The Large Hadron Collider

[random n00b]

No, your point being? If you and everything else was all in my head, then why can't I control it? That's the biggest reason why I don't believe in solipsism. In fact if it weren't for hearing about the belief in the first place I may never have even considered that my life is an illusion, anyway, which goes to show that not all thoughts are my own.

Perhaps you just haven't learned how? You couldn't walk, talk, or do math at certain points in your life, but you can now. And the fact that solipsist ideas hadn't occurred to you before you heard them does not preclude the possibility that with time, you could have thought of it on your own. The only way that argument could work is if you could somehow prove that there is some piece of knowledge or idea that is impossible (and I mean it literally) for your mind to comprehend, but not to other people. And there is simply no way of reliably demonstrating that... because the opposite is not falsifiable.

 

The game analogy was meant to illustrate that just because it's an artificial reality, a constructed environment, godlike abilities aren't guaranteed to the actors within. In fact, it is the very fact that human beings are inherently finite that makes the whole notion of solipsism "plausible". If you were an all-powerful, all-knowing entity encompassing all of reality, you would be, by definition, able to tell whether the universe is a fabrication or not. Otherwise, you wouldn't really be "godlike".

 

 

And what, you are?

Your failure to appreciate that would hurt me deeply... if I wasn't already above such things.

 

Seriously though, would you really want that? How boring!

Edited September 16, 2008 by random n00b

[Guest The Architect]

Perhaps you just haven't learned how? You couldn't walk, talk, or do math at certain points in your life, but you can now. And the fact that solipsist ideas hadn't occurred to you before you heard them does not preclude the possibility that with time, you could have thought of it on your own. The only way that argument could work is if you could somehow prove that there is some piece of knowledge or idea that is impossible (and I mean it literally) for your mind to comprehend, but not to other people. And there is simply no way of reliably demonstrating that... because the opposite is not falsifiable.

 

The game analogy was meant to illustrate that just because it's an artificial reality, a constructed environment, godlike abilities aren't guaranteed to the actors within. In fact, it is the very fact that human beings are inherently finite that makes the whole notion of solipsism "plausible". If you were an all-powerful, all-knowing entity encompassing all of reality, you would be, by definition, able to tell whether the universe is a fabrication or not. Otherwise, you wouldn't really be "godlike".

 

Oh I dunno about the math part man. Not possible for me to prove there's a piece of knowledge or ideal that is impossible for my mind to comprehend you say? Well thanks man, I'm flattered by your kindness, but that's simply not true! There's much I couldn't understand even if my bloody life depended on it! You're right, though; it's possible for me to learn anything, really.

 

Thanks for making me understand what you meant with your game example, too. Come to think of it I don't know why if I was the one, that'd automatically mean I'd have to be an omnipotent being. Maybe I'm simply just the only creation of the universe, or God. I don't believe that, though.

 

Your failure to appreciate that would hurt me deeply... if I wasn't already above such things.

 

Seriously though, would you really want that? How boring!

 

 

Would I really want to be the sexiest, fastest, fittest, strongest, smartest, wealthiest, most famous man on the planet, a human of perfection? You damn well bet I would! Boring? I'd be able to bang every hot girl I ever lay my eyes on, because there'd be a bit of everything for them all that they couldn't resist! You call that boring? I call that heaven.

[Humodour]

It's not as if you have to be a genius to defeat solipsism, though. I gave it a bit of thought and, the problem with solipsism is if you try to convince other people you're just a figment of their imagination, they won't believe you, because they are conscious themselves, and not actually a figment of your imagination.

 

Or they may come back at you and say, "No, you're a figment of MY imagination!" The fact that I'm not the only one who's pondered solipsism speaks volumes against it. Also, if the universe was a product of my consciousness and not the other way around, I'd be omnipotent, but I'm not.

 

Sadly, I'm not the strongest, fastest, fittest, sexiest, most famous man on the planet, who's bedded every hot woman there is.

 

Um, I actually consider solipsism to be more coherent, consistent and logically sound than belief in god.

 

They both actually suffer similar problems in terms of proof/disproof, but solipsism has the benefit of being built from the ground up more like a scientific theory (but not quite), than some arbitrary religious dogma that so often contradicts itself.

 

To clarify: God is as plausible as solipsism. But solipsism is far more plausible than any specific religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam).

 

You can see counterarguments to your points on wikipedia's article for solipsism if you're interested.

 

Actually, **** this, G

[Xard]

It's not as if you have to be a genius to defeat solipsism, though. I gave it a bit of thought and, the problem with solipsism is if you try to convince other people you're just a figment of their imagination, they won't believe you, because they are conscious themselves, and not actually a figment of your imagination.

 

Or they may come back at you and say, "No, you're a figment of MY imagination!" The fact that I'm not the only one who's pondered solipsism speaks volumes against it. Also, if the universe was a product of my consciousness and not the other way around, I'd be omnipotent, but I'm not.

 

Sadly, I'm not the strongest, fastest, fittest, sexiest, most famous man on the planet, who's bedded every hot woman there is.

 

Um, I actually consider solipsism to be more coherent, consistent and logically sound than belief in god.

 

They both actually suffer similar problems in terms of proof/disproof, but solipsism has the benefit of being built from the ground up more like a scientific theory (but not quite), than some arbitrary religious dogma that so often contradicts itself.

 

To clarify: God is as plausible as solipsism. But solipsism is far more plausible than any specific religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam).

 

You can see counterarguments to your points on wikipedia's article for solipsism if you're interested.

 

Actually, **** this, G

Edited September 16, 2008 by Xard

[Gfted1]

Transformer breaks on world's largest atom smasher

 

Sep 18, 4:14 PM (ET)

 

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS

 

GENEVA (AP) - A 30-ton transformer that cools the world's largest particle collider malfunctioned, forcing physicists to stop using the atom smasher just a day after launching it to great fanfare, the European Organization for Nuclear Research said Thursday.

 

The faulty transformer has been replaced and the ring in the 17-mile circular tunnel under the Swiss-French border has been cooled back down to near zero on the Kelvin scale - minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit - the most efficient operating temperature, said a statement by CERN, as the organization is known.

 

When the transformer malfunctioned, operating temperatures rose from below 2 Kelvin to 4.5 Kelvin - extraordinarily cold by most standards, but warmer than the normal operating temperature.

 

CERN had not reported any problems with the project since its launch Sept. 10, but issued its statement shortly after The Associated Press called asking about rumors of troubles.

 

The Large Hadron Collider is designed to collide protons in the beams so that they shatter and reveal more about the makeup of matter and the universe.

 

After it was started up Sept. 10, scientists circled a beam of protons in a clockwise direction at the speed of light. They shut that down, then turned on a counterclockwise beam.

 

"Several hundred orbits" were made, CERN's statement said.

 

On the evening of Sept. 11, scientists had succeeded in controlling the counterclockwise beam with equipment that keeps the protons in the tightly bunched stream that will be needed for collisions, but then the transformer failed and the system was shut down, the statement said.

 

The clockwise beam was not on at the time. Now that the transformer has been replaced and the equipment rechilled, scientists expect to try soon to tighten the clockwise beam and prepare experiments in coming weeks, the statement said.

 

Before the problem occurred, scientists had said it would probably be several weeks before the first significant collisions were attempted.

[Humodour]

I don't really understand why that's news. It's like reporting "Dolly accidentally cuts her leg" a year after she's cloned or something.

[Gfted1]

Dunno, I just found it interesting. I didnt even know a transformer would operate at minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.

[Xard]

This is far more interesting

 

Anyway, it'll be disaster for physics if Higgs particle is the only thing they'll find

[Pidesco]

This is far more interesting

 

Anyway, it'll be disaster for physics if Higgs particle is the only thing they'll find

 

Wrong, actually. It will be awesome for physics if they're able to find Higgs boson. It will be a bit problematic if they don't find Higgs, but even that would be akin to not finding an ether drift in the late 19th century: it would just be a stepping stone towards further awesomeness.

[Xard]

Finding Higgs won't yield anything new - and LHC sure as hell should give more for its price than only reaffirming conventional theory

[Pidesco]

Finding Higgs isn't "just" finding Higgs. finding it means figuring out why it has been so hard to find, it means closing the final gap in the Standard Model, it will probably shed some light on why there are so many particles in Quantum Physics, and hopefully, it will be the first experimental step towards finding evidence for supersymmetry.

[random n00b]

This is far more interesting

Wow, Asimov vibes?

 

 

Finding Higgs isn't "just" finding Higgs. finding it means figuring out why it has been so hard to find, it means closing the final gap in the Standard Model, it will probably shed some light on why there are so many particles in Quantum Physics, and hopefully, it will be the first experimental step towards finding evidence for supersymmetry.

Not everyone in the particle physics community is so fond of the SM as it would appear. There's still a chance that it may be debunked by evidence - prof. Hawking would seem to agree.

 

The luminiferous aether analogy is fitting... only they didn't spend billions to find out.

[tarna]

Dunno, I just found it interesting. I didnt even know a transformer would operate at minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit.

Transformers will work at most any low temp ( low temps are actually preferable as more heat is removed from the xfmr. ). I don't think however that this xfmr actually weighs 30 tons. It is probabnly a transformer that will supply wattage to a 30 ton cooler. 1 ton of coolling is 12,000 BTUs. I'm about half-lit but I think 1 wattt =3.2 something BTUs. While this cyclotron may be 17 miles ( or so ) in lenght, it doesn't have to be more than about 1 inch in diameter if the controls are properly built ( magnetic guides ). A system that will cool to 459 below Fahrenheit zero is called an 'Ultra-Low' temp system ( anything elow -80 F ). These cooling systems are usually a 'cascade system' in that a compressor will cool another compressor which will cool another compressor untill the needed temps are met. These systems are a supreme pain-in-the-ass to work on BTW becuase you don't know which stage of the cooling systm is acting up without a lot of info. Paying customers 'always' complain about what the diagnostic charges. Since the target temp being sought is VERY close to ABSOLUTE ZERO, this had to cost someone a buttload of money. Oil to lube the system does not move properly at these temps and propane/butane is usualy added to the refregerant blend to assure oil return to th compressor. Your compressor is still a strictly mechanical device and it's need for lubrication didn't disappear simply because it's cause was 'noble' to the needs of Man.

[Humodour]

This is far more interesting

 

Anyway, it'll be disaster for physics if Higgs particle is the only thing they'll find

 

Bull****. If all they find is the Higgs particle it'll have been worth it for that alone.

 

In fact, if all they find is nothing new, then that'd also make it worth it, since it implies no Higgs exists!

 

Heck dude, I need only to quote the very article you just linked to which says the same thing:

 

But whatever is seen or not seen by LHC, we will learn a great deal about a very basic question in physics: How do particles get their mass? And why do they have the masses they do? The answers will not come right away. It may be several years before LHC finds something and we know what it means. It is a very exciting time in this branch of fundamental physics.

[Humodour]

This is far more interesting

Wow, Asimov vibes?

 

 

Finding Higgs isn't "just" finding Higgs. finding it means figuring out why it has been so hard to find, it means closing the final gap in the Standard Model, it will probably shed some light on why there are so many particles in Quantum Physics, and hopefully, it will be the first experimental step towards finding evidence for supersymmetry.

Not everyone in the particle physics community is so fond of the SM as it would appear. There's still a chance that it may be debunked by evidence - prof. Hawking would seem to agree.

 

The luminiferous aether analogy is fitting... only they didn't spend billions to find out.

 

It's funny because when people see the hugely wasteful wars in the Middle East costing way over $400 billion for the US alone in less than 10 years, they just shrug and say "What can you do?" yet when it comes to a ground-breaking atom smasher that provides timeless insight into our universe in a peaceful, collaborative manner, they're affronted by the notion that we might spend about $10 billion on it spread over several collaborating countries, spread again over 20 years.

 

You want my opinion? The LHC has probably already paid for itself. Just like CERN created the World Wide Web to advance science of the day, the upgrades to the Internet required by the LHC at CERN spurred groundbreaking networks research and installation - an investment that will far out-live the LHC and add to the overall vitality of the Internet (and it needs it considering its growth rate - the IPv4 exhaustion problem will be bigger than anything the Y2K could have mustered and while it starts to hurt in about 1 year, and we've passed the point of fixing it without interruption, still nobody is paying any attention to it).

 

Kudos for linking Physorg. Great science news aggregator, that.

[random n00b]

In fact, if all they find is nothing new, then that'd also make it worth it, since it implies no Higgs exists!

I don't see where you get the conclusion that failure to produce Higgs bosons at LHC means they don't exist?

 

 

It's funny because when people see the hugely wasteful wars in the Middle East costing way over $400 billion for the US alone in less than 10 years, they just shrug and say "What can you do?" yet when it comes to a ground-breaking atom smasher that provides timeless insight into our universe in a peaceful, collaborative manner, they're affronted by the notion that we might spend about $10 billion on it spread over several collaborating countries, spread again over 20 years.

Oh, I didn't mean it that way. I just think it's a pretty expensive way of proving a point, is all. I'm all for taxes money being spent in all sorts of huge ass scientific gimmicks.

 

 

You want my opinion? The LHC has probably already paid for itself. Just like CERN created the World Wide Web to advance science of the day, the upgrades to the Internet required by the LHC at CERN spurred groundbreaking networks research and installation - an investment that will far out-live the LHC and add to the overall vitality of the Internet (and it needs it considering its growth rate - the IPv4 exhaustion problem will be bigger than anything the Y2K could have mustered and while it starts to hurt in about 1 year, and we've passed the point of fixing it without interruption, still nobody is paying any attention to it).

I didn't know about that. But since you brought up the Y2K thing, perhaps IPv4 running out won't be the end of the world either... I'm a bit skeptical about doomsdays, these days.

[Humodour]

In fact, if all they find is nothing new, then that'd also make it worth it, since it implies no Higgs exists!

I don't see where you get the conclusion that failure to produce Higgs bosons at LHC means they don't exist?

 

You could take that probabalistic line with the RHIC not producing a Higgs, but as far as I am aware, the LHC should be producing them all the time at those energy densities.

 

It's funny because when people see the hugely wasteful wars in the Middle East costing way over $400 billion for the US alone in less than 10 years, they just shrug and say "What can you do?" yet when it comes to a ground-breaking atom smasher that provides timeless insight into our universe in a peaceful, collaborative manner, they're affronted by the notion that we might spend about $10 billion on it spread over several collaborating countries, spread again over 20 years.

Oh, I didn't mean it that way. I just think it's a pretty expensive way of proving a point, is all. I'm all for taxes money being spent in all sorts of huge ass scientific gimmicks.

 

Oh, I get that. I just felt it was a poignant time to chime in about how a lot of people use that highly fallacious "Billions of dollars on science? What a waste!" line of thinking.

 

You want my opinion? The LHC has probably already paid for itself. Just like CERN created the World Wide Web to advance science of the day, the upgrades to the Internet required by the LHC at CERN spurred groundbreaking networks research and installation - an investment that will far out-live the LHC and add to the overall vitality of the Internet (and it needs it considering its growth rate - the IPv4 exhaustion problem will be bigger than anything the Y2K could have mustered and while it starts to hurt in about 1 year, and we've passed the point of fixing it without interruption, still nobody is paying any attention to it).

I didn't know about that. But since you brought up the Y2K thing, perhaps IPv4 running out won't be the end of the world either... I'm a bit skeptical about doomsdays, these days.

 

Well I personally wouldn't even consider asteroids hitting Earth, supervolcanoes erupting, or a global ice age due to underestimated localised nuclear war, as the end of the world. As song as a few thousand humans survive, life goes on.

 

I do, however, find it bemusing that people were willing to run around like headless chickens because the Y2K bug occurred at the changeover of the millennium (but realistically had fairly limited damage potential) while 10 years later (desensitisation?) they absolutely ignore something that's far more pervasive in our lives (especially 2 years from now), crucial to almost all forms of government, business, education and leisure, and has a far more feasible (but no less disastrous) mode of damage: massive communications disruption because IPv6 isn't backwards compatible with IPv4 (an infrastructure problem).

[Humodour]

Two cases, both unfortunately indistinguishable:

 

1) The Y2K hype was based on specious reasoning (this is what most people now suspect)

2) The Y2K hype was accurate, but nobody noticed, because the hype successfully motivated people to fix the bug

 

Unfortunately, both suffer the same problem: nothing bad happened, leading to an anticlimax for the general populace, leading to distrust of the original predictions. This is likely a compounding problem for IPv4 exhaustion because, regardless of the fact that its predictions are far more concrete and quantifiable, it now has to contend with a populace which bears a "boy who cried wolf" suspicion of anything resembling "technological doomsday" scenarios.

 

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, sweetie.

Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.

Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: I see.

Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

[Meshugger]

Speaking of 'wasteful' money, there was actually 'Superconducting supercollider'-project back in the '90's in the US. Compared to the LHC, this one would've had a ing circumference of a whopping 87 kilometers!

 

But they skipped it, since it was deemed as too expensive and not necessary, and communism was beaten and the cold war had ended.

[Xard]

Wow, I lost that argument I give you that

 

 

My point was more about that scientists - although Higgs particle is the one that gets all the fuz - are looking forward a lot more in finding all sorts of new weird crap happening. It has come up in few interviews in addition to that and shouldn't surprise anyone

 

 

Two cases, both unfortunately indistinguishable:

 

1) The Y2K hype was based on specious reasoning (this is what most people now suspect)

2) The Y2K hype was accurate, but nobody noticed, because the hype successfully motivated people to fix the bug

 

Unfortunately, both suffer the same problem: nothing bad happened, leading to an anticlimax for the general populace, leading to distrust of the original predictions. This is likely a compounding problem for IPv4 exhaustion because, regardless of the fact that its predictions are far more concrete and quantifiable, it now has to contend with a populace which bears a "boy who cried wolf" suspicion of anything resembling "technological doomsday" scenarios.

 

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.

Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.

Homer: Thank you, sweetie.

Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.

Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?

Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.

Homer: I see.

Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?

Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

 

Well, that's what YOU think

 

Everyone who has the sacred knowledge knows that's when Illuminati took over information structures of world

[Xard]

someone remind me, did I mean Deus Ex or Metal Gear Solid 2 with that last part?

[Humodour]

Well, that's what YOU think

 

Everyone who has the sacred knowledge knows that's when Illuminati took over information structures of world

 

So does that make 2010 the year when Bob Page unleashes Icarus in the confusion of IP exhaustion?

 

From the wikipedia article on the SSC:

"abandoning the SSC at this point would signal that the United States is compromising its position of leadership in basic science..."

 

It's funny because that's exactly what happened. Although that's likely more due to a multitude of factors including stagnation after the Cold War rather than the cancellation of a single atom smasher.

Edited September 20, 2008 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

I found some quite amusing spoof footage of them turning the thing on.