Lees even het zwarte gaten voor dummies topicquote:Op vrijdag 12 september 2008 22:19 schreef keupink het volgende:
[..]
Als jij precies met 100% zekerheid kan zeggen wat een zwart gat is, waar het vandaan komt, wat de samenstelling is, wat er gebeurt als je erin word gezogen etc etc etc. Krijg jij een lollie
En zelfs dat is niet zeker.quote:Op zaterdag 13 september 2008 12:12 schreef Haushofer het volgende:
Daarbij staat m'n vraag nog steeds open. Wat is "voor 100% weten"? Het is volgens mij inherent aan wetenschap dat we dat nooit zullen kunnen.
Dat kan, alleen zo miniscuul dat het direct weer weg gaatquote:Op donderdag 11 september 2008 09:20 schreef kraakvandaal het volgende:
[..]
Ok en dan kan er eventueel zo een zwart gat onstaan?
Zal er dan wat shit invliegen of niet? Stel er ontstaat een grote, in hoveel seconden is de hele aarde dan verneukt? En de zon?quote:Op zaterdag 13 september 2008 18:58 schreef keupink het volgende:
[..]
Dat kan, alleen zo miniscuul dat het direct weer weg gaat
Het kanaal zelf is vacuüm, dus daar valt voor een zwart gat helemaal niets te halen.quote:Op zondag 14 september 2008 00:21 schreef Re het volgende:
't is geen gat he....
het is een massa en dat moet onstaan en zoveel massa zit er niet in die tunnel
behalve de deeltjes die ze rondschieten en de eventuele energie die daarbij vrijkomt als ze botsen, dus als er een zwart gat vormt sterft die snel uit omdat er idd geen materiaal aanwezigquote:Op zondag 14 september 2008 00:39 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Het kanaal zelf is vacuüm, dus daar valt voor een zwart gat helemaal niets te halen.
Er is wel degelijk wat daar, namelijk het kanaal! Alleen het zwart gat is zo snel weer weg dat het geen gevolgen heeft, ik meende dat hij zo snel weg ging door z'n eigen radiatiequote:Op zondag 14 september 2008 00:39 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Het kanaal zelf is vacuüm, dus daar valt voor een zwart gat helemaal niets te halen.
quote:Question:
Hi,
At the moment there has been a lot on the news about CERN and how it will shed light on the origin of the universe. I've heard various atheists getting excited about how it might do everything from prove the parallel universe theory to show how the universe popped out of nowhere and was wondering what impact CERN might have on theism?
Thanks
Graeme
Dr. Craig responds:
That atheists should get all excited about the theological implications of the experiments which will be conducted at CERN's new Large Hadron Collider, which was successfully activated last Wednesday, reveals, I think, how desperate they are to wish away the evidence of current cosmology for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe. For although the experiments which the collider will make feasible will expand the horizons of physics, since we have never been able to re-create such high energy conditions before, it is very hard to see how anything of theological significance could ensue, except to confirm the evidence we already have for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe.
The new LHC will enable researchers to re-create the conditions existing less than a millionth of a second after the Big Bang at energies higher by a factor of four than previously possible, a great advance but nothing compared to the energies prior to the Planck time 10-43 second after the Big Bang, where General Relativity breaks down. We'll probably never be able to re-create energy levels high enough to probe that era.
The LHC should enable physicists to test for the existence of certain partners for sub-atomic particles, like the photino for the photon or the gravitino for the graviton, which are predicted by supersymmetric theories of particle physics. Scientists hope to be able to discover the Higgs boson, a particle thought to be responsible for the field that imparts mass to various sub-atomic particles. The Higgs boson is frequently called "the God Particle," not because it has any theological significance but because, like God, it is everywhere but is mysteriously hidden. The LHC could provide experimental evidence for string theory and therefore additional spatial dimensions and help to discover the nature of the dark energy that pervades the universe. Of course, it could disconfirm these theories if the predictions fail.
But whatever turns up, I don't see anything here that should cause atheists to get their hopes up. For the evidence for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe already factors in the possibility that these discoveries might someday be made. In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth were able to demonstrate a theorem which proved that any universe which has on average been globally expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past. This theorem applies equally to inflationary theories of the multiverse and to higher dimensional cosmologies based on string theory. Theorists intent on avoiding the absolute beginning of the universe could previously always take refuge in the period prior to the Planck time, an era so poorly understood that it has been compared to the regions on the maps of ancient cartographers marked "Here there be dragons!"—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not depend upon any particular physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time, but is based on deceptively simple physical reasoning which will hold regardless of our uncertainty concerning that era—not to speak of the much later era probed by the new LHC.
As for fine-tuning, the discussion has for some time now considered the hypothesis that our universe is but a relatively tiny part of a World Ensemble of universes. I can't imagine any sort of evidence emerging from the LHC that would show that we are but a random member of a World Ensemble of an infinite number of randomly ordered universes. Moreover, the fact that these multiverse theories all have a beginning in the finite past implies that the mechanism which generates new universes has been working away for only a finite amount of time, which may well be insufficient to guarantee by chance alone the appearance of a finely-tuned universe like ours. Indeed, as I explain in Reasonable Faith, if our universe were but a random member of such a world ensemble, it is fantastically more probable that we should be observing a much different universe. That suggests that the fine-tuning cannot be explained away by easy appeals to parallel worlds.
The real shame about the LHC is that decades ago the U.S. had a chance to build our own supercollider in Texas, but a short-sighted Congress cut off the federal funding and so scuttled the project. The other scandal is the hysterical reactions in some quarters by people harboring groundless fears that the LHC will wind up creating a black hole that will annihilate us. Both of these spectacles say something about the weak state of science education and appreciation in the U.S.
Ten eerste valt het allemaal nog wel mee met dat hele fine-tuning verhaal. Daarnaast snap ik eigenlijk niet zo goed dat hij niet het evidente punt aanhaalt. Dat de fysische geschiedenis voor geen meter strookt met het letterlijke verhaal in Genesis is voor de meeste Christenen geen bezwaar. Waarom zou nu bijvoorbeeld dan opeens ondersteuning voor theorieën die in de richting wijzen van b.v. een multiversum e.d. opeens wel problematisch zijn?quote:That atheists should get all excited about the theological implications of the experiments which will be conducted at CERN's new Large Hadron Collider, which was successfully activated last Wednesday, reveals, I think, how desperate they are to wish away the evidence of current cosmology for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe. For although the experiments which the collider will make feasible will expand the horizons of physics, since we have never been able to re-create such high energy conditions before, it is very hard to see how anything of theological significance could ensue, except to confirm the evidence we already have for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe.
Lijkt me een prima beschrijving, maar hij lijkt even achterwege te laten dat 'The god particle' de nettere versie van "the goddamn particle" was.quote:The new LHC will enable researchers to re-create the conditions existing less than a millionth of a second after the Big Bang at energies higher by a factor of four than previously possible, a great advance but nothing compared to the energies prior to the Planck time 10-43 second after the Big Bang, where General Relativity breaks down. We'll probably never be able to re-create energy levels high enough to probe that era.
The LHC should enable physicists to test for the existence of certain partners for sub-atomic particles, like the photino for the photon or the gravitino for the graviton, which are predicted by supersymmetric theories of particle physics. Scientists hope to be able to discover the Higgs boson, a particle thought to be responsible for the field that imparts mass to various sub-atomic particles. The Higgs boson is frequently called "the God Particle," not because it has any theological significance but because, like God, it is everywhere but is mysteriously hidden. The LHC could provide experimental evidence for string theory and therefore additional spatial dimensions and help to discover the nature of the dark energy that pervades the universe. Of course, it could disconfirm these theories if the predictions fail.
Ik heb niet helemaal genoeg kennis van de materie om de uitspraken over de theorema's van Borde, Vilenkin en Guth te beoordelen, maar er lopen hier wel mensen rond met meer verstand van fysica dan ik.quote:But whatever turns up, I don't see anything here that should cause atheists to get their hopes up. For the evidence for the beginning and fine-tuning of the universe already factors in the possibility that these discoveries might someday be made. In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth were able to demonstrate a theorem which proved that any universe which has on average been globally expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past. This theorem applies equally to inflationary theories of the multiverse and to higher dimensional cosmologies based on string theory. Theorists intent on avoiding the absolute beginning of the universe could previously always take refuge in the period prior to the Planck time, an era so poorly understood that it has been compared to the regions on the maps of ancient cartographers marked "Here there be dragons!"—it can be filled with all sorts of fantasies. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not depend upon any particular physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time, but is based on deceptively simple physical reasoning which will hold regardless of our uncertainty concerning that era—not to speak of the much later era probed by the new LHC.
Ik vind de claim "if our universe were but a random member of such a world ensemble, it is fantastically more probable that we should be observing a much different universe." erg vreemd. Dergelijke multiverse theorieën worden juist door mensen aangehaald om te stellen dat het niet vreemd is dat we in een universum leven dat geschikt is voor dat leven. Het hele idee is dan juist dat er in vele andere universa niets te observeren valt omdat ze niet geschikt zijn voor leven.quote:As for fine-tuning, the discussion has for some time now considered the hypothesis that our universe is but a relatively tiny part of a World Ensemble of universes. I can't imagine any sort of evidence emerging from the LHC that would show that we are but a random member of a World Ensemble of an infinite number of randomly ordered universes. Moreover, the fact that these multiverse theories all have a beginning in the finite past implies that the mechanism which generates new universes has been working away for only a finite amount of time, which may well be insufficient to guarantee by chance alone the appearance of a finely-tuned universe like ours. Indeed, as I explain in Reasonable Faith, if our universe were but a random member of such a world ensemble, it is fantastically more probable that we should be observing a much different universe. That suggests that the fine-tuning cannot be explained away by easy appeals to parallel worlds.
Steven Weinberg schrijft hier ook over in Facing up: Science and it's cultural adversaries. Hij heeft desnoods nog voor het congres getuigd in een poging om de investering te rechtvaardigen. Zal eens nazoeken wat hij daar ook alweer precies over zei.quote:The real shame about the LHC is that decades ago the U.S. had a chance to build our own supercollider in Texas, but a short-sighted Congress cut off the federal funding and so scuttled the project.
Daar heeft hij helaas een goed punt.quote:The other scandal is the hysterical reactions in some quarters by people harboring groundless fears that the LHC will wind up creating a black hole that will annihilate us. Both of these spectacles say something about the weak state of science education and appreciation in the U.S.
quote:
Hij is teruggegaan in de tijd om te zorgen dat de Cardassians de LHC niet misbruiken voor hun verkeerde plannen.quote:Op donderdag 18 september 2008 19:47 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:
[..]
[ afbeelding ]
Mmmm... wat doet Commander Riker daar?
denk eerder de borg.. Die zijn al eerder geweest om de mens te stoppen de ruimte in te gaan. Iedereen weet dat zo'n grote deeltjes versneller gebruikt kan om onderzoek te doen naar warpdrive technology. Zolang Cochrane die gegevens maar krijgt!quote:Op donderdag 18 september 2008 21:48 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Hij is teruggegaan in de tijd om te zorgen dat de Cardassians de LHC niet misbruiken voor hun verkeerde plannen.
Jullie trekkies vergeten de "Omega directive"...quote:Op vrijdag 19 september 2008 12:16 schreef Bensel het volgende:
[..]
denk eerder de borg.. Die zijn al eerder geweest om de mens te stoppen de ruimte in te gaan. Iedereen weet dat zo'n grote deeltjes versneller gebruikt kan om onderzoek te doen naar warpdrive technology. Zolang Cochrane die gegevens maar krijgt!
Forum Opties | |
---|---|
Forumhop: | |
Hop naar: |