Hi Keith,
CERN is scheduled for a 12 month "mothballing" to save on energy costs,
(only about $25 Million) but upgrades will be taking place during that
time, and physicists will be stopping to analyze the mountains of data
they have not had time to examine from their past work. I think that
given the enormous start-up and operational costs, they can't afford not
to keep this going, and we'll soon see revisions in their approach.
Though they have not yet found the HIggs Boson, antimatter was first
created there in '95. Perhaps you overlooked the CERN web site info I
sent regarding their actual ongoing production of anti-hydrogen.
http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01b.html
*. How mach antimatter can you make in one accelerator cycle?*
Here at CERN we can produce 50 millions antiprotons in each cycle (about
once a minute), that allows us to make a few hundred antihydrogen atoms.
The number could be 10 times higher in particular configurations of the
accelerator. This sounds a lot, but expressed in grams it is a billionth
of a gram in a year.
If we count on the production CERN has done over the last 10 years
(about 1 billionth of a gram), it has cost a few hundred millions Swiss
francs.
This press release on antimatter production came out of CERN in '95:
http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases1996/PR01.96EAntiHydrogen.html
<http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel01b.html>This
2008 CERN site answers some questions about goals and misconceptions
(many of which I held) using the Dan Brown book misinformation as a
spring board:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html
Also, below, you wrote:
*"How can we breed better children?" is something every mother is
interested in. "How can we conquer disease?" is a question that
everybody is interested in.*
On what do you base your assertion about every mother? I've followed
your postings on how women choose their mates, and your belief surfaces
time and again that status and best provider are key factors in mate
selection. You might consider that women were /forced/ to mate in this
way for centuries, and that most had little choice for just as long.
It's still the case today due to religious dogma and societal edicts
that women must settle for same, but of those who are able to exercise
choice, most are opting for love, compatibility, or in the case of long
lasting relationships, both. Women who dream of marriage (with or
without children), a diminishing number these days, fantasize about real
passion for that union. This is hardly achieved by mere faith in status
elevation and a concomitant financial stability. It goes against human
nature to marry out of love, despite what you choose to observe. I must
add at this point that it's just as obscene as men choosing their mates
based solely on physical attributes or wealth status. That this happens
to disturbed or confused individuals, of whom there are many, does not
mean it's the predominant driving force in mate selection for either
sex. Otherwise, women would all hold out for the balding CEO, conception
would drop practically to extinction, and only one generation of poor
would all be single men.
In fact, given the high divorce rates, you may as well concede that lust
is far too often the unfortunate driving concern for both women and men.
Most families, women are keenly aware, can only get by with two
salaries, and if women were primarily choosing for the reasons you
describe, they wouldn't end up working to make ends meet. Love or lust,
for a while in the case of the latter, will make that essential low-wage
position entirely worth it.
Breeding better children is certainly going to be the dream of some
people obsessed with perfection, but, even according to physicists,
without imperfection, we would not have this wonderful universe of ours
today. That we will evolve to have stronger, more intelligent children
is in the genes already. Women, even in the hopeful, delusional state of
lust, are conceiving consciously with offspring in mind that represent
the best blend of two 'special' people; too often in their own image,
but certainly not the best possible human is top of mind. Breeding is a
whole other scary topic, akin to dog breeding.
That science thinks it's in our best interests to breed a human capable
of light year travel is one thing, but developing a new human to become
toxin/disease tolerant every time Pharma rears its ugly head, or
psychological stress accumulates--we couldn't possibly keep up. Far more
logical to criminalize industrial/Pharma toxic produce now, and allow
evolution to progress naturally. We're hardly in a position to require
prepping a human for interstellar space, since we haven't even mastered
local interplanetary travel. When that day comes, we might be in a
better position to 'play' with genetics wisely, if that's possible,
should we decide it's necessary at all.
Conquering disease is mostly doable today if we substantially reduce
pollutants, actually use research funds for what they're intended, and
change our life style to reflect healthy choices. Why complicate things
by trying to master the effects of modern living if we're not going to
eliminate the actual causes of the effects? That everyone may be
interested in conquering disease plays to the myth that science should
and will solve all of our problems. One of the biggest myths began with
the belief, because of science, greed and/or convenience, that we could
live without deleterious consequences from pollutants.
*Natalia Kuzmyn*
On 9/12/2010 1:42 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Now that we are into an era of austerity -- at least in Europe and at
least for a number of years -- what is the future for CERN (European
Organization for Nuclear Research)? This huge circular particle
accelerator running for miles under the boundary between France and
Switzerland is now due to be moth-balled from 2012 onwards because of
its immense running costs. This is a body-blow to several thousand
engineers and scientists, including many of the best young brains of
Europe. From 2013 onwards, if we are realistic, the likelihood is that
it will be many years -- if ever again -- before European governments
will be in a position to support it.
We must also bear in mind another factor which is never talked about.
This is that the cost of particle physics has never appeared in
political manifestos at election times. It has been surreptitiously
slid into more general governmental spending on science education and
research. The proverbial man-in-the-street is vaguely aware that his
consumer goods are due to science, but he would never willingly vote
for the immense sums of money required for further accelerators if
they ever began to loom large in governmental budgets.
The man-in-the-street is potentially as curious as the most dedicated
scientist but his education is so blunted in childhood that he cannot
begin to assess the importance and excitement of particle physics in
the whole scheme of things. Indeed, it is a marvel that the CERN
accelerator has been funded at all, there being hardly a politician or
senior bureaucrat in the whole of Europe who understands anything of
basic science (Angela Merkel of Germany being a notable exception).
But even if the CERN accelerator could have continued, the Higgs boson
discovered, and antimatter atoms created, then one thing is for
certain. Many more questions will have been raised, and the
scientists concerned would have wanted to build an even more powerful
accelerator. This, at the very least, would probably cost several
times more than the present one -- probably more than Europe could
afford. It is possible that one more might be built. If a fantastic
scientific breakthrough occurs during 2011, then perhaps America and
China could join the project and help to build the next accelerator
which might have to be the size of Europe, or the American Mid-West or
the Gobi desert.
Subsequently, if all the deep matters of physics are not answered,
what then? An accelerator that runs round the whole Equator? This is a
classic Malthusian problem. Sooner or later, the whole world would not
be large enough, nor governments rich enough, to build the next one.
This would not only be a body-blow to particle physicists, it could be
devastating to scientific enquiry itself.
But never say never. Perhaps all the particles that physicists have
discovered so far, and will discover in the future, are merely
terminological artefacts of our present scientific theories, the
principal one being the Big Bang. Perhaps the universe wasn't created
this way. Perhaps there aren't really such things as sub-atomic
particles but something else that adopts particular appearances
according to the experiments that are applied. Perhaps a different
scientific view of things, different concepts and different theories
and experiments will reveal another way of explaining the overwhelming
wonders of the universe.
Perhaps classical experiments in the future -- whatever the current
theory might be -- will have to be held in outer space. If so, then
despite delays, we */do/* have hope for science in the future because
the best young minds in science are not confined to physics alone but
also to evolutionary biology. And we will need this subject if we are
ever to go on prolonged flights or carry out large experiments in
outer space. We are probably going to have to deep-freeze or otherwise
maintain human DNA in good condition for long periods of time. To do
this we are going to have to understand and develop genetics a lot
further yet.
And this is already the main growth area of science even though it has
only really come of age since the Human Genome Project in 2003 which
blew several previous ideas of biology shy-high. Biologists are also
pursuing answers to deep questions. "How did Life start?" is the most
profound one. This may turn out to be involving complex issues of a
quantum sort that are quite as deep as those presently pondered by
particle physicists. Although this question only intrigues a minority
of the population there are also some wider ones. "How can we breed
better children?" is something every mother is interested in. "How can
we conquer disease?" is a question that everybody is interested in.
And, of course, the taxpayer will support this avenue of enquiry. So
far, both the professional careerists and the more fanatical believers
of organized religions kick up a lot of trouble from time to time. But
the motivations of potential recipients of genetic manipulation
(particularly mothers of IVF children so far) as well as the
scientific curiosity of professional biologists has been too strong.
Politicians and bureaucrats already know this, of course, and genetics
is now quietly slipping through the legal cracks and developing quite
as fast as is possible, limited only by the quantity and quality of
young minds wanting to enter the subject. Even if some governments
were to outlaw or delay particular lines of enquiry for electoral
reasons -- as President George Bush did concerning stem cells some
years ago -- then other governments will allow it to continue, or even
give it much more substantial backing as Singapore and China are
already doing.
Even if science is blocked along the present particle physics avenue
then we have every hope that it will continue along others. And -- who
knows? -- even the "soft" science of biology might one day help to
answer the questions that particle physicists are now asking but can't
yet answer.
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
