Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit!




Username:   Password:
Add Reply
CERN scientists trap 'anti-atom,'; claim breakthrough in hunt for missing
Topic Started: Nov 18 2010, 10:36 PM (509 Views)
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Pretty cool stuff.
Not really sure of the implications just yet or how anti-matter fits into big bang theories.

Quote:
 
GENEVA - Scientists claimed a breakthrough Thursday in solving one of the biggest riddles of physics, successfully trapping the first "anti-atom" that they hope will help them understand what happened to all of the antimatter created by the Big Bang.

The international team of physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, managed to create an atom of anti-hydrogen and then hold onto it for long enough to demonstrate that it can be studied in the lab.

"For us it's a big breakthrough because it means we can take the next step, which is to try to compare matter and antimatter," the team's spokesman, American scientist Jeffrey Hangst, told The Associated Press.

For decades, researchers have puzzled over why antimatter seems to have vanished from the universe. Theory posits it was created in equal amounts as matter at the moment of the Big Bang, which created the universe some 13.7 billion years ago. But while matter — defined as having mass and taking up space — went on to become the building block of everything that exists, antimatter has disappeared except in the lab.

Scientists have long been able to create individual particles of antimatter such as anti-protons, anti-neutrons and positrons — the opposite of electrons. Since 2002, they have also managed to lump these particles together to form anti-atoms, but until recently none could be trapped for long enough to study them, because atoms made of antimatter and matter annihilate each on contact.

"It doesn't help if they disappear immediately upon their creation," said Hangst. "So the big goal has been to hold onto them."

Two teams have been competing for that prize at CERN, the world's largest physics lab best known for its $10 billion smasher, the Large Hadron Collider. The collider, built deep under the Swiss-French border, wasn't used for this experiment


http://www.startribune.com/science/108895369.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
This whole humbug has already been refuted in advance by Dag. B)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
yeah.. I read that too... amazing. We're tapping into some profoundly important understandings of our universe, which will result in dramatic changes in energy, building, travel, and communications.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vandal_Ares
Member Avatar

The good thing we dont have a Republican in office... This is an act of war against god for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mercurius of Cappadocia
Member Avatar
King of the Round Table Knights
Matter/antimatter... heaven/hell... .this just proves the devil lives at CERN.

As Dan Brown said...


:lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
lets hope they lock it up before ewan mcgreggor tries and steals it :P

P.s i know that the atom were destroyed after 1 second.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Mercurius of Cappadocia,Nov 18 2010
09:44 PM
Matter/antimatter... heaven/hell... .this just proves the devil lives at CERN.

As Dan Brown said...


:lol:

Yeah I read there is something about this in Angels and Demons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Vandal_Ares,Nov 18 2010
09:06 PM
The good thing we dont have a Republican in office... This is an act of war against god for them.

I see college sure has made you a really great poster... :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
i can't work out if its the republican bashing or god bashing that you didnt like, then maybe its both.


religon and state must be secular or u get friggin idiots like bush trying to force his values and belifs on people who do not belive in them.

stem cell research for example.



cheers petey




pass the bong :devil:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Pete of Yorkshire,Nov 19 2010
11:45 AM
i can't work out if its the republican bashing or god bashing that you didnt like, then maybe its both.


religon and state must be secular or u get friggin idiots like bush trying to force his values and belifs on people who do not belive in them.

stem cell research for example.



cheers petey




pass the bong :devil:

Sup Petey...

All laws and decisions are made based on some type of value.
The questions are can they be defended logically and rationally?

~Chazzz~
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational, stem cell research is a good example IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 19 2010
11:15 PM
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational, stem cell research is a good example IMO.

Moral values should be logical/rational, but alot of people don't know how to judge what is right and wrong very well. It's all a balance between individual rights and the greater good of a society based upon reality, the only question should be where do you draw that line?

In todays political climate it is not about finding a balance but too often about how one benefits oneself, or alternatively based upon fiction that makes someone feel better which it in itself is another form of selfishness. Religion should have nothing to do with decision making that affects anyone apart from the believer as it quite simply is not based in reality.

Stem cell research is a whole different topic that has many positives and negatives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Should they even?

Suppose you expect people to follow social norms. Suppose you have an opportunity to break a social norm to your benefit. Suppose you expect others won't find out you did it. What's the logical & rational thing to do? ;)

You might be able to base it on logic and reason when you are devising where to "draw the line" for society, but for the individual, logic and reason lead to quite different "lines".

--

What negatives does stem cell research have for people already born?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 20 2010
09:36 AM
Should they even?

Suppose you expect people to follow social norms. Suppose you have an opportunity to break a social norm to your benefit. Suppose you expect others won't find out you did it. What's the logical & rational thing to do? ;)

You might be able to base it on logic and reason when you are devising where to "draw the line" for society, but for the individual, logic and reason lead to quite different "lines".

That all depends upon how that social norm affects others. If it was not to murder people for example you could quite easily break it for personal gain (to steal their watch or some type of insurance claim [insurance claim would be rather hard as it's much easier to murder someone you don't know and get away with it]) without getting caught.

However killing people isn't good for a society as humans are a social creature and have evolved to rely on teamwork to survive and if everyone did it there would be a breakdown of society which would become weak and halt progress, thus making it bad for any given indivudual who may of benefitted in the short term from killing someone else. Thats why murder is illegal over pretty much the entire planet. The logical and rational motive is that generally if you do bad things to other people they won't be able to help you in future and if there's nothing stopping you doing bad things there's nothing stopping other people doing bad things to you.

On the other hand there's social norms like wearing burka's in Egypt which is completely stupid and defies logic and reason, not even because God told them to do so, but because it was a tribal practise in a time when men dominated their women completely and it managed to get embroiled into the religion via religious leaders adding their own personal beleifs to the dogma.

It is of no benefit to anyone who wears one and is actually a hinderance, the lack of wearing one does not affect others in a negative way.

Social norms have nothing to do with morality for the most part and thats just a straw man arguement. I expect better of you din.




Quote:
 
What negatives does stem cell research have for people already born?


Now that I think about it none. I may of just been thinking of Genetic Engineering at the time for some reason.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 19 2010
04:15 PM
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational...

I agree.
That's why I feel that whatever position one takes on an issue or law, that position needs to be able to be rationally and logically defended.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vandal_Ares
Member Avatar

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 20 2010
09:13 PM
Dinadan of Logris,Nov 19 2010
04:15 PM
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational...

I agree.
That's why I feel that whatever position one takes on an issue or law, that position needs to be able to be rationally and logically defended.

You mean like the Republicans top candidate for the energy committee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc

BRILLIANT!!!! God bless america! :blink:

and ignore the title for obvious reasons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 20 2010
09:13 PM
Dinadan of Logris,Nov 19 2010
04:15 PM
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational...

I agree.
That's why I feel that whatever position one takes on an issue or law, that position needs to be able to be rationally and logically defended.

How come I can't recall any of your positions on issues having much logic or rationale behind them then?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Vandal_Ares,Nov 20 2010
05:46 PM
You mean like the Republicans top candidate for the energy committee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc

BRILLIANT!!!! God bless america! :blink:

and ignore the title for obvious reasons.

Another brilliant post from the college student. ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Kronos,Nov 20 2010
08:26 PM
How come I can't recall any of your positions on issues having much logic or rationale behind them then?

It's either your poor memory or the fact you have very little common sense... :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Vandal_Ares,Nov 20 2010
05:46 PM
You mean like the Republicans top candidate for the energy committee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc

BRILLIANT!!!! God bless america! :blink:

and ignore the title for obvious reasons.

BTW that's BHO's energy secretary.
Obama chose him you dufus ... :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Quote:
 
The logical and rational motive is that generally if you do bad things to other people they won't be able to help you in future and if there's nothing stopping you doing bad things there's nothing stopping other people doing bad things to you.

You disregard two of the three expectations in the thought experiment: that the breach was beneficial to the indivual and that others do follow norms.
In a murder, the murderer (excluding raving lunatics) will have valued the lost ability of the victim to help him in the future lower than the immediate gains. Society/morality isn't the only thing that can stop others from doing bad things to you either. You can be prepared to stop them yourself or privately enlist the help of others to do so.

Quote:
 
Social norms have nothing to do with morality for the most part and thats just a straw man arguement.

On the contrary. Morality is all about social norms. Not to wear the burka is considered immoral in that particular society, just to take your own example. Morality is not absolute and pre-existing, it's something that society teaches you and that is valid within the particular society.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 21 2010
09:43 AM
BTW that's BHO's energy secretary.
Obama chose him you dufus ... :lol:

Perhaps he was referring to the nitwit from Texas.. just a guess ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 20 2010
10:13 PM
Dinadan of Logris,Nov 19 2010
04:15 PM
Moral vaules aren't necessarily logical/rational...

I agree.
That's why I feel that whatever position one takes on an issue or law, that position needs to be able to be rationally and logically defended.

..on the other hand, individually logical / rational decisions are not necessarily the best for society. :smash:

Issues can have quite rational arguments on both sides. :lol:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pete of Yorkshire
Member Avatar
Knight
tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 21 2010
08:38 AM
Kronos,Nov 20 2010
08:26 PM
How come I can't recall any of your positions on issues having much logic or rationale behind them then?

It's either your poor memory or the fact you have very little common sense... :P

nah i think k has alot of common sense and from what you have posted before i have to agree with him.

you may try to justify your comments and actions with twisted reterict. which makes no sense to a normal human being, but i think its out of line trying to say that K is an idiot which is what you said in a polite/sarcy way.


btw i know of one ex pres of america who used this type of reasoning to invade a country for oil..........


" i was crushed when they found no WMD's" LMAO no you wern't becuase by that point iraq was burning.



Petey

"where's the love to shelter me"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Kronos,Nov 19 2010
06:16 PM
Religion should have nothing to do with decision making that affects anyone apart from the believer as it quite simply is not based in reality.


Our values (and how they affect our perspectives on issues) are a sum total of everything we are. How we have been raised, religious upbringing, schooling, as well as life experience and values instilled through our parents.

One man's religion is another man's secular humanism or science. Personal values no matter how instilled will always affect how we vote as well as how our politicians advocate one way or another.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 21 2010
03:48 AM
Issues can have quite rational arguments on both sides. :lol:

Agreed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 21 2010
10:36 AM
Quote:
 
Social norms have nothing to do with morality for the most part and thats just a straw man arguement.

On the contrary. Morality is all about social norms. Not to wear the burka is considered immoral in that particular society, just to take your own example. Morality is not absolute and pre-existing, it's something that society teaches you and that is valid within the particular society.

I thought it was quite obvious I was using morality in the normative sense. In that way it is absolute, the only thing that changes is the criteria which people are free to discuss.

Dinadan of Logris,Nov 21 2010
10:36 AM
Quote:
 
The logical and rational motive is that generally if you do bad things to other people they won't be able to help you in future and if there's nothing stopping you doing bad things there's nothing stopping other people doing bad things to you.

You disregard two of the three expectations in the thought experiment: that the breach was beneficial to the indivual and that others do follow norms.
In a murder, the murderer (excluding raving lunatics) will have valued the lost ability of the victim to help him in the future lower than the immediate gains. Society/morality isn't the only thing that can stop others from doing bad things to you either. You can be prepared to stop them yourself or privately enlist the help of others to do so.



Stop trying to pointscore with misinfered rhetoric. I have simply not mentioned as opposed to disregarded those points as I really shouldn't have to. But for the sake of clarity I'll try.

Within any given population there are those who do not follow logic or reason when decision making (the raving lunatics if you will). This is approximately 90% of murders as most are crimes of passion = following feelings as opposed to logic., then there are psychopaths who actually get pleasure out of the act which is still not beneficial as they get nothing tangible from commiting the act. The very small percentage left who kill for tangible benefits do so due to a side affect of modern society and wouldn't of happen in humanities natural state when we were in smaller groups where everyone knew everyone else and relied upon each other much more so than is percieved today. Thus the scales were infinately more in favour of not killing when decision making as it would almost never be in the assailants best interest. There is also the social governance that would make commiting murder unbeneficial as humans cannot survive well on their own and we be outcast for such acts.

Therefore traditionally in a choice between right and wrong it is wrong to commit murder for humanity based upon our need for social groups and teamwork, thus imoral when the criteria is the survival of the human race and that individual, That is why it is preprogrammed into people. This is still a requirement of modern society because it is one of the principles that made us so sucessful as a species.

All that needs to be agreed upon when making laws, moral judgements and forming a society is the criteria, within most of that is finding a balance between saociety and the individual. Touching on the other thread and healthcare it is clear that America as a societies criteria clearly values a small percentage of extra wealth for select individuals than the lives of people deemed unimportant to America (the poor). What is laughable is that probably isn't the case given the amount of money spent on police, anti terrorism, the fire brigade and other life saving services that do not save as many lives as universal healthcare would for every $1 but have the appearance of doing something. The alternative could just be that the lives of productive people is very important but it's hard to distinguish between protecting them and the underclass when it comes to things such as crime, so they have to cover everyone to cover the rich.

Anyway...back to Antimatter...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vandal_Ares
Member Avatar

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 21 2010
08:43 AM
Vandal_Ares,Nov 20 2010
05:46 PM
You mean like the Republicans top candidate for the energy committee?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgKepHebKRc

BRILLIANT!!!! God bless america!  :blink:

and ignore the title for obvious reasons.

BTW that's BHO's energy secretary.
Obama chose him you dufus ... :lol:

I wasnt talking about the secretary...I feel for him trying to explain science to a Repubie..
I was talking about the ridiculous question by posed by the Republican dufus.

And my College education has taken me to USC :)
More than you can say ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Kronos,Nov 22 2010
01:11 AM
I thought it was quite obvious I was using morality in the normative sense. In that way it is absolute, the only thing that changes is the criteria which people are free to discuss.

How can morality be absolute if different things are considered moral by different groups of people? You mean it's absolute within the group?

Quote:
 
Stop trying to pointscore with misinfered rhetoric. I have simply not mentioned as opposed to disregarded those points as I really shouldn't have to. ...

To "pointscore"? Not intended. I posted a thought experiment and much of your example simply does not fit the premises. The experiment wasn't even touching irrational decisions, only showing that individual rational logics will clash with social norms.. moral values. ;) Sure, irrational decisions will too.

What the heck is "misinfered" anyway?

(On the point-scoring hand, your utility-based argument of "why not to kill" does not cover "why not to kill in an organized way". The prehistoric group you mentioned could choose to annihilate another group, take their stuff and not lose sleep over a negative impact of this on their own survival. In modern times, I wonder how you could decide upon community-sanctioned killing (including wars and execution) based on this logic.) :knight:

Quote:
 
All that needs to be agreed upon when making laws, moral judgements and forming a society is the criteria, within most of that is finding a balance between saociety and the individual.

Yea, and there is a clash of logics exactly at the point where as you say we need to find the balance.. which leads to the US situation that you described.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Vandal_Ares,Nov 22 2010
02:00 AM
I wasnt talking about the secretary...I feel for him trying to explain science to a Repubie..
I was talking about the ridiculous question by posed by the Republican dufus.

And my College education has taken me to USC :)
More than you can say ;)

The Congressman was correct.
practice your composition a bit... :D
Congrats on getting into USC Ares!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 23 2010
05:35 AM
Vandal_Ares,Nov 22 2010
02:00 AM
I wasnt talking about the secretary...I feel for him trying to explain science to a Repubie..
I was talking about the ridiculous question by posed by the Republican dufus.

And my College education has taken me to USC :)
More than you can say  ;)

The Congressman was correct.
practice your composition a bit... :D
Congrats on getting into USC Ares!

Correct in what sense?

Crude Oil has been created since about 3 billion years ago from Kerogen itself created from Plankton and Algae, mainly during the period of 600m-100m years ago, starting after the end of snowball earth. Over the past 600 million years Alaska has been over pretty much the entire planet through tectonic plate movement, including the Equator and even the south pole. So how is the Congressman correct?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tehReal~ChaZZZy
Member Avatar

Kronos,Nov 23 2010
05:56 AM
Correct in what sense?

Crude Oil has been created since about 3 billion years ago from Kerogen itself created from Plankton and Algae, mainly during the period of 600m-100m years ago, starting after the end of snowball earth. Over the past 600 million years Alaska has been over pretty much the entire planet through tectonic plate movement, including the Equator and even the south pole. So how is the Congressman correct?

The point that the Congressman made was that Alaska was not always tundra. Chu's roundabout answer regarding plate movement reminded me of another stupid answer to a simple question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkU3RSfDGE

Both seem clueless.
Pathetic...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kronos

tehReal~ChaZZZy,Nov 24 2010
03:29 AM
Kronos,Nov 23 2010
05:56 AM
Correct in what sense?

Crude Oil has been created since about 3 billion years ago from Kerogen itself created from Plankton and Algae, mainly during the period of 600m-100m years ago, starting after the end of snowball earth. Over the past 600 million years Alaska has been over pretty much the entire planet through tectonic plate movement, including the Equator and even the south pole. So how is the Congressman correct?

The point that the Congressman made was that Alaska was not always tundra. Chu's roundabout answer regarding plate movement reminded me of another stupid answer to a simple question:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkU3RSfDGE

Both seem clueless.
Pathetic...

No it wasn't always a Tundra...it was the sea floor at the time Oil was created...

That wasn't the point he was making as he clearly - like yourself do not know about plate tectonics. The answer he was looking for in an attempt to get a soundbite was something along the lines of "Alaska was once much warmer and covered with rainforests blah blah blah" from Chu that he can later use against him.

What you and the Congressman fail to understand (which is a considerable amount I'd expect someone who finished secondary school Science to) is that plant matter doesn't create Oil/Natural gas, it creates Coal, whereas Oil is created by Plankton and other marine biology:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Origin

So from this we can ascertain that Alaska (which is a landmass now) was once on the bottom of a sea and rose due to plate tectonics. Clearly Professor Chu is correct while the congressman is an idiot for asking such a stupid question and even more utterly rediculous for putting it up on his youtube account thinking that he was somehow correct. Yet you still blindly follow the bumbling republican fool, what a surprise....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dinadan of Logris
Member Avatar
Master of Spam
Thanks for the re-education, I've forgotten most of this. But it's certainly odd that people don't have to know the stuff before getting seats on US House energy comittees B)

I checked out that YouTube channel, the congressman's likely just pretending to be stupid here ..to score against global warming or somesuch. That fits his profile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic »
Add Reply

The Round Table Knights