The Large Hadron Collider plays with Albert Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc², to transform matter into energy and then back into different forms of matter. But on rare occasions, it can skip the first step and collide pure energy—in the form of electromagnetic waves.
Last year, the ATLAS experiment at the LHC observed two photons, particles of light, ricocheting off one another and producing two new photons. This year, they’ve taken that research a step further and discovered photons merging and transforming into something even more interesting: W bosons, particles that carry the weak force, which governs nuclear decay.
This research doesn’t just illustrate the central concept governing processes inside the LHC: that energy and matter are two sides of the same coin. It also confirms that at high enough energies, forces that seem separate in our everyday lives—electromagnetism and the weak force—are united.
If you try to replicate this photon-colliding experiment at home by crossing the beams of two laser pointers, you won’t be able to create new, massive particles. Instead, you’ll see the two beams combine to form an even brighter beam of light.
“If you go back and look at Maxwell’s equations for classical electromagnetism, you’ll see that two colliding waves sum up to a bigger wave,” says Simone Pagan Griso, a researcher at the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. “We only see these two phenomena recently observed by ATLAS when we put together Maxwell’s equations with special relativity and quantum mechanics in the so-called theory of quantum electrodynamics.”
Inside CERN’s accelerator complex, protons are accelerated close to the speed of light. Their normally rounded forms squish along the direction of motion as special relativity supersedes the classical laws of motion for processes taking place at the LHC. The two incoming protons see each other as compressed pancakes accompanied by an equally squeezed electromagnetic field (protons are charged, and all charged particles have an electromagnetic field). The energy of the LHC combined with the length contraction boosts the strength of the protons’ electromagnetic fields by a factor of 7500.
When two protons graze each other, their squished electromagnetic fields intersect. These fields skip the classical “amplify” etiquette that applies at low energies and instead follow the rules outlined by quantum electrodynamics. Through these new laws, the two fields can merge and become the “E” in E=mc².
“If you read the equation E=mc² from right to left, you’ll see that a small amount of mass produces a huge amount of energy because of the c² constant, which is the speed of light squared,” says Alessandro Tricoli, a researcher at Brookhaven National Laboratory—the US headquarters for the ATLAS experiment, which receives funding from DOE’s Office of Science. “But if you look at the formula the other way around, you’ll see that you need to start with a huge amount of energy to produce even a tiny amount of mass.”
The LHC is one of the few places on Earth that can produce and collide energetic photons, and it’s the only place where scientists have seen two energetic photons merging and transforming into massive W bosons.
The generation of W bosons from high-energy photons exemplifies the discovery that won Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics: At high energies, electromagnetism and the weak force are one in the same.
Electricity and magnetism often feel like separate forces. One normally does not worry about getting shocked while handling a refrigerator magnet. And light bulbs, even while lit up with electricity, don’t stick to the refrigerator door. So why do electrical stations sport signs warning about their high magnetic fields?
“A magnet is one manifestation of electromagnetism, and electricity is another,” Tricoli says. “But it’s all electromagnetic waves, and we see this unification in our everyday technologies, such as cell phones that communicate through electromagnetic waves.”
At extremely high energies, electromagnetism combines with yet another fundamental force: the weak force. The weak force governs nuclear reactions, including the fusion of hydrogen into helium that powers the sun and the decay of radioactive atoms.
Just as photons carry the electromagnetic force, the W and Z bosons carry the weak force. The reason photons can collide and produce W bosons in the LHC is that at the highest energies, those forces combine to make the electroweak force.
“Both photons and W bosons are force carriers, and they both carry the electroweak force,” Griso says. “This phenomenon is really happening because nature is quantum mechanical.”
East bound and down, loaded up and truckin'! A-we gonna do what they say can't be done! We've got a long way to go, and a short time to get there! I'm east bound, just watch ol' "Bandit" run!
Keep your foot hard on the pedal! Son, never mind them brakes! Let it all hang out 'cause we got a run to make!
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 09-07-2020).]
I think that Biology and Biological Evolution are in the "conflict space" between Religious Faith and Science in a bigger way than the kinds of things that are connected with the Large Hadron Collider, such as the Big Bang and the most fundamental aspects of Matter and Energy like what's presented in this Pennock's thread.
I think the "God particle" is really an unfortunate way that developed of referring to the Higgs boson. Never should have happened. I think it actually goes back to a comment from one of the physicists with a seminal role in that history that it was "God damned" hard to figure it out theoretically or find the experimental evidence for it.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think it actually goes back to a comment from one of the physicists with a seminal role in that history that it was "God damned" hard to figure it out theoretically or find the experimental evidence for it.
Like the god damned climate change claim ?
What kind of evidence does one need to believe in God ? There is no evidence for the "big bang" theory. You would have us believe that there was a big bang, made from non existence, which brought miracles to happen, instead of destroying anything like all big bangs do.
OK, cliffw. I think you may want to think about whether you would like to invest more time in reading the Science sections of various media venues. I don't know if you really "do" (consume) media, but maybe the Science section of some media venue that you like more than NBC News or the New York Times (etc.) Maybe something along the lines of the leading regional news media operations across Texas(?)
I'm not a scientist, but based on what I have read in this kind of "for a general audience" reporting (not professional or peer-reviewed) I can tell you that no one whose day job is "scientist" imagines that the Big Bang was anything like the kind of commonly known explosion that you seem to have in mind. Not anything like the detonation of even an unimaginable amount of TNT or even anything like the explosion of a nuclear weapon.
Some have described it as being kind of like a phase transition--like the solidification of liquid water as it freezes to become ice.
quote
Gentlemen please, Let's get back You're missing the boat, You're off the track
Rich Little; "The Contra Rap."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-09-2020).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... I can tell you that no one whose day job is "scientist" imagines that the Big Bang was anything like the kind of commonly known explosion that you seem to have in mind. Not anything like the detonation of even an unimaginable amount of TNT or even anything like the explosion of a nuclear weapon.
Well now, how kind of you.
The big bang was not a big bang, ..., and climate change is not climate change. Got it.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Some have described it as being kind of like a phase transition--like the solidification of liquid water as it freezes to become ice.
Again, how kind of you. A phased transition, hmm. Evolution ? You forgot one very important part. You have to start with something for it to evolve.
I'm not a scientist, but based on what I have read in this kind of "for a general audience" reporting (not professional or peer-reviewed) I can tell you that no one whose day job is "scientist" imagines that the Big Bang was anything like the kind of commonly known explosion that you seem to have in mind. Not anything like the detonation of even an unimaginable amount of TNT or even anything like the explosion of a nuclear weapon.
Some have described it as being kind of like a phase transition--like the solidification of liquid water as it freezes to become ice.
So, tell us how a "bang" (such a scientific term), a chemical reaction, differs from a phase transition. Describe to us the trinitrotoluene reaction mechanism as you understand it, avoiding any reference or allusion to any phase transition.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 09-09-2020).]
The remark that "set me off" (not passionately, but in terms of logic and reason) was that there is no evidence for the Big Bang. That is what "cliffw" has said here... right?
He's just taken more than an entire century of astronomy and astrophysics, going back more than 100 years, and tossed it into the intellectual waste bin.
It was a native of Belgium and a Catholic priest who doubled as an astronomer that is credited as one of the original minds behind the Big Bang hypothesis.
Georges Lemaître (1894-1966.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-09-2020).]
Originally posted by williegoat: So, tell us how a "bang" (such a scientific term), a chemical reaction, differs from a phase transition. Describe to us the trinitrotoluene reaction mechanism as you understand it, avoiding any reference or allusion to any phase transition.
I would say that it is evident from the YouTube video that was presented here by forum member "Blacktree."
There wasn't any ordinary matter (as we know it) but there was something with Big Energy bound up within it. It was going around in incredibly small circles at such an extraordinary velocity that it could not have been perceived (had there been an observer) as Energy or Matter, but for some as yet scientifically undetermined reason--and anyone could take it on faith and identify that reason as "God"--it slowed down just enough to become the Big Bang. It's almost as if it were like a geometrically patterned crystal that precipitates from a solution of a mineral salt in water. A high school or middle school science-y kind of thing. A Science Fair project.
That's how the Universe got started. That's the first moment of Time.
Maybe the answer can be looked up on Phasebook.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-09-2020).]
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: People go a long way out of their way to try to explain away the existence of God.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: I have never seen a conflict between Religion and Science. Science is Man's process to understand how God's Creation works.
In my mind, this is not an "either / or" situation. I believe that faith and science are not mutually exclusive.
Science is merely our way of understanding the "nuts and bolts" of what we can see. At least as nearly as we can see it - and interpret it. In the grand scheme of things, I believe that we have not even scratched the surface. Extrapolating things waaaaay out into the future (or maybe not that far - we shall see) I believe that science can, and perhaps will, actually able to "understand" what most peoples' faith already tells them. Nothing would make me happier. (If you don't buy into this, that's okay. I certainly won't expect you to. But I'll ask you kindly to not bust my balls for believing this.)
Many on the left have faith that there is no god. They believe that they know enough about science to explain everything that happens around them, precluding the necessity of a higher power, even though what they know changes with every new theory. They call themselves agnostic, proclaiming that what they do not know cannot be known (yet).
This belief is akin to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It allows them to imagine that they are the center of the universe. This is their faith and their belief, and those who do not ascribe to their religion of science are to be scorned, ridiculed as unenlightened.
Of course the universe is logical. Physics has laws. Why would God create a universe that needed constant maintenance? Why would he not create a self sustaining, ordered system?
The nature of the universe is inextricably linked with religion and religion is linked with politics. An important principle of the American way of life is the freedom to practice one's belief. Physics, religion and politics are all parts of day to day life. They are all intertwined.
We should be able to discuss all three topics simultaneously, as adults. Undeniably, they all overlap.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 09-10-2020).]
We should be able to discuss all three topics simultaneously, as adults.
If you had started off by saying ""Many people have faith that there is no god", could you not still have made your point? I don't see the relevance of mentioning "on the left" Are you suggesting that 100% of those on the right are believers?
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Many on the left have faith that there is no god. They believe that they know enough about science to explain everything that happens around them, precluding the necessity of a higher power, even though what they know changes with every new theory. They call themselves agnostic, proclaiming that what they do not know cannot be known (yet).
If you had started off by saying ""Many people have faith that there is no god", could you not still have made your point? I don't see the relevance of mentioning "on the left" Are you suggesting that 100% of those on the right are believers?
No, because my point was that many on the left believe that there is no god. I did not make any suggestion regarding the beliefs of anyone on the right. Just as Dr Seuss' Horton, “I meant what I said and I said what I meant."
The first chart at the link will tell you that Democrats are three times as likely to be agnostic as are Republicans. I am not a Republican and I am obviously not a Democrat.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 09-10-2020).]
My motive was simply to express my belief. That, in my opinion, is the purpose of discussion.
Look, no offence Willie... but it seems all you were trying to do was take a shot at those "on the left"... in a thread about science. But yeah, that does appear to be what passes for "discussion" in O/T.
Look, no offence Willie... but it seems all you were trying to do was take a shot at those "on the left"... in a thread about science. But yeah, that does appear to be what passes for "discussion" in O/T.
No offence taken. I was not "taking a shot" at anyone. I was stating a fact that is supported by the link in my previous post. Nearly two thirds of Democrats are agnostic, while less than one quarter of Republicans are agnostic. If one is agnostic, he should not be ashamed of his belief, but he should extend to me the same courtesy regarding my beliefs. If an agnostic is offended by being called an agnostic, then perhaps he should re-examine his belief....or not. It his his choice.
Agnostic, leftist, Buddhist, banjo player: all labels used to describe a characteristic of an individual. They are not offensive unless one chooses to be offended.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 09-10-2020).]
If one is agnostic, he should not be ashamed of his belief, but he should extend to me the same courtesy regarding my beliefs. If an agnostic is offended by being called an agnostic, then perhaps he should re-examine his belief....or not. It his his choice.
No argument from me... other than an agnostic (as well as a believer) can be of any political stripe.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Agnostic, leftist, Buddhist, banjo player: all labels used to describe a characteristic of an individual. They are not offensive unless one chooses to be offended.
Unfortunately, "labels" are not always applied fairly, or correctly... and that's when they can become "offensive".
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-10-2020).]
It's incredibly simple. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in magic. Santa Clause, Bigfoot, Ghosts, Nessie, Cow-gutting Ailens, etc. etc. etc. All creatures of Man's imagination. Fantasy.
The Bible (with whatever dubious connections it has with actual historic facts) may have been slightly believable when we weren't very smart, but with with all the knowledge we have acquired over the centuries and know and can prove today, very little of what is in the Bible stands up to even the simplest of examinations.
The inbreeding alone kills the deal. Not to mention a ghost impregnating a child.
The Ten Commandments, written by a God, lacks mention of child abuse or slavery. Why? Because they were property.
I will never follow a "leader" like that. The Greatest Story Ever Told is nothing more than a tool to oppress & subjugate the weak & simple-minded.
And even in modern day? Religious people's support of Donald Trump tells you everything you need to know about their "Religious beliefs". Even Charles Manson was more religious than Donald Trump.
Yet this monster they embrace. Supporting Love & kindness.
If Jesus Christ showed up tomorrow, these very-same people would have that socialist hippy bum up on a cross before you could say "Leftist!".
The bullsh!t of religion is only surpassed by the "magic-wish lamp" mentality of those too weak, lazy, or scared to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for who & what humanity really is.
Put away the book and the excuses & start working on the real problem; Us. We no longer need an all-knowing Cloud-Daddy to thank or blame for what we are. We all full-well know by now.
I see lots of supposed Religion, but very little Christ-like behavior. I have seen self-proclaimed Godly people right here be unnecessarily cruel for no other reason than the shear joy of being unnecessarily cruel. And cheered on by the flock. Some religion.
I'll take Science. It relies on us for all the answers. No magic required.
It's incredibly simple. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in magic. Santa Clause, Bigfoot, Ghosts, Nessie, Cow-gutting Ailens, etc. etc. etc. All creatures of Man's imagination. Fantasy.
The Bible (with whatever dubious connections it has with actual historic facts) may have been slightly believable when we weren't very smart, but with with all the knowledge we have acquired over the centuries and know and can prove today, very little of what is in the Bible stands up to even the simplest of examinations.
The inbreeding alone kills the deal. Not to mention a ghost impregnating a child.
The Ten Commandments, written by a God, lacks mention of child abuse or slavery. Why? Because they were property.
I will never follow a "leader" like that. The Greatest Story Ever Told is nothing more than a tool to oppress & subjugate the weak & simple-minded.
And even in modern day? Religious people's support of Donald Trump tells you everything you need to know about their "Religious beliefs". Even Charles Manson was more religious than Donald Trump.
Yet this monster they embrace. Supporting Love & kindness.
If Jesus Christ showed up tomorrow, these very-same people would have that socialist hippy bum up on a cross before you could say "Leftist!".
The bullsh!t of religion is only surpassed by the "magic-wish lamp" mentality of those too weak, lazy, or scared to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for who & what humanity really is.
Put away the book and the excuses & start working on the real problem; Us. We no longer need an all-knowing Cloud-Daddy to thank or blame for what we are. We all full-well know by now.
I see lots of supposed Religion, but very little Christ-like behavior. I have seen self-proclaimed Godly people right here be unnecessarily cruel for no other reason than the shear joy of being unnecessarily cruel. And cheered on by the flock. Some religion.
I'll take Science. It relies on us for all the answers. No magic required.
P.S. There are no white people in the Bible.
Boon, people are people and as such are flawed. We all make mistakes including you and I. That is precisely why you see people arguing and insulting. It has absolutely nothing to do with God or what God demands or teaches to do. It's exactly the same thing as being taught by our parents to be polite and respectful, then we choose (at times) to be rude and inconsiderate. For example: you claim to be about peace and kindness which is commendable, but in this very post you totally disrespect and insult people for their beliefs.
It's incredibly simple. I don't believe in God because I don't believe in magic. Santa Clause, Bigfoot, Ghosts, Nessie, Cow-gutting Ailens, etc. etc. etc. All creatures of Man's imagination. Fantasy.
The Bible (with whatever dubious connections it has with actual historic facts) may have been slightly believable when we weren't very smart, but with with all the knowledge we have acquired over the centuries and know and can prove today, very little of what is in the Bible stands up to even the simplest of examinations.
The inbreeding alone kills the deal. Not to mention a ghost impregnating a child.
The Ten Commandments, written by a God, lacks mention of child abuse or slavery. Why? Because they were property.
I will never follow a "leader" like that. The Greatest Story Ever Told is nothing more than a tool to oppress & subjugate the weak & simple-minded.
And even in modern day? Religious people's support of Donald Trump tells you everything you need to know about their "Religious beliefs". Even Charles Manson was more religious than Donald Trump.
Yet this monster they embrace. Supporting Love & kindness.
If Jesus Christ showed up tomorrow, these very-same people would have that socialist hippy bum up on a cross before you could say "Leftist!".
The bullsh!t of religion is only surpassed by the "magic-wish lamp" mentality of those too weak, lazy, or scared to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility for who & what humanity really is.
Put away the book and the excuses & start working on the real problem; Us. We no longer need an all-knowing Cloud-Daddy to thank or blame for what we are. We all full-well know by now.
I see lots of supposed Religion, but very little Christ-like behavior. I have seen self-proclaimed Godly people right here be unnecessarily cruel for no other reason than the shear joy of being unnecessarily cruel. And cheered on by the flock. Some religion.
I'll take Science. It relies on us for all the answers. No magic required.
P.S. There are no white people in the Bible.
The above is how religion and science become politicized.
This also highlights the stark difference between discussion and "taking a shot"
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
No offence taken. I was not "taking a shot" at anyone. I was stating a fact that is supported by the link in my previous post. Nearly two thirds of Democrats are agnostic, while less than one quarter of Republicans are agnostic. If one is agnostic, he should not be ashamed of his belief, but he should extend to me the same courtesy regarding my beliefs. If an agnostic is offended by being called an agnostic, then perhaps he should re-examine his belief....or not. It his his choice.
Agnostic, leftist, Buddhist, banjo player: all labels used to describe a characteristic of an individual. They are not offensive unless one chooses to be offended.
The above is how religion and science become politicized.
This also highlights the stark difference between discussion and "taking a shot"
With all due respect Willie, you fired the first volley.
I don't know if you were purposely trying to instigate something, but nevertheless, Boondawg has now accepted the challenge and run with it.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Many on the left have faith that there is no god. They believe that they know enough about science to explain everything that happens around them, precluding the necessity of a higher power, even though what they know changes with every new theory. They call themselves agnostic, proclaiming that what they do not know cannot be known (yet).
This belief is akin to the Dunning-Kruger effect. It allows them to imagine that they are the center of the universe. This is their faith and their belief, and those who do not ascribe to their religion of science are to be scorned, ridiculed as unenlightened.
Sorry Willie, but it appears that the reaction (in the bolded section above) is exactly what you were after. ("take a shot", give a little dig, and then wait for a response.) I was trying to be diplomatic in our earlier discussion (to no apparent avail), but Boondawg has now accommodated you.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
My motive was simply to express my belief. That, in my opinion, is the purpose of discussion.
Well, Boondawg also appears to be expressing his belief. Perhaps not in the most pleasant manner... but when baited/provoked, responses may not always be polite.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 09-10-2020).]
I merely noted a correlation between religious and political philosophy. This correlation is statistically provable. The majority of Democrats are agnostic, while a majority of Republicans believe in God. I was rude to no one and did not insult anyone. I did not "fire a volley".
I did note the following (shown in your quote of my text):
quote
This is their faith and their belief, and those who do not ascribe to their religion of science are to be scorned, ridiculed as unenlightened.
Topic Closed
?
