Thread: A particle God doesn't want us to discover

Originally Posted by mordred

So this is how the world is going to end on December 21, 2012? Good to know.

are you certain on this date?
My current budget runs to approx six years of extravagance here without needing to work, with about 10% margin for currency flucs.
3yrs and 2 months - I need to speed things up, I'd hate for it to go to waste.
No xmas pressies for 2012 then?

this is quite nice,

Originally Posted by CERN

Dark secrets of the Universe

It’s perhaps natural that we don’t know much about how the Universe was created – after all, we were never there ourselves. But it’s surprising to realise that when it comes to the Universe today, we don’t necessarily have a much better knowledge of what is out there. In fact, astronomers and physicists have found that all we see in the Universe – planets, stars, galaxies – accounts for only a tiny 4% of it! In a way, it is not so much the visible things that define the Universe, but rather the void around them.

Cosmological and astrophysical observations indicate that most of the Universe is made up of invisible substances that do not emit electromagnetic radiation – that is, we cannot detect them directly through telescopes or similar instruments. We detect them only through their gravitational effects, which makes them very difficult to study. These mysterious substances are known as ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’. What they are and what role they played in the evolution of the Universe are a mystery, but within this darkness lie intriguing possibilities of hitherto undiscovered physics beyond the established Standard Model.
Dark matter

Dark matter makes up about 26% of the Universe. The first hint of its existence came in 1933, when astronomical observations and calculations of gravitational effects revealed that there must be more 'stuff' present in the Universe than telescopes could see.

Researchers now believe that the gravitational effect of dark matter makes galaxies spin faster than expected, and that its gravitational field deviates the light of objects behind it. Measurements of these effects show that dark matter exists, and they can be used to estimate the density of dark matter even though we cannot directly observe it.

But what is dark matter? One idea is that it could contain ‘supersymmetric particles’ - hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider may be able to find them.
Dark energy

Dark energy makes up approximately 70% of the Universe and appears to be associated with the vacuum in space. It is homogenously distributed throughout the Universe, not only in space but also in time - in other words, its effect is not diluted as the Universe expands.

The even distribution means that dark energy does not have any local gravitational effects, but rather a global effect on the Universe as a whole. This leads to a repulsive force, which tends to accelerate the expansion of the Universe. The rate of expansion and its acceleration can be measured by observations based on the Hubble law. These measurements, together with other scientific data, have confirmed the existence of dark energy and provide an estimate of just how much of this mysterious substance exists.

Strings theory and the Standard Model,

Originally Posted by CERN

Loose ends

Will the string tie the Standard package? Hot on the heels of the Standard Model, some physicists are working to support a new idea called string theory. This attempts to tie up the loose ends in the Standard Model by explaining all the fundamental particles and forces (including gravity) in a unified framework.

Underlying string theory is the radical idea that fundamental particles are not really like points or dots, but rather small loops of vibrating strings. All the different particles and forces are just different oscillation modes of a unique type of string. Bizarrely, the theory also implies that besides the familiar three–dimensional world and the fourth dimension of time, there are six additional spatial dimensions! These extra dimensions are apparently 'curled up' so small that we do not see them.
Which string?

String theory is conceptually complex, with a fascinating but very difficult mathematical structure. This has so far prevented researchers from deriving concrete hypotheses from the theory for comparison with experimental results. Not only does string theory involve the complex study of the geometry of extra dimensions, but the way the structure of the dimensions are chosen appears arbitrary and can lead to different outcomes.

For instance, there seem to be many possible ways to curl up the extra dimensions, by choosing different shapes and sizes. This leads to many alternative versions of the theory. In certain cases, the sizes of the extra dimensions are very small and it will be difficult to obtain direct evidence for them. In others, the sizes are far larger and could be observed at new accelerators such as CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

they are not going to explose a few KG of anti-matter they don't have, only trying to reveal one particle with another

Beware the Illuminati.

Well Butterfly, here's another one for your scrapbook. The scales are tilting in your favour :

'Jesus's face' spotted on the toilet door in Ikea Glasgow



'Jesus's face' spotted on the toilet door in Ikea Glasgow - Telegraph


I am thoroughly convinced. Clearly this puts the Turin Shroud well in the shade.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Strings theory and the Standard Model,

Originally Posted by CERN

Loose ends

Will the string tie the Standard package? Hot on the heels of the Standard Model, some physicists are working to support a new idea called string theory.
Hardly new been around since early seventies
This attempts to tie up the loose ends in the Standard Model by explaining all the fundamental particles and forces (including gravity) in a unified framework.

Underlying string theory is the radical idea that fundamental particles are not really like points or dots, but rather small loops of vibrating strings. All the different particles and forces are just different oscillation modes of a unique type of string. Bizarrely, the theory also implies that besides the familiar three–dimensional world and the fourth dimension of time, there are six additional spatial dimensions! These extra dimensions are apparently 'curled up' so small that we do not see them.

The unified String Theory has eleven dimensions including time.

Which string?

String theory is conceptually complex, with a fascinating but very difficult mathematical structure. This has so far prevented researchers from deriving concrete hypotheses from the theory for comparison with experimental results. Not only does string theory involve the complex study of the geometry of extra dimensions, but the way the structure of the dimensions are chosen appears arbitrary and can lead to different outcomes.

For instance, there seem to be many possible ways to curl up the extra dimensions, by choosing different shapes and sizes. This leads to many alternative versions of the theory. In certain cases, the sizes of the extra dimensions are very small and it will be difficult to obtain direct evidence for them. In others, the sizes are far larger and could be observed at new accelerators such as CERN’s Large Hadron Collider.

Readers Digest by any chance BF ?

^ I don't know that was a simple copy/paste from the CERN website, probably written for dummies

Originally Posted by Bangyai

October 18, 2009

A particle God doesn’t want us to discover

Could the Large Hadron Collider be sabotaging itself from the future, as some physicists say

Explosions, scientists arrested for alleged terrorism, mysterious breakdowns — recently Cern’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has begun to look like the world’s most ill-fated experiment.
Is it really nothing more than bad luck or is there something weirder at work? Such speculation generally belongs to the lunatic fringe, but serious scientists have begun to suggest that the frequency of Cern’s accidents and problems is far more than a coincidence.
The LHC, they suggest, may be sabotaging itself from the future — twisting time to generate a series of scientific setbacks that will prevent the machine fulfilling its destiny.
At first sight, this theory fits comfortably into the crackpot tradition linking the start-up of the LHC with terrible disasters. The best known is that the £3 billion particle accelerator might trigger a black hole capable of swallowing the Earth when it gets going. Scientists enjoy laughing at this one.
This time, however, their ridicule has been rather muted — because the time travel idea has come from two distinguished physicists who have backed it with rigorous mathematics.

Full article :
A particle God doesn’t want us to discover - Times Online



Well, God moves in mysterious ways. Just last week he stopped me making a decent rice pudding. Theres a connection somewhere but I'm still doing the maths.

The greatest excuse for fucking up I have ever heard.

Perhaps they'll send Arnie back to sort it out. If in the future they could see this happening they would have changed history alot earlier. And if time travel is possible and the time travellers are trying to stop it then surely they have proved themselves by failing since they are travelling in time themselves to prevent it. More fcked up bollox.

Sorry.Explain that again,slowly.

Originally Posted by crippen

Sorry.Explain that again,slowly.

Time travellers trying to prevent time travel. If they are using time travel to prevent time travel they surely they have failed.

^ I get it how can time travelers stop time travel? If they are time travelers themselves then they didnt stop time travel. Good one!

I don't think the experiment is about time traveling guys,

anyway, fascinating stuff, we can only hope they know what they are doing

Originally Posted by Butterfly

another proof of God existence

This, again, is the watchmaker argument for the existence of God. Something so complex must require a maker to exist. Since God is complex he must also require a maker to exist, right? If he does not require a maker, then other things may also not require a maker to exist.

There are a variety of them. Could be the ontological argument: God is the greatest thing of which we can conceive. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the understanding. God therefore exists.

or not,Nietzsche claimed shes dead

Originally Posted by Soi Source

or not,Nietzsche claimed shes dead

The Goddess in all of us thrives.

Originally Posted by Dan

There are a variety of them. Could be the ontological argument: God is the greatest thing of which we can conceive. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the understanding. God therefore exists.

Alternatively, the much more appreciated ideals of onotological anarchy are worthy of examination. Still countering the ever-presence for 'the need' for a God.

Originally Posted by mordred

This, again, is the watchmaker argument for the existence of God. Something so complex must require a maker to exist. Since God is complex he must also require a maker to exist, right? If he does not require a maker, then other things may also not require a maker to exist.

God could as well be a chemical reaction, or a sub-atomic phenomenon that triggers it all. A catalyst.

Originally Posted by Dan

There are a variety of them. Could be the ontological argument: God is the greatest thing of which we can conceive. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the understanding. God therefore exists.

that's basically the idea, because our understanding of the universe will never be complete, it's presence will always be felt. As we progress in our understanding of the world, the evidence of its existence becomes heavier. A nice paradox.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by mordred

This, again, is the watchmaker argument for the existence of God. Something so complex must require a maker to exist. Since God is complex he must also require a maker to exist, right? If he does not require a maker, then other things may also not require a maker to exist.

God could as well be a chemical reaction, or a sub-atomic phenomenon that triggers it all. A catalyst.

God could have been created by the tooth fairy or Jim Jones in a past life.

God could have been created by the tooth fairy.[/quote]
Tooth Fairy. Easter Bunny. Different Unions.

Originally Posted by mordred

God could have been created by the tooth fairy or Jim Jones in a past life.

I don't think so. The tooth fairy is not real, while God is.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Originally Posted by mordred

This, again, is the watchmaker argument for the existence of God. Something so complex must require a maker to exist. Since God is complex he must also require a maker to exist, right? If he does not require a maker, then other things may also not require a maker to exist.

God could as well be a chemical reaction, or a sub-atomic phenomenon that triggers it all. A catalyst.

Originally Posted by Dan

There are a variety of them. Could be the ontological argument: God is the greatest thing of which we can conceive. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the understanding. God therefore exists.

that's basically the idea, because our understanding of the universe will never be complete, it's presence will always be felt. As we progress in our understanding of the world, the evidence of its existence becomes heavier. A nice paradox.

It's also absolute rubbish.

I can conceive of whatever I want to be the greatest thing. It's only limited by my human imagination.....and that varies greatly from one person to the next. The ontological argument is highly flawed. A typical human construct to explain something requiring no proof whatsoever.

These days it appears people can spout about whatever they want. Take Scientology for example. Some imbeciles always buy the bullshit.

"It is because I say it is so"

Right.........................