Use these links to navigate through this site
I can't remember if Brian Cox has done a shorter version of this talk, but it's almost required viewing. Heck, I've lost count of how many times I've seen it myself.
If he or anyone else has done a bite-sized version (or indeed if that one does the job), we should probably put it in the introduction.
I agree with you, this is an excellent video and it would be a great addition to the page. I think that this specific video will do the job. Granted, it is a bit long, but Cox is quite entertaining so time doesn't become an issue=) Would it be okey if I go ahead and add it right away?
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
When it comes to the LHC I just sit in awe, you've got the reins on this page.
EDIT: Here we go, four minutes, less talky talky, more… intro-y intro I don't know where I was taking that…
Its a wiki.
In other words, since you are editing the page, what you put on it is up to you. I may decide to make some stylistic changes, and expect people to jump in and fix a typo here or there, or perhaps add a new section at a later date.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I think it's very well done. It explains the LHC in a way that most people should be able to understand. I did notice some noun-verb disagreements and minor grammatical errors that I'd be happy to correct, if you don't mind. I wouldn't change the meaning of anything you said. I'm just a nitpicker about grammar. I also wondered if you didn't mean to say "accrete matter" rather than "accredit matter."
Oops, I failed to introduce RickardM to our copy editor.
Alene: go for it. Edit away. ITS A WIKI for a reason.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Am I the only one who finds the word Wiki to be entertaining? I really have no idea why I'm so amused by the word, but I am.
Loved the video, though, it's definitely a nice source for information, explained very well and very, very useful.
If I become an editor, do I get a hat?
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
You don't need a hat. Just get a sticky note and write 'Editor' on it, and stick it on your forehead.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
You don't need a hat. Just get a sticky note and write 'Editor' on it, and stick it on your forehead.
You have no idea how hard I just laughed at that.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Astrogeek, thank you for adding the two Brian Cox videos to the page. They are really excellent=)
By the way, what do you think about adding some of the more "famous" LHC-proponents under the criticism category. I was thinking about Rössler, Gorelik and Plaga (even though the latter isn't explicitly against it)?
I thought that perhaps it would be good to summarize their claims and add the responses they've got, both from LSAG and the rest of the scientific community actually involved in this project just to prove why they are wrong. I think that anyone that is scared of LHC is bound to run into some of these characters sooner or latter, so perhaps it could be good to demonstrate that they are indeed wrong?
Finally, what do you think of the MBH section so far? Should I go ahead and add the mathematical formulas related to the expected size and lifetime or is it better to keep it simple?
I'll try to finnish the page either today or tomorrow (hopefully today).
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
I think the page looks great so far. I'm all for going with the math in a separate section, so that people can either read it or skip over it as they see fit. So, summary first, a block with math, and then move on.
I prefer to give both sides of the story up front. It is more honest, and if we don't do that, then when someone runs into these people later, they wonder why we were 'hiding' that information.
Speaking of math, how's your LaTeX? Wikidot does math formulas with LaTeX in two ways. There's an in-line way that I use frequently, which is to embed it inside [[$ $]] tags, and there's a full reference way which I use less frequently. Both methods are described at http://www.wikidot.com/doc:wiki-syntax#math
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
I'll try to get my hands on some of the formuals that are available out there, and then add them as a separate addition to the each topic. I'll do as you said and add the summary first and then the formulas.
I thought about dealing with the following opponents and the core of their claims: Otto Rössler, Walter L Wagner/Sancho, Rainier Plaga and Ivan Gorelik. Does that sound sufficient, or are there more people that qualifies as LHC-opponents/critics? These are the ones I know of, and more importantly, that have been refuted by LSAG or others=)
I have to admit that my LaTeX is more than a fair bit rusty, but I'll have a look at it tonight.
There's one thing that I have been meaning to ask you though. I have a private correspondence with LSAG that could be of value to the page but I assume I would need their permission before adding this to the page? If so, would permission be needed in order to add bits and pieces too?
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
If it is quoted in substantial portion, I would need to see a letter of permission from the author. If you quote bits and pieces, then that would fall under 'fair use', although in order to put someone's name on it, you should obtain their permission.
Usually just a reply like "I would like to quote your letter of <such and such a date> in full in an article posted on 2012hoax.org. Would that be acceptable to you?" and 99% of the time they'll say "yes".
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
BTW, there's a way to embed a youtube video in the page. Later today I'm going to do that with the first video by Brian Cox.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Thank you so much for the kind words Alene. I would be more than glad if anyone that notices spelling mistakes or other mistakes jumped in and corrected it. My grammar is far from perfect, and all improvements are more than welcome. And as Astrogeek said, it is a wiki for a reason=)
As for the "accredit" part; you are correct, I kind of mixed up the two terms. Thank you for pointing that out.
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
Having other people edit your work takes a little getting used to. The only time I freak out about it is when I see someone who I've never heard of come in and edit. I still allow people registered at wikidot who are not explicit site members to edit, simply because I believe that the more eyes you have on a page, the more errors you will catch.
I'm not too proud to say that my writing is full of errors, and I deeply appreciate it when people 'fix' an article, even minor grammatical changes.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
Actually, your grammar is very good. I found only minor errors, mostly noun and verb agreement. I usually find much more when I review what people have written. My director at work used to send me reports he had written to have me review and edit them.
I had once written a short humorous item for the company "news" sheet, using the names of employees who had the same names as famous people (We had a lot of them). They had some lamebrain at corporate edit it and didn't give me the opportunity to review it before printing. The person editing it had no idea about the famous people or the shows they were in, and completely ruined it by removing capitalization of titles, so that it seemed like just a silly pointless blurb. Knowing that they would ruin anything else I submitted, I never did another.
Now, now, my children, if there is anyone on this forum who is grammatically challenged, it is me.
You can tell by most of my posts, my grammar is terrible.
…Did that help anyone feel better about themselves? Because it sure didn't help me!
By the way, Rickard, keep up the awesome work, you're doing great.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Now, now, my children, if there is anyone on this forum who is grammatically challenged, it is me.
"Grammatically challenged"? In the famous words of the Simpsons character Snake; *Joink*. Just to clarify, that was me stealing an excellent future excuse for all grammatically related errors=)
No but honestly, thanks for the encouragement. I'll try to get some writing done this night and hope to be more or less finnished by tomorrow (if all goes well, that is=)
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
Hope to see it soon, Rickard.
Wie Sie säen, so sollst du ernten.
Thank you so much Alene, both for the kind words and for taking the time to correct my spelling errors and bad grammar=) It's much appreciated, and as Astrogeek says; the more eyes on an article the better it is.
Too bad to hear about the unappreciative guys at your work, I've been there too. Sometimes I can't help but to wonder if they've got it in for me1. But then again, they probably just lack my sophisticated sense of humour=)
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
I'm sorry that I haven't been able to finnish the LHC page yet. I've been really busy with my final paper before my "graduation" (kind of like the Swedish equivalent of the US bar examination).
I promise to finnish it as soon as I possibly can, hopefully by the end of this week=)
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
Astro (and everyone else), I'm so sorry that I haven't been able to finnish the page yet. I've been really busy with school the last couple of weeks. But I'll try to get it finnished as soon as possible, it's only some minor work on the vacuum bubble/magnetic monopole section and then I'm about done.
I figured that the opponents of LHC (Sancho, Gorelik, Wagner, Rössler and the rest) could get an own section, but don't know how to go at it. Should I just present their claims in short and then present the responses they've gotten from CERN? Or perhaps make a FAQ in the beginning or at the bottom of the page where their claims, and all others, are dealt with in short?
Kind of like: Q: According to Sancho dangerous Strangelets could be produced at LHC, is that true?
A: No, no scientificly accepted theory suggest that they should be dangerous in any way. It's unlikelly that they will form at all, but some theories do actually predict them to form. In the latter case they are expected to be both extremelly short-lived and utterly benign. The strangelet theories are dealt with in dept here:…. (Link to LSAG).
Could that be something worth looking into, or is it better to do it in some other way?
I'm very unfamilliar with writing a wiki so my ideas might be crap.
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
The joy of a wiki - you write, Astro cleans up. Or anyone else.
I think it should be claim based, rather than people based. Namedrop, certainly, but you've got obvious 'well known' claims, black holes for example, rather than 'well known' people.
Hey Rickard;
I asked for feedback from lhcportal.com, and you might be interested in the following message I received:
astrogeek wrote:
Speaking of the LHC, we just brought up our page on it. Any feedback or corrections would be deeply appreciated, and of course we are always looking for authors who know a particular topic.
Nice page!
Quote:
This specific type of collider is called a synchrotron, which basically means that it circulates two beams in opposite directions and then uses gigantic superconducting magnets to bend the beams so they collide when they meet.
In fact, these magnets are used all around the ring to bend the beam so that it runs in circles.
Quote:
The Higgs boson is a vital part of the Standard model and finding it would be essential to the continued search for deeper knowledge of how things work.
Higgs boson is not really vital part of Standard model, as long as it describes what happens between particles it does not necessary need Higgs. It's only scientists are feeling the Standard model is incomplete without describing mass.
Maybe I'm wrong in this, though.
"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind
That is great=) I will see to it that these errors are corrected asap.
Furthermore, do you have any suggestions on how to adress the criticism? The section is quite prone to namedropping and ad hominem attacks, so any thoughts on how to make it as useful as possible would be great.
Facts are stubborn things.
- Ronald Reagan
I don't know any doomsday website or anyone that claims LHC will destroy Earth in 2012. I don't know, but i think that this myth hasn't to be debunked.
Oh it's been touted as doom alright. Even if it's not explicitly linked with the Maya, you can bet there is someone out there who misunderstands it enough to spread fear amongst others, we've seen it on these very boards ourselves.
No the whole thing about the LHC and 2012 was, people was saying that why they wanted to have the shutdown in 2012 so they could not be blamed for the whole 2012 thing, some people have a sick and twisted sense of humor :( as for all the fearmongers :D they have all shut up ;) for now at least LOL
Oh and there was no black hole produced in the past 12 months :) so all is good :D
Hope you all have a great Christmas and a very happy new year ;)
Emmy
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein
Discovery does not harm nature as long as you get the science. It's not if you should do this, it's if you could. Nuclear bombs fall into this category. Even Einstein and Oppenheimer who did the science admit wrongdoing when looking back at their work.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080627175348.htm
Scientists admit miniature black holes will be created, but they are inconsequential due to them most likely (not certainly) will evaporate within a few moments of creation. You left off the quest for Hawking radiation in one of the objectives of the LHC collider.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/09/tech/main7036917.shtml
Scientists have already claimed duplicating the big bang.
I have always hated the term big bang hehe.
Yeah it's true they could create micro black holes and well if Hawkings radiation turns out to be wrong completely we will be completely screwed lol but this is not gonna happen :D
The LHC will be closed all of 2012 hmmm long time what can I possibly do for a year :O the LHC is my life :D it's bad enough it's not up and running this year till the middle of March :(
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein
Trtuhseeker said,
Scientists admit miniature black holes will be created, …
The link he gave in support says
The paper, co-authored by Michelangelo Mangano of the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN), which is building the world's largest particle collider, investigates hypothesized behavior of tiny black holes that might be created by high-energy collisions in the CERN particle accelerator.
If they appear at all, these black holes would exist for "about a nano-nano-nanosecond," Giddings said, adding that they would have no effect of consequence.
Truthseeker also said,
Scientists have already claimed duplicating the big bang.
The link he gave said
Scientists at the world's largest atom smasher said Monday they have succeeded in recreating conditions shortly after the Big Bang by switching the particles they use for collisions from protons to much heavier lead ions.
and
The collisions produce an effect that is as close as researchers have ever come to observing the state of matter moments after the formation of the universe, which is believed to have begun with a colossal explosion known as the Big Bang.
and
The event inside the collider "is a very, very, very small bang," CERN spokeswoman Barbara Warmbein told The Associated Press.
"I was glad to be able to answer him promptly and with confidence. Without hesitation, I told him I didn't know." Mark Twain
LOL yes i know :)
there ain't much I don't know about the LHC ;) it's my job to know whats going on :)
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is not to stop questioning.
Albert Einstein
That LHC thing really making me worried, like they keep putting article's about it on the internet, and the result will be shown by 2012 and they named it God particle are they trying to replace God. If so that will be really the end because God won't let them and they gona be like trying to end them sells also isn't this machine could make black holes that could swallow earth, and this is what will happen because no one can prove God wrong , they are killing us this way
are they trying to replace God. If so that will be really the end because God won't let them and they gona be like trying to end them sells also isn't this machine could make black holes that could swallow earth, and this is what will happen because no one can prove God wrong , they are killing us this way
No, they're not trying to replace God, they're trying to explain the universe and it's origins. 'God particle' is a nickname, not to be taken literally. Everything else you say about God killing us is just nonsense. As for black holes or any other concern you might have about the LHC:
http://www.2012hoax.org/large-hadron-collider
The great thing about science is, it's true whether you believe in it or not.
That LHC thing really making me worried, like they keep putting article's about it on the internet, and the result will be shown by 2012 and they named it God particle are they trying to replace God.
No, God particle is just a name.
also isn't this machine could make black holes that could swallow earth
and this is what will happen because no one can prove God wrong , they are killing us this way
They are not trying to prove God wrong there. They are just accelerating particles to study them, that's all.
and they named it God particle are they trying to replace God.
There is no such thing as a god particle. The media named it so, but the scientists do not call it a god particle. And has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
isn't this machine could make black holes that could swallow earth,
No it can't. We are talking about a black hole with the mass of 2 protons x 7000 (by the acceleration)
Not a super-massive black hole that eats star ships. It's event horizon would be so small that it could move through the planet without encountering another particle to swallow and never grow. And then there is this time it could exist, is vaporizes faster than it could even move.
I'm fairly certain you've got your answers from these guys already, but seeing as I can write a response, I will write a response. Go freedom.
That LHC thing really making me worried
The LHC is the biggest particle accelerator man has ever built. Do you know what some of the smallest are? Cathode Ray Tubes, inside each and every old Television set or computer monitor. There are thousands upon thousands of particle accelerators on this planet. If we were to assume you're American, you have the second largest on the planet right in the middle of New York - has that ever troubled you? You may not be American of course, but it just goes to show that science - big science - can happen in your own backyard wherever in the world you are and you wouldn't have a clue, but make some news articles about it and suddenly it's a talking point.
like they keep putting article's about it on the internet
Because it is a fantastic machine, though you're probably talking about the kinds of articles written by people who don't have much of a clue what goes on there. If you've time, various groups who do work at the LHC have their own Twitter pages, such is the public reach nowadays, so you can get good information straight from the source.
and the result will be shown by 2012
Any and all results are shown as and when they come in, but the longer you test the more you learn, and it is expected that by 2012 the preliminary results available now will be confirmed one way or the other, simple as that.
and they named it God particle are they trying to replace God.
"The standard quip about the Higgs' Boson is that it is present everywhere, but remains frustratingly elusive", hence the nickname 'God particle', for God is supposedly everywhere at once, and yet nobody can find him. Science does not give a rodents backside about whatever deity you wish to believe in, it's sole concern is of learning what the heck kind of Universe we live in. The LHC will give us the opportunity to find out yet more about the insanely intricate goings on at the subatomic level, and if you want to believe God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn made it that way, fine.
If so that will be really the end because God won't let them and they gona be like trying to end them sells
I could answer this a number of ways, and I'd get scolded for doing so. Suffice to say, the LHC is still here and it's still producing results, so, I dunno, either God is slow or he's a-ok with what's going on.
also isn't this machine could make black holes that could swallow earth
As others have said, nope. Simple as that really.
and this is what will happen because no one can prove God wrong , they are killing us this way
Again, could definitely take this in a direction we'd rather not go in, so it's best to end with 'careful how much Religion you bring here'. Donning my believers hat on (wherever I left it…), what's to stop you from believing that the LHC investigates how God did something? The guy who put forth the idea of the Big Bang was after all a man of God, Catholic priest Georges Lemaître.
also isn't this machine could make black holes that could swallow earth, and this is what will happen because no one can prove God wrong , they are killing us this way
I have heard this before 2007 or what it was , it was all over news in sweden , it was like it will be a big black hole that going to swollow the earth , and it was really hype about it but then nothing happened and world was going on like normal the same will ahppen now nothing
can the lhc even detect and observe black holes if they can be created? yes I don't believe it but everytime I search for proof the websites i read only serve to increase my fears i have ADHD, Aspergers and Dyslexia and because of this I get really nervous
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it - Agent K
Fate and Destiny are not words that stand for predetermined, I believe that every action we make leads to infinite outcomes also I don't believe anyone can accurately predict the future, I believe that it is ever-changing
Indirectly, they see how many particles they injected and how many particles the detector detects and from this data they can reconstruct the data. For this they have these massive data storage devices and high speed communication links needed to process the data. (This data centers will become the future of the Internet ;-))
But I don't know why you would get nervous. LHC has been running for many years now and every doomsday prediction failed flatly.
Earth gets bombarded with energies (cosmic rays) that exceeds the LHC far more and black holes are also created in the atmosphere because of this. So this is not something rare but happens regularly in nature.
and let's not forget the RHIC in America which has been running for 12 years if the LHC was a danger to the Earth than it would have happened at the RHIC by now
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it - Agent K
Fate and Destiny are not words that stand for predetermined, I believe that every action we make leads to infinite outcomes also I don't believe anyone can accurately predict the future, I believe that it is ever-changing
so is that a "yes, cern can detect black holes?"
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it - Agent K
Fate and Destiny are not words that stand for predetermined, I believe that every action we make leads to infinite outcomes also I don't believe anyone can accurately predict the future, I believe that it is ever-changing
www(dot)tcs(dot)cam(dot)ac(dot)uk/story_type/site_trail_story/are-mad-scientists-about-to-destroy-the-world/
www(dot)telegraph(dot)co(sot)uk/science/science-news/8857154/Worlds-most-powerful-laser-to-tear-apart-the-vacuum-of-space.html
they say theyve never done anything like this. i dont see how this wouldnt have a chance to destroy everything
"ELI is going to take us into an uncharted regime of physics. There could well be some surprises along the way."
are-mad-scientists-about-to-destroy-the-world
No.
Worlds-most-powerful-laser-to-tear-apart-the-vacuum-of-space.html
And this is problematic for you … why?
they say theyve never done anything like this.
Welcome to the wonderful world of scientific discovery. You are presently reaping the benefits of it.
i dont see how this wouldnt have a chance to destroy everything
Maybe you'd like to explain why you think this. And by "explain," I don't mean "link to some raving lunatic's doom blog."
"ELI is going to take us into an uncharted regime of physics. There could well be some surprises along the way."
See above.
Did you know the bacteria in your gut outnumber the cells in your body? Did you know that around one in three people harbour the right kind of bacteria that produce methane? Did you know that you, Life Sucks, may just be one of these people who contribute - in admittedly very small amounts - to global warming through farting alone?
Now that, and your post, aren't really on the subject of the LHC, but the point rings true: just because you don't know something, doesn't mean the rest of us should stop learning.
(account deleted)
