Will the large hadron collider ever launch?

Surely it would because such a small black hole would only exist for an incredibly short time?

 

They exist for a short time because Hawking said so.

Right, the good ol' RTFM.

I didn't know they were doing this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole

This sounds bizarre. I'm used to only the stellar black hole, not the thing that's basically a super-nucleus that uses gravity instead of some other force. If it's not a black hole and it doesn't act like a black hole, why not think of a better name for it? Also, I thought the purpose of colliding particles was to expose smaller component particles, not to make a massive thing.

I'm curious about why they will collapse in layman's terms. "Hawking said so," is so unsatisfying, and in general I don't think I've heard much news-worthy yet (maybe my own fault). Plus it sounds like they haven't determined what it is through experiment yet, "it depends on how many dimensions of space there are," or something.

So, who knows more about it than the random internet sources?

Melted something is still something with mass, if conservation of energy applies, and energy requires mass. Also, according to the astrophysicists, stars are supposed to have created metals, maybe even every non-hydrogen, non-helium atom. You can tell that stars and things in galaxies are massive using a moment of intertia calculation. I bet you could turn a big enough star into a stellar black hole without waiting for the star to die.

Most people appear to think that we'll freely play with mass and energy some day.

I just hope they don't discover anything that makes the quantum physicist take my job. Nah, he's too specialized.

 

He probably means the super large hadron collider.

 

Well I assumed thats what he meant as he mentioned "will it ever fire" because the colliders we already have are frequently used.

On second thoughts, maybe he might have been talking about a hardon collider after all...

 

I disagree. If stupidity is never exposed, it flourishes in dark places. Therefore, I like talking out things on the internet and having people expose places where I'm wrong and maybe learn something. When something doesn't look right, of course I'd challenge it; I don't have anything to lose. The depressing thing is that you're expected to never be stupid even though people aren't born smart.

Most of the professors I've met are happy enough to talk about their field, even the basics, they're only intolerant when you fail at things like tests. And for things like math, science, or engineering, calling people idiots shuts down interest when they'd rather have a big department. Physics people in particular were excited about taking in new students because usually they're too afraid of the effort required.

I've had experience with EM for one electron--the basic Maxwell's equations stuff. That didn't require genius, just careful number-keeping, patience, and time. And the results were pretty neat, you could derive the equations for plane waves or design your quarter wave transformer to tame the reflections in a transmission line. People didn't fail because they weren't smart enough (I could easily see that passing the previous 2 years or so were enough to prove aptitude in just about every case), they failed because they didn't put time in to work on it. Motivation is most important. Setting up geniuses and hero figures doesn't give motivation to large numbers of people, it makes science elitist.

 

Critical thinking is taught at secondary schools.

 

Why not? Science is only as good as its ability to be explained or applied.

There's an extremely boring social movement going on right now about how awesome the future is going to be. I think it's terrible. It's saying that things are going to happen without any effort, just because geniuses naturally double the technology rating or whatever every time they come around. Some of the least scientifically motivated people I've ever seen have been pro-science in the way you describe.

On the other hand, I think Jurrasic Park and things like it (Michael Chrichton is famous as a global warming denier and similar things; he probably coined the thing about men not intended for godhood) are great because it makes people question what's going on. Fear isn't a bad motivation and the truth, the definitively derived truth, is out there for anybody.

 

I'd be more worried about the global economic situation hindering the progression of science and the pursuit of knowledge. Crumbling infrastructure and the rapid depletion of natural resources will run us dry before we even create a super doomsday device to end the world. We will eventually be living beyond what the world can provide. I predict our doom to come from our own hedonistic ways if the western way of life continues to proliferate around the world.

 

So feel less bad and refute it. You should defend logic instead of people, the same way you attack.

Do you disagree with only the quoted text? Because I am arguing that "anti-science" isn't so terrible. Is my strawman that pro-science people aren't always scientists? I guess so, that's irrelevant really. Is my ignorance with the past of science? Because you should know that rarely, the scientific sources are poor or misleading, especially with social sciences.

The points on logic give me ideas that I wouldn't have had before, actually. Take the situation with global warming for example. For the moment, I don't care about the result, just the situation. Everyone opposed to it is called anti-science. Some of them actually don't care about proving what they think, others dissent and actually attempt to explain why. But you can't even attempt to explain why you don't think global warming would work without trying to use some kind of science.

There are three ways to respond to scientific argument against man-made global warming. You could try to shut it down with insults or censorship, walk away (who has time for every debate?), or you could drudge along with the perpetual debate machine. I think the latter is best, and I see room for improvement. Once in a blue moon, a debate is successful, no? Apologists understand that even if you don't win over the person you're arguing with (because they can be batguano crazy, but that's irrelevant), it's important to present a solid argument for the people looking on to see.

And more importantly you shouldn't say something like (to paraphrase), "the OP is depressingly stupid because people like him are anti-science." You're actually depressed because you're bad at debate, I think.

 

I dont read shit.
its shit.
i go to school for shit.
i dont listen to shit.
therefore i am stupid.

 

JESUS F*CKING CHRIST EVERYONE! Stop arguing.

Might as well lock this thread if all its attracting is conflict.

Calm down guys, holy sh*t.