Magnetic monopole experiment at CERN could rewrite laws of physics
(PhysOrg.com) -- An experiment led by a University of Alberta researcher, at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, could dramatically change our concepts of basic physics, revolutionize our understanding of the Universe and could eventually lead to technologies in future generations that right now only exist in science fiction.
In this article please play the animation embedded in it. A well done animation that reveals ideas that are difficult to grasp for those that are visual learners. This isn't a blog entry about me but I am mostly a visual learner however I can take words and form visuals but it is not a strong point. When it came time to study 20th century physics in my degree courses particle physics was the most difficult for me. To imagine spins and momentums and visualize theories of magnetism in substances from equations and variables was darn near impossible and my grades weren't stellar. But I digressed.
Scientists, at least ones primarily in modern times, do not believe anything until it is proven to them in hard numbers, lots of photos and evidence of the kind you see discussed in the animation. In rare cases you catch scientists starting out with a conclusion, working to arrive at said conclusion just so they can earn the grants and finances for their work. Who likes unemployment right? Such was the case of global warming theory and that whole debacle.
A famous theorist and atheist once said "We don't believe in God because we don't want anyone meddling in our sex life." That really gets straight to the point; although it is a bit broader than that it still is valid. If anyone out there can tell me who said that please leave a comment because I don't recall.
Note how the beginning of the animation starts out with the conclusion that the universe starts out with a big bang and it isn't attributed to any deity or anything of the sort. Just 'bang' there it is. All work after that is working up stream to support that conclusion. A conclusion that itself was a matter of heated discussion in my lifetime. Apparently there is enough evidence for Big Bang theory of origin that scientists everywhere have come out of the closet and bravely mention it as in this case.
Suppose we had a piece of pottery that represented our universe and all the matter in it. A fictitious, superior race of scientists one day picked up this pottery and began asking themselves how the pottery came about. A leading scientist of this race stated "This thing came about suddenly by itself behaving according to the substance that makes it. They photographed it and observed that it was built with rings. "Rings made of what?", they asked. So they begin by cutting it in half and observing a cross section then they break a piece off and grind it up and look at the pieces microscopically. They blast it with fire and lasers and study light spectra to classify what it is made of. Then this race of superior beings write a report, the summary of which I found and copied below...
"This thing which we have named "bowl" came about suddenly and evolved over a period of trillions of years. Bowl formed according to the manner in which the substances behave when they come in close proximity to one another. Briefly the list of substances are dry powders mixed with water. We found trace elements of minerals that added color to the element silica including iron, boron, copper, carbon, nitrogen, zinc, sulfur and aluminum-oxide. Water came into contact with some elements and the elements began exerting attractive forces which morphed into coiled compounds. The coils or ropes of compounds began circling and sticking to one another and as rotational energy was lost the coils became tighter until you have one end smaller than the other end. Our statistical theoretician estimates a one in a trillion chance that the correct amount of electricity zapped this bowl while it was in a cloud of trace elements giving it the color and pattern we see. "
A scientist not affiliated with their group named 'Reveileb' writes a response. I found it and it is printed below.
"I too examined the object and I agree it should be called 'bowl' however I disagree with its origin. I believe that nothing is made that does not have both a maker and a purpose. It was made from coils of clay formed by hands, stacked on top of one another, smoothed over by hands using water then fired in an oven to maintain its shape. I turned the bowl over and found etchings of a kind I cannot interpret other than they are in a pattern that suggest the bowl was etched by the finger of its creator. The creator has a name and here I have a photo of the etching below. Other than that I understand all the other points my fellow scientists were making and I agree with the list of substances and compounds the 'bowl' is made of. However I do not agree with how it was made. But this has not stopped me from my research only taken me beyond the research of my fellow scientists because I started with a different conclusion of how bowl came into existence.
The conclusion of this matter is that saving face is the most important thing for all people including scientists who are, after all, just like you and I. Scientists do not like to face the possibility of being close to the discussion of believing in God because to do so would admit that there is a being out there more intelligent and more powerful than themselves. This is a trait that is programmed into us and was responsible for the fall from grace the archangel Lucifer experienced. It is the reason for the fall from grace of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. To this day we still make that same mistake.