Science – The 40-year hunt for the holy grail of physics ââ;¬" the elusive "God particle" that is supposed to give matter its mass ââ;¬" is almost over, according to the leading scientist who first came up with the theory.
Strange that an atheist would refer to his particle using the adjective "God".
If he doesn't believe in the existence of God then is he also saying his particle doesn't exist?
Einstein used the word 'God' on occasion, usually in reference to something 'ultimate'. The search is for a particle that may unify theoretical physics. 'God' in this sense designates something really, really important.
In short, if scientists find the 'God' particle, it doesn't mean God exists. Sorry.
I wrote a friend of mine about the black hole issue and he sent me this:
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn040408.html
In 1999 Wagner warned that RHIC, the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory, must be slain lest it create a black hole (WN 23 Jul 99) . The then BNL director, Jack Marburger, named a distinguished panel of physicists to investigate. Their report noted that nature has been conducting the relevant safety test for billions of years by colliding heavy-ion cosmic rays with the moon. It concluded that creation of a black hole is "effectively ruled out by the persistence of the Moon."
Not a member? Sign-up today!
dokkyou08
suzanemichel
leeharris1969
manaforever77
rhettdejesus1975
Blondie01
Hyperboreus
nopatacious
maduclinton
alllo
alamala
dexlovex2
9korn
sandking101
baldieadelphe
dadan89
bizexpert
djapollo2k
iamnewsboy
Neophile
IAmMine
Raiderwall
Eagle Eye
deathray
JasonCalacanis
Redneck
Slyfrog
Ratskii
Radiofreeeuropa
obfuscator
jovial
engineer
spectrus
Black_Marry
Shannonyork
Mdiar
BillyMacDav
whodey08
JamesMarcus
BillSmythe
lawrencee
Zmajcheus
CoolCrazyStuff
kibasilasa
hensil
LadyXXX
ilovegossip
omerazam
ihealing
satansatan
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
11)
Vote
There's a group bringing suit to prevent the LHC from coming online because it may create a miniature black hole or create some ripple effect which would essentially turn the Earth and everything on it into some shapeless mass of something.
Seems impossible to have a black hole that is "small". Aren't ALL black holes small being that they are supposedly giant stars crushed down to the size of something smaller than a pin head?. I think what they mean to say is creating a "weak black hole". And it better be weak. Probably, the best way to tell if they get this thing off the ground is, when they'd create it, you'd suddenly feel like you gained a million pounds, and, when you looked at the ground, you saw your lips at your belly button, like when riding the "Hammer Head" at some cheap amusement park.
Nah, Mut... not all black holes. Super massive black holes aren't so small, if I remember correctly. Then again the extra mass of the black hole may not be contributing to its size. But I'm pretty sure it does, if not as much as that much mass would contribute if it was the density of the Earth.
I think they should think this over a little...
What are the benefits of proving this particle exists? If it can lead to some amazing breakthroughs in technology and such that are really that incredible than maybe. But I don't think risking the end of life is worth it if they're just trying to prove it for the sake of proving it.
Small black holes do have as small chance of occurring and are actually hoped for. Such black holes would last for a nanosecond or so and have an infinitesimal mass. The real 'danger' is a one-in-a-googol possibility that the LHD will trigger a cascade that will nullify the entire universe.