Scientists Re-Create Big Bang in Lab

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Large Hadron Collider created a mini big bang during testing yesterday, setting the stage for complete annihilation of the earth and or a massive black hole next time. Thanks to Derek H. for the link.

This process took place in a safe, controlled environment, generating incredibly hot and dense sub-atomic fireballs with temperatures of over ten trillion degrees, a million times hotter than the centre of the Sun.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
How could they control that heat? The center of the sun is around 27,000,000F (15,000,000C) to begin with. I don't know how they could manage that, let alone 13 trillion.
 
Its done on a subatomic level, heat will disipate very quickly
 
The heat dissipates more than very quickly, the temperature only exists for a billionth of a trillionth of a second.
 
DirtyChimp said:
The heat dissipates more than very quickly, the temperature only exists for a billionth of a trillionth of a second.
Click to expand...

This kind of science made my girlfriend go :confused: as I was trying to explain it to her. She just replied with "I'm ok with the testing, just don't ruin my date with 2012." Some people really want to believe the end if coming...
 
King Icewind said:
How could they control that heat? The center of the sun is around 27,000,000F (15,000,000C) to begin with. I don't know how they could manage that, let alone 13 trillion.
Click to expand...

its infinitesimally small, the actual energy isn't even the amount of heat in a hot bath, its just concentrated to such a small area. so when it goes off (or it collides if you prefer) the blast has many orders of magnitude to expand in and cool itself before it ever reaches anything. Of course there still is radiation and such but its still a small amount.
 
Good Grief.

The Big Bang is a theory.
Nothing more.
Just because it is the theory that most people hang their hat on does not change the fact it is a theory; a GUESS.
The same with evolution and the rest of the theories people pick and chose from to complete the portfolio that makes up what they believe.
And to ridicule people that believe God had something to do with it is being rather hypocritical since it is a matter if faith to believe in a theory.
 
terrybogard21 said:
This kind of science made my girlfriend go :confused: as I was trying to explain it to her. She just replied with "I'm ok with the testing, just don't ruin my date with 2012." Some people really want to believe the end if coming...
Click to expand...

I'm sure she was just kidding.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Good Grief.

The Big Bang is a theory.
Nothing more.
Just because it is the theory that most people hang their hat on does not change the fact it is a theory; a GUESS.
The same with evolution and the rest of the theories people pick and chose from to complete the portfolio that makes up what they believe.
And to ridicule people that believe God had something to do with it is being rather hypocritical since it is a matter if faith to believe in a theory.
Click to expand...

Did someone pee in your Cheerios this morning? The whole purpose of tests and labs and science is to try and prove theories. Yes, it's a guess, but I'm certain they're well thought out guesses with math and physics and chemistry and biology and so on supporting it.

I believe in God myself, but I won't believe in the drivel that was written by Mohammad and Emperor Constantine. For all we know, He may have caused the Big Bang, but in my opinion the world is too beautiful to believe that chaos and random science created it without a Master Artist guiding it.

I really dislike religion dictating what other people should think. He gave us a brain. Don't be afraid to think about how the Universe came about. He's not going to smite you.
 
So now big bang is no longer a theory to the BBC in 2010 (to post-modernists 2010 CE). There is so much to physics that the scientist do not know that they do not know. Sheesh, there are stars in globular clusters that are more than 13.7 billion years old. Scientific group-speak also applies to anthropogenic global warming stories.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
Good Grief.

The Big Bang is a theory.
Nothing more.
Just because it is the theory that most people hang their hat on does not change the fact it is a theory; a GUESS.
The same with evolution and the rest of the theories people pick and chose from to complete the portfolio that makes up what they believe.
And to ridicule people that believe God had something to do with it is being rather hypocritical since it is a matter if faith to believe in a theory.
Click to expand...

Evolution and the Big Bang are completely different things in terms of what we know or think we know. At this point, evolution is only still a "theory" because super-religious people say it is. Trying to tell any biologist that evolution doesn't exist is like trying to tell them gravity is also a lie. It can be observed all around this planet, and it can be measured in every population of living things. In fact, having an educational background in biology myself, one of my favorite quotes comes from Theodosius "Theodore" Dobzhansky. He said, and titled a famous essay, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
 
Kind of tired of scientist pushing the limits of everything to 'learn' more. More harm than good comes out of these kinds of things. Seriously we would all be better off without teh internetz, living without and idea of atomic power ;]
 
luigi2000 said:
Sheesh, there are stars in globular clusters that are more than 13.7 billion years old.
Click to expand...

The age of the universe is merely a ballpark guess (and refined with more information) based on the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) and yet even despite that, there is still uncertainty, just as there is uncertainty as to the actual size of the universe (one guess is that it's about 35 billion light years in radius, and another is that it's about 70 billion light years in radius), but since we have to wait for information to travel at the speed of light we only get to see so much of the universe at once.
 
Man...just the concept of sub-atomic particles melting blows the mind.
This is very, very cool stuff.
 
bpizzle1 said:
Evolution and the Big Bang are completely different things in terms of what we know or think we know. At this point, evolution is only still a "theory" because super-religious people say it is. Trying to tell any biologist that evolution doesn't exist is like trying to tell them gravity is also a lie. It can be observed all around this planet, and it can be measured in every population of living things. In fact, having an educational background in biology myself, one of my favorite quotes comes from Theodosius "Theodore" Dobzhansky. He said, and titled a famous essay, "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
Click to expand...

Yeah, the big bang and evolution are different things. Though this test may/may not have nothing to do with the first moments of our universe.


As for evolution. All we observe are small changes. We have never observed large changes. So in a large scale, evolution has not been observed. Punctuated equilibrium is the best forensic model for evolution, and yet most evolutionists choose to ignore it.
 
EvilWays said:
The age of the universe is merely a ballpark guess (and refined with more information) based on the CMB (cosmic microwave background radiation) and yet even despite that, there is still uncertainty, just as there is uncertainty as to the actual size of the universe (one guess is that it's about 35 billion light years in radius, and another is that it's about 70 billion light years in radius), but since we have to wait for information to travel at the speed of light we only get to see so much of the universe at once.
Click to expand...

All granted; if we are talking science we are talking about empirical evidence. So far there is all kinds of data about how the universe is expanding, which suggests it had a finite beginning. Thus the THEORY of the big bang.
What I have a problem with is any TRUTH claim about this. Just because there is consensus about this does not make it a fact. Some finding in the future may cause most scientist to toss out the big bang all together. Where is the claim that it is a fact then? There was no empirical evidence to support it.
 
If the Big Bang created the universe, where did the big bang come from?

The whole space thing can really screw with your head.
 
Dr. Righteous said:
All granted; if we are talking science we are talking about empirical evidence. So far there is all kinds of data about how the universe is expanding, which suggests it had a finite beginning. Thus the THEORY of the big bang.
What I have a problem with is any TRUTH claim about this. Just because there is consensus about this does not make it a fact. Some finding in the future may cause most scientist to toss out the big bang all together. Where is the claim that it is a fact then? There was no empirical evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a THEORY, you know, like gravity, and the rotation of the earth. They're just THEORIES, man. Just because you drop a pencil and it falls to the ground 20,000,000,000 times, doesn't mean it'll fall on the 20,000,000,001st time. :rolleyes:
 
Parmenides said:
As for evolution. All we observe are small changes. We have never observed large changes. So in a large scale, evolution has not been observed.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You don't have to watch something happen in real time to observe it. Genetics has provided abundant evidence to substantiate diversity through inheritance with modification.

And the next yo-yo who uses the term "just a theory" gets a knuckle sandwich. The word "theory" has a different meaning in science than it does in layman's terms.
 
Parmenides said:
Yeah, the big bang and evolution are different things. Though this test may/may not have nothing to do with the first moments of our universe.


As for evolution. All we observe are small changes. We have never observed large changes. So in a large scale, evolution has not been observed. Punctuated equilibrium is the best forensic model for evolution, and yet most evolutionists choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...

Mostly due to the fact that large scale changes generally take a long time to come about. The amount of selective pressure on a particular phenotype that would be required to cause it to become fixated in a population in a short amount of time is pretty huge (as in the phenotype would have to essentially be 100% required for the species to survive). You have to remember that people have been studying the subject for a very short period of time biologically speaking.
 
Theories are overrated. Give me facts, not liberal bias... oh wait, nevermind.
 
matrix563 said:
thats why time passed so slowly lately
Click to expand...

you know, I felt like yesterday really dragged by...it was horrible. Even commented to my wife about it.

You're saying this was the reason? They managed to manipulate space-time? Or just time?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top