange to realise from our human perspective that we can look out to the vastness of the universe and at the same time to the minuteness of the matter that forms it,we seem to be located at some sort of half way point between the two,quite an exciting and privilidged position.15. Comment #116446 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm
16. Comment #116454 by LorienRyan on January 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm
17. Comment #116455 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The width of the universe? Dark Matter, stuff we can't see or detect? This sounds familiar. I really doubt they spent six billion dollars just to answer ridiculous notions. I thought the big bang theory had already been disproven in favour of the more evidence based plasma and electromagnetic universe.
18. Comment #116460 by D'Arcy on January 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm
19. Comment #116472 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm
20. Comment #116482 by robotaholic on January 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm
21. Comment #116485 by Brungardt on January 26, 2008 at 3:28 pm
22. Comment #116499 by darlets on January 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm
First and foremost I hope it gets off the ground. It's looking good thus far. There's been a lot of technology developed due to this undertaking. Not least of which is the WWW.23. Comment #116523 by quantum tuba on January 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm
"Dark matter, stuff we can't see or detect?"24. Comment #116537 by RickM on January 26, 2008 at 5:47 pm
25. Comment #116538 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm
26. Comment #116597 by Smith on January 26, 2008 at 7:32 pm
27. Comment #116609 by Rettet181 on January 26, 2008 at 7:55 pm
"According to Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory," the USA was building an even more powerful collider in the early 90's. But eventually the project got canned by the short-sighted Congress."28. Comment #116617 by Lucas on January 26, 2008 at 8:20 pm
29. Comment #116619 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm
I obviously give you the benefit of the doubt about this thing not destroying the universe, but can you explain further? I'm not sleeping yet.
30. Comment #116628 by ARomanticRationalist on January 26, 2008 at 9:29 pm
31. Comment #116631 by dragonfirematrix on January 26, 2008 at 9:34 pm
32. Comment #116658 by rod-the-farmer on January 27, 2008 at 1:33 am
33. Comment #116664 by Scott McMeekin on January 27, 2008 at 2:17 am
34. Comment #116684 by JammyB on January 27, 2008 at 5:34 am
Hi Rod, I had the same problem, try watching them from the site itself. This is working for me.35. Comment #116685 by sven_der_sar on January 27, 2008 at 5:37 am
Re the last video:36. Comment #116689 by gd_edi on January 27, 2008 at 6:00 am
Indeed. Nothing to worry about.Famous last words :-P
37. Comment #116696 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 6:57 am
Famous last words :-P
Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that the value given in the second vid for the size of the universe, 156 billion light years across, is actually incorrect. Not sure though.
38. Comment #116736 by MorituriMax on January 27, 2008 at 9:51 am
Steve Zara wrote,
"It won't, and there is a good reason why. Nothing we do in the laboratory comes anywhere close to the energies that occur when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere, or the moon. If such energies were dangerous, the Earth and Moon would have disappeared billions of years ago."
39. Comment #116745 by RickM on January 27, 2008 at 10:22 am
Rational_G;But Rational, you failed to mention the fact that there is a lot of skepticism regarding Inflation; clearly an "adjusted" model if there ever was one.
… there's a lot of skepticism about string theory and supersymmetric particles - since these theories make no claim that be proven false. They can always "adjust" their theory to fit the evidence.
40. Comment #116749 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:35 am
But Rational, you failed to mention the fact that there is a lot of skepticism regarding Inflation; clearly an "adjusted" model if there ever was one.
And how about infinite "pocked universes" that fall out of Inflation?
41. Comment #116751 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 am
42. Comment #116753 by RickM on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 am
43. Comment #116761 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:51 am
Any black holes created in LHC will decay in a few Planck increments.
44. Comment #116764 by RickM on January 27, 2008 at 11:00 am
45. Comment #116770 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 11:12 am
Agree. However, as you say, if "near-future" results (and other satellite experiments) reveal B-Mode polarity in the background radiation, Inflation is in big trouble and String Theory gets a major boost.
Going out on a limb here, it's my understanding that Inflation predicted Multiverses add to the problems of Inflation (aren't we back to the hated "something from nothing" and a "beginning" of time?).
46. Comment #116772 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 11:18 am
47. Comment #116774 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 11:20 am
48. Comment #116777 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 11:26 am
49. Comment #116809 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Will either of you explain string theory and "B-mode". Posting a link to a good website would be sufficent.
I think the complexity of these theories is the real reason creationists say they are false. The relativly simple theory of evolution gives them headaches, so imagine what happens when they hear the words "string-theory".
My question is what direction would we have to go to get outside of our universe if it is finite?
50. Comment #116821 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm
1. Comment #116386 by mikes on January 26, 2008 at 11:27 am
Other Comments by mikes