History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedEthical, Theological Implications of Atom Smasher

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Sep-2008 at 10:50
OK.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Benedictus View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24-Jul-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benedictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 19:20
Since there are some who think that the "religious" on this thread are basing their grounds for the halt of the LRC on their religious beliefs, I would like to offer the opportunity for those who understand "high level physics" Winkto explain in lay-mens terms what the actual contribution to the scientific community really will be as a result of finding the Higgs-Boson particle.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The purpose of the experiment(s) are quite clear.


I see no reason why if you do not have a high degree in Physics, you cannot understand why they need to do this....Cezar. Many have made good points about whether religion can or cannot be used to justify or discount the motivations of scientific research.

Even though I am a Christian, what I have said did NOT use the Biblical accounts of the tower of Babel as grounds for the removal or halt of the collider. What I did say, is that I do not understand, if the possiblity of a creating a black hole exists (however small- 1/50M? Which is not that small), how does the discovery of a specific particle overshadows the possible great danger that would be created from the inability to harness a black hole if created. Everything I have ever read (admittedly, not a great deal due to my field expertise), tells me that black holes are a dominant and relatively unknown force in the universe. It would seem to me that it is in the best interest of man to take all possible precautions so that if a black hole is created, that it can be irrefutably contained. I do not believe that man is so knowledgable, that he can forsee everything that could happen. Granted, we should not suspend scientific experimentation just because there is a possibility that "bad things" could happen. But this is no ordinary "bad thing" possibility. A black hole could destroy our world. As much as I am aware, we do not have the technology to access and repopulate another planet or create a new planet. Perhaps many will dismiss my ideas as hocus-pocus and superstition or simply simple-mindedness and a failure to believe in the "all-encompassing" knowledge of our scientists LOL, but I believe that God has given us a duty to  protect our world we live in, and to nurture its ability to grow and survive. I understand that this is MY view and it is no way being imposed on anyone. I just ask you to respect my belief and those that may share it. Big%20smile

I am not opposed to science at all. My father is a well-respected scientist in his field and I am personally interested in science (particularly "green" research) as well. So to recap my question, to which I welcome respectful and knowledgeable answers from anyone willing.

1) What is the end result/applications of finding the Higgs-Boson particle?
2) Why is dark matter so important to the scientific community, especially in the light that we have not experimented with black holes themselves and do not understand their power?
3) If this experiment fails, what is the point of building a yet larger collider, due to the fact that many of these have been built and they need this to have the power to create these conditions?

P.S. I am reading a book called "The GOD Particle" (a good read) to gain some further knowledge about this subject. And to further explain my views, I do not think that "religion" should be kept separate from science. Furthermore, I do not believe that "religion" ought to be joined with science. I believe that for those who do believe, religion can and should have moral and ethical implications for those participating in scientific research because if one is truly devoted, then those beliefs should pervade every area of life, otherwise, what is the point of espousing a belief? I am also not a fan of "doomsday" prophecies and am rather cynical when hearing of certain "goings-on" that may be viewed as a doomsday situation. I am all-for the advancement of science, but believe that the measures ought to be in place to handle any conceivable event that could happen as a result of experimentation.

So, without further ado, please share what you think! I'm anxious to learn!

Back to Top
King Kang of Mu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside

Joined: 23-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Kang of Mu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 21:19

I am not a religious person anymore.  I would like to say I'm a spiritual person but what does that mean these days?  But I was interested when you guys were talking about the place of science and religion in each other. 

Let me ask you guys a question.  How long has it been us human to separate science from religion, or vice versa?  They didn't build the pyramids as a scientific experiment, did they?  I guess Galileo and Copernicus were some sort of turning point but even then that was just a beginning of the separation process.  I would say may be last 150-200 years or so we've achieved any significant amount of separation between two, but I'm not a historian.  So I'm asking....
 
But having said that, we also have achieved in credible scientific and technological developments during last 150-200 years(only in few parts of the globe).  Perhaps because science has been more 'free' from religion then before.   So least I can see the benefits of such separation process.
 
However in the end, they all search for the same truth.  Although they might interpret the truth from different perspectives they should merge again at the object if both of their journeys 've been successful.  So I do think religion and science a place in each other.  Otherwise we are gonna end up with clueless priests against spiritless scientists, I'm afraid.   It's just that once we come to that, the next question is,'which religion?'.   That I don't think we have evolved enough to answer yet.   
 
But I do believe this as a 'spiritual person', that the death is not an end for me.  Whether I will be just pushing up the daisies or dancing with the angels, I don't know.  If science tells me that all I can do is become part of soil for the plants and thrown back into 'the circle of life', I think that is just as 'spiritual' as dancing with the angels.  So if I, as a person come to a door that opens a possible destruction of myself but promises a great gain in truth and wisdom, I hope I am still 'spiritual' enough  and brave enough to walk through that door.  But I don't know if I am, and definitely can't speak for the rest of the humanity.      
I believe I am a reflection, like the moon on water. When you see me, and I try to be a good man, you see yourself.
- from 'Kundun'

www.ted.com
Back to Top
Benedictus View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 24-Jul-2008
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Benedictus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Sep-2008 at 23:12
I think King Kang of Mu makes a good point (and has a great name) Thumbs%20Up. When conducting scientific experiments, it is very important (whatever your belief) to not let your beliefs get in the way of your experimentation. This is very important for an unbiased result.
Originally posted by King Kan of Mu King Kan of Mu wrote:

However in the end, they all search for the same truth.  Although they might interpret the truth from different perspectives they should merge again at the object if both of their journeys 've been successful.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Because many religions, faiths, scientific beliefs can be quite varied, I don't believe everyone is searching for the same thing. You may want to clarify your point if you feel I am misunderstanding you. Religion and science can interact if they understand and respect each other. This is a problem both on the religious side and the scientific side. I think the religious debate is very important and would agree with your statement:
Originally posted by King Kang of Mu King Kang of Mu wrote:

Otherwise we are gonna end up with clueless priests against spiritless scientists, I'm afraid.   It's just that once we come to that, the next question is,'which religion?'.

I think at its most basic level, religious doctrine must be accepted by....(don't laugh)...faith. Scientific fact must be proven by testing practical theories. If a theory is disproved, it is because most people in a given area of scientifica agree with the test results, as a consensus, not because they have any real power. The real difference here, is whether people choose to accept that there is, or is NOT existing a higher power in control of the apeiron, controlling the atomos, within the Higgs field.

I sincerely hope that greater knowledge about our universe is revealed as a result of this experiment, but without disaster. Because of the gargantuan size of the accelerator, I think that if nothing can be revealed about the 'god particle', no further attempts should be made to create an even larger one. As I have stated before, there have to be some limits imposed (within a sense of reason).

Personally, I believe that my life is more important and worth more than 'becoming a part of nature' at the end of my life, because life is too structured (yes, especially at the atomic and sub-atomic level) to be chaotic, and therefore my life has a purpose. If quarks 'randomly' collide to create matter, why does it combine the way it does, producing species and diversity with so fluid a continuity as it does? This, in my mind, gives enough evidence that chaos being an overarching force in the universe, is quite a silly theory, and that other answers must be sought.


Back to Top
King Kang of Mu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside

Joined: 23-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Kang of Mu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 02:41
Originally posted by Benedictus Benedictus wrote:

I think King Kang of Mu makes a good point (and has a great name) Thumbs%20Up. When conducting scientific experiments, it is very important (whatever your belief) to not let your beliefs get in the way of your experimentation. This is very important for an unbiased result.
Originally posted by King Kan of Mu King Kan of Mu wrote:

However in the end, they all search for the same truth.  Although they might interpret the truth from different perspectives they should merge again at the object if both of their journeys 've been successful.

I would have to disagree with you on this point. Because many religions, faiths, scientific beliefs can be quite varied, I don't believe everyone is searching for the same thing. You may want to clarify your point if you feel I am misunderstanding you. Religion and science can interact if they understand and respect each other. This is a problem both on the religious side and the scientific side. I think the religious debate is very important and would agree with your statement:
Originally posted by King Kang of Mu King Kang of Mu wrote:

Otherwise we are gonna end up with clueless priests against spiritless scientists, I'm afraid.   It's just that once we come to that, the next question is,'which religion?'.

I think at its most basic level, religious doctrine must be accepted by....(don't laugh)...faith. Scientific fact must be proven by testing practical theories. If a theory is disproved, it is because most people in a given area of scientifica agree with the test results, as a consensus, not because they have any real power. The real difference here, is whether people choose to accept that there is, or is NOT existing a higher power in control of the apeiron, controlling the atomos, within the Higgs field.

 
I guess I was treating 'the truth' like it was the holy grail.LOL  Obviously I agree with you on keeping it separate for unbiased results.  Common sense.  But if I may indulge myself in the semantics of it all, all results are unbiased.  It's us that interpret them biased or set up a biased condition for the results.   
 
I guess I was talking about 'the truth' in more long term human evolutionary sense.  If we don't go down dinosaurs under asteroids, or climate changes or nuclear Holocaust or in this case Atom Smasher, let say us as the human race are able to survive every threat of extinction because we developed proper scientific respond to the oncoming threat, therefore we are given the eternity to develop our civilization including science and the religion, don't you think we would be able to answer some questions about God, ghosts or aliens, heaven and hell, death, soul.......  
 
And I believeBig%20smile the more evolved we are, the answers for scientific and religious questions will come closer to each other.   And I don't mean it by just unscientific religious beliefs broken down by scientific reasons.  I've been noticing that some of the most far out scientific theories today increasingly on the edge of metaphysics.  If there was a scientist who was working on theories of parallel universe in let's say 19th century, that person might be considered to be closer to Rasputin than the Brian Greenes of today. 
 
In that sense I would even get drunk in my own gumption that the pendulum of process for reuniting science and religion in human experience has already passed the lowest(no pun intended) point.  I am looking forward for science and religion to work more harmonious and closer together as we evolve.  I think this couple hundred years of separation was just a lost weekend.  Though we've made great progress in the separation, it does not mean that is the way it has been or the way it should be.  Why grow separately when we can grow together?
 
If I was a truly religious person I would love to see what science can prove or disapprove about what I believe.   If I'm a scientist, or not, I would love to see God if he or she or it or they exists.    Either I'm a religious or scientist I wish I would be more concerned with attaining the truth than the being proven right for having proper method to get there. 
 
I also think that our faith, reason, and intuition are not as separate faculties as we treat them.   I believe cause and effect in philosophy has been argued as habit or liguistic convention than a natural law in the universe. 
 
As far as just becoming part of the nature as death but not as the end, I meant it more as we are already a part of nature by itself or nature as also a part of God.  Perhaps it is only our consciousness and experiences that separates them all.  What's wrong with becoming nourishment for daisies?  Am I better than the daisies?  In God's eyes?  In my eyes?  Or in my spirit's eyes?  Only in my eyes. I think. I mean I believe.
 
Sorry it became a mumble jumble again.  I will least leave you with a fun stuff.
P.S.  He says extraterrestrial cilivilizations but he means more like any possbile extraterrestrial civilizations including our own some day if we are allowed to keep developing according to the laws of physics we know today.  
 
  
 
 
I believe I am a reflection, like the moon on water. When you see me, and I try to be a good man, you see yourself.
- from 'Kundun'

www.ted.com
Back to Top
King Kang of Mu View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
(Foot)Balling DJ from da Eastside

Joined: 23-Mar-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1022
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Kang of Mu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 04:10
Read an article by Dr. Kaku featured in the Wall Street Journal
 
Hmmm, I guess he already wrote a piece about this very subject in thw Wall Street Journal on the 13th.  I should have checked before last post.  He's been all over the places lately, History Channels to Discovery Channel to now MTV and WSJ. He's like the new David Suzuki.
 
Here is a few interesting paragraphs from the article if you don't want click on the link and read the whole thing.
 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

......At the heart of this debate is a truly mammoth machine, 17 miles in circumference, straddling the French-Swiss border. After $8 billion and 14 years of work by thousands of physicists and engineers, the LHC has finally been fired up. It's purpose is to accelerate two beams of protons to 99.999999% light speed in a huge tube in opposite directions and then slam them into each other to recreate the sizzling temperatures found at the instant of the Big Bang, and thereby unlock the greatest secrets of the universe.

At the very least, physicists hope to find a new particle, called the Higgs boson, the last piece of the Standard Model of particles. But some physicists hope to do even better. The LHC might shed light on the "theory of everything," a single theory which can explain all fundamental forces of the universe, a theory which eluded Albert Einstein for the last 30 years of his life. This is the Holy Grail of physics. Einstein hoped it would allow us to "read the Mind of God.".....

......But why, some ask, is this machine being built in Europe, and not the U.S.? President Ronald Reagan originally wanted to build a much larger machine, called the Super Conducting Super Collider, outside Dallas, Texas, to maintain U.S. leadership in advanced physics. Congress allotted $1 billion to dig a huge circular hole for the machine. But Congress got cold feet and cancelled it in 1993. Then Congress gave physicists another $1 billion to fill up the hole! As a consequence, Congress guaranteed that leadership in advanced physics would pass from the U.S. to Europe.......
 

......There is actually a parallel with the past, in which the media misled the people. Back in 1910, the media correctly stated that the earth would soon pass through the tail of Halley's Comet. The media also correctly stated that there might be poisonous gases in the tail. Almost overnight, these reports sparked mass hysteria around the world -- rumors spread like wildfire, gas masks were sold in the streets, would-be prophets warned of the Apocalypse.

But the media failed to report that the tail of a comet is extremely rarefied -- all the dust in the tail could probably fit inside a suitcase. Eventually the headlines and the panic subsided, and scientists were given a bonanza as they analyzed the comet's tail. Similarly, once the hyperventilating critics get bored with the LHC and find something else to pounce on, science will move on to unlock the secrets of Genesis.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Funny he mentions the Holy Grail, huh?  99.99999% of the speed of light, huh?  I did not know we could do that.  That's kinda cool.  But then again, rescent reports say that we can travel even faster than the speed of light using the Dark Energy, or was it the Dark Force?
 
 
 
About the paragraph on the politics of U.S and Europe about it, I really don't care where it happened and who gets the credit for it. I just thought some of you might find it interesting. If it's good we all can benefit from it eventually and if it's not we thought how it would be......  well, then hopefully I can recognise you in the next universe.
 
He gives three reasons why we shouldn't be so worried about it but I think all those reasons has been mentioned in this thread already, so I didn't paste it but you can always click on the link.  As far as the Halley's Comet hysteria thing, I didn't point it out the ridicule the doubters.  I just thought it's a history site and all.
I believe I am a reflection, like the moon on water. When you see me, and I try to be a good man, you see yourself.
- from 'Kundun'

www.ted.com
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 08:31
Originally posted by Benedictus Benedictus wrote:

Since there are some who think that the "religious" on this thread are basing their grounds for the halt of the LRC on their religious beliefs, I would like to offer the opportunity for those who understand "high level physics" Winkto explain in lay-mens terms what the actual contribution to the scientific community really will be as a result of finding the Higgs-Boson particle.

Originally posted by Cezar Cezar wrote:

The purpose of the experiment(s) are quite clear.


I see no reason why if you do not have a high degree in Physics, you cannot understand why they need to do this....Cezar. Many have made good points about whether religion can or cannot be used to justify or discount the motivations of scientific research.
It's quite simple Benedictus - knowledge. Physics needs the data of the experiments in order to advance. You should know that there are many theoretical approaches regarding how our Universe is structured. In order to develop further the theories, scientists need data regarding their different hypothesis. 
Quote

Even though I am a Christian, what I have said did NOT use the Biblical accounts of the tower of Babel as grounds for the removal or halt of the collider. What I did say, is that I do not understand, if the possiblity of a creating a black hole exists (however small- 1/50M? Which is not that small), how does the discovery of a specific particle overshadows the possible great danger that would be created from the inability to harness a black hole if created. Everything I have ever read (admittedly, not a great deal due to my field expertise), tells me that black holes are a dominant and relatively unknown force in the universe. It would seem to me that it is in the best interest of man to take all possible precautions so that if a black hole is created, that it can be irrefutably contained. I do not believe that man is so knowledgable, that he can forsee everything that could happen. Granted, we should not suspend scientific experimentation just because there is a possibility that "bad things" could happen. But this is no ordinary "bad thing" possibility. A black hole could destroy our world. As much as I am aware, we do not have the technology to access and repopulate another planet or create a new planet. Perhaps many will dismiss my ideas as hocus-pocus and superstition or simply simple-mindedness and a failure to believe in the "all-encompassing" knowledge of our scientists LOL, but I believe that God has given us a duty to  protect our world we live in, and to nurture its ability to grow and survive. I understand that this is MY view and it is no way being imposed on anyone. I just ask you to respect my belief and those that may share it. Big%20smile
You should check the link I've posted on the previous page. Maybe then you will realise that there is no real possibility of a dangeoous black hole to be generated.
Quote

I am not opposed to science at all. My father is a well-respected scientist in his field and I am personally interested in science (particularly "green" research) as well. So to recap my question, to which I welcome respectful and knowledgeable answers from anyone willing.

1) What is the end result/applications of finding the Higgs-Boson particle?
I think I've made myself clear about that.
Quote
2) Why is dark matter so important to the scientific community, especially in the light that we have not experimented with black holes themselves and do not understand their power?
It looks like you have a slightly wrong idea about dark matter/energy and black holes. They are not related, at least not as directly as your question seems to imply that you think. The CERN site http://public.web.cern.ch/public/ provides enough low level Wink information regarding this subject
Quote
3) If this experiment fails, what is the point of building a yet larger collider, due to the fact that many of these have been built and they need this to have the power to create these conditions?
Can you at first wait for the experiment to fail and then question the building of another, bigger accelerator?
Quote

P.S. I am reading a book called "The GOD Particle" (a good read) to gain some further knowledge about this subject. And to further explain my views, I do not think that "religion" should be kept separate from science. Furthermore, I do not believe that "religion" ought to be joined with science. I believe that for those who do believe, religion can and should have moral and ethical implications for those participating in scientific research because if one is truly devoted, then those beliefs should pervade every area of life, otherwise, what is the point of espousing a belief? I am also not a fan of "doomsday" prophecies and am rather cynical when hearing of certain "goings-on" that may be viewed as a doomsday situation. I am all-for the advancement of science, but believe that the measures ought to be in place to handle any conceivable event that could happen as a result of experimentation.

So, without further ado, please share what you think! I'm anxious to learn!

I don't know about that book you're reading but I'm a SF fan and the concern about CERN is something I've found a few years ago when I've read Joe Haldeman's "Forever Peace". 
My point is that ethical implications of such things should be kept within the scientific world especially among those that can handle the possible implications of such experiments. Worrying about the results before there are any is something that looks rather unethical to me. Also, if you wish, I think is not just unethical but aslo irresponsible to spread terror and fear and whatever alike just to make a few more paper sales. I bet that 99% of those who wrote or spoke about the danger of black holes popping up from the LHC think that a black hole looks like some kind of an eightball without markings.
As for the theological implications maybe the problem with your point lies in your consistent opinion that we are bound to some sort of limits established by God. If these so called limits are broken then your theology is at least shaken. Fortunately, there seem to be a lot of religious persons, including here on AE, that don't think there is a limit imposed by God beyond which humans should not pass.
I also have a problem with your idea of God's given mission to humans to take care of our world. But that's a little out of the subject, maybe another thread?
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 13:22
Originally posted by King Kang of Mu King Kang of Mu wrote:

Let me ask you guys a question.  How long has it been us human to separate science from religion, or vice versa?  They didn't build the pyramids as a scientific experiment, did they?  I guess Galileo and Copernicus were some sort of turning point but even then that was just a beginning of the separation process.  I would say may be last 150-200 years or so we've achieved any significant amount of separation between two, but I'm not a historian.  So I'm asking....
Arthur Koestler in The Watershed makes a good case for taking the career of Kepler as the turning point.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Byzantine Emperor View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Kastrophylax kai Tzaousios

Joined: 24-May-2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1804
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Byzantine Emperor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jan-2009 at 18:24
Interesting update to the Hadron Collider.  It makes one wonder what the difference is between a fraction of a millisecond and a second in the life of an artificially created black holes.
 
 
Back to Top
Cezar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Nov-2005
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 1211
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cezar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Jan-2009 at 06:37
Byzantine, you just showed how media distorts what scientists say. What the three scientists published is here: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0901/0901.2948v1.pdf
Mainly: "In this paper we present the results of our analysis of the growth and decay of black holes possibly produced at the Large Hadron Collider, based on our previous study of black holes in the context of the warped brane-world scenario. The black hole mass accretion and decay is obtained as a function of time, and the maximum black hole mass is obtained as a function of a critical mass parameter. The latter occurs in our expression for the luminosity and is related to the size of extra-dimensional corrections to Newton's law of gravitation. Based on this analysis, we argue against the possibility of catastrophic black hole growth at the LHC."
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.