[Trinidad]

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 01:02, said:

My argument was that all this unproven speculative crap should also be forbidden to keep the playing ground even.

Science and Religion have one thing in common. They are both unproven.

Religious folks know that religion is unproven, but they believe what their holy book says.

Scientists know that it is impossible to prove any theory as correct, but that they can reject theories as incorrect. (As an example: the "theory" that everything was created in 6 days is rejected as incorrect.)

The main difference between Science and Religion is that Science can accurately predict and the prediction can be verified. E.g. If tomorrow you go and mix 2 grams of hydrogen gas with 16 grams of oxygen gas, and add a flame, I -as a a scientist- predict that the mixture will explode and I can tell you how much heat this will generate, and where and when this will happen.

Religion can predict an awful lot (e.g. "If I write a post like this, then I will go to hell."), but the predictions are meaningless, since they cannot be verified.

So, whereas Science and Religion share the fact that they are unproven, the difference is that Science can make verifiable predictions and Religion can not.

This means -to use your words, it is not really my type of language- that Religion is "unproven speculative crap", whereas Science is "unproven, but far from speculative" (and, unless we are dealing with Endocrinology, far from crap).

Rik

[Trinidad]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-26, 05:01, said:

According to wikipedia, it is 20%. A more authoritative but less readable statistic is available from the CBS (Statistics Netherlands), http://statline.cbs....LNL&PA=80040NED
http://nl.wikipedia....elijk_onderwijs

In addition to those who start VWO directly after primary school, some will upgrade HAVO to VWO. In 2008, 1727 pupils went that way according to CBS (http://www.cbs.nl/NR...ofielsector.xls), but that will be less than 1% of a total year cohort. That the number is so low surprised me, I know lots of Dutch people who have upgraded their HAVO to VWO. One friend even went the whole way upgrading a MAVO to Gymnasium but I suppose that is very unusual.

Of course the number of pupils that complete VWO is lower than this.

I was just estimating numbers from my own experience, since the absolute numbers are not relevant for the story, please believe Wikipedia over me.

I agree with you that 1727 HAVO-VWO upgrades is a small number, but I think this is not an upgrade in the way you think of it.

HAVO is a 5 year education. Since the level of the HAVO education is lower that the of the VWO, HAVO graduates have the right to enter the 5th year of VWO in the next year. This means that this kind of "upgrader" will take 5+2 years to get the VWO diploma, where 6 is the default. This is the kind of "upgrade" you are referring to, and it is quite common. (I guess that about 10% of the VWO diplomas go to kids who first completed the HAVO.) And indeed, I also know someone who went from MAVO to HAVO to VWO, losing 2 years. (They discovered he was dyslexic when he was 15 or so, and then figured that he was actually quite smart. We met in the first year of university, where the dyslexia turned out to be too much of a handicap.)

I think the "upgraders" that CBS is referring too are different. I think that these "upgrades" are kids that do their HAVO exam, do exceptionally well, and then decide to take the VWO exam in the next year (with the aid of a co-operating VWO), or even the same year (by an enormous amount of self-study for a whole Summer).

A typical group of kids that go this way are kids (often boys) who started at VWO (and easily had the cognitive capacities for VWO) but didn't see the relevance of school when puberty hit (hard) and dropped to HAVO. When these kids get out of puberty and realize that education is important, they fly through the HAVO and now they have the motivation and intelligence to complete the VWO.

Rik

[gwnn]

I stand corrected on the Higgs bosons! It is just another case of my vestigial Eastern European preconceptions (which I am methodically trying to get rid of but still have a way to go) that say "our education is much higher than those Western countries where all they do in primary school is draw and run around in circles and talk about their feelings." I definitely never came anywhere close to learning about Higgs bosons in high school although I followed the most science-oriented programme available in Romania. And while I did of course learn about bosons in general in my Bachelor's studies, particle physics was not mandatory so I didn't take it.

All that said, I am still pretty sure that they do not teach kids Higgs bosons without some caveats, caveats that they would not add to lessons on the order of the planets around the sun (barring discussions on what constitutes a planet and details like that). There is much less doubt about the existence of Mercury than that of the Higgs boson and I would be surprised if they did not make this clear.

[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-26, 04:41, said:

That depends on the school system. I would expect that in many Dutch high schools the discovery of the Higgs boson was discussed extensively.

But the Netherlands, as you may know, has a differentiated school system. All children (except for special school kids with e.g. learning disabilities) go to the same elementary school until they are 12. After that they go to different school types. There are basically 4 school levels:

• Vocational schools, preparing for "hands jobs"
• Middle general education, preparing for a next vocational school with more white collars (administrative assistants, etc.)
• Higher general education, preparing for college (elementary school teachers, nurses, small business owners)
• Preparatory scientific education, the only high school level that gives access to university (called VWO, Voorbereidend Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs in Dutch)

Interesting, I guess am not understanding the difference between your terms "college" and "university". We often use them interchangeably in the USA. Is this a clear cut distinction in Netherlands?

[helene_t]

 billw55, on 2014-March-26, 07:47, said:

Interesting, I guess am not understanding the difference between your terms "college" and "university". We often use them interchangeably in the USA. Is this a clear cut distinction in Netherlands?

The word "college" doesn't really exist in Dutch but the Dutch word "Hogeschool" comes close to what is referred to as "College" in Britain, meaning an institution that awards diplomas in more practical/profession subjects than universities and usually don't give an academic title (although some do award bachelor degrees).

In Britain this is all confusing because the word "College" is at the same time used for real universities (like Imperial College) and parts of a University (especially in Cambridge and Oxford, colleges play a prominent role). Add to this that many universities are colleges that have been upgraded to "universities" for political reasons but conduct little research, award mainly bachelor degrees, and are a lot less prestigious than the "real" universities.

In the Netherlands the distinction is clearer, with all universities having the same level of prestige, while the Hogeschoolen (which we could translate as "colleges", using the British meaning rather than the American one) are quite distinct in that they don't do research, allow students with HAVO rather than VWO, and mainly award bachelor degrees (in the Netherlands, like in some other European countries, a Bachelor degree is not really considered an academic degree, because universities traditionally awarded only master's degrees).

[32519]

How are you guys progressing with your theory of Supersummetry? In case you can’t remember here is an extract from the article.

Quote:
The failure of the Large Hadron Collider to find evidence for supersymmetry has led some physicists to suggest that the theory should be abandoned. Experiments with the Large Hadron Collider also yielded an extremely rare particle decay event which casts doubt on supersymmetry. A major weakness of SUSY is that it is not falsifiable, because its breaking mechanism and the minimum mass above which it is restored are unknown. This minimum mass can be pushed upwards to arbitrarily large values, without disproving the symmetry.

Never mind – Maybe the new generation LHC will find evidence for SUSY? Like maybe in the year 3,014? Unsuspecting school kids are being filled with all this nonsense.

[WellSpyder]

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 08:27, said:

The failure of the Large Hadron Collider to find evidence for supersymmetry has led some physicists to suggest that the theory should be abandoned.

Sounds like a good illustration of the scientific method, as well explained by previous contributors to this thread. When was the last time a follower of the religious "method" suggested abandoning a religious theory on the grounds that evidence had not been found to support it?

[gwnn]

Do you ever read any of the replies to your questions or do you just assume that they don't address your "points" so they are safely ignored? If you think we are unable to address the important, groundbreaking issues you raise, why do you:
-keep on asking the same ones?
-not ask other, more qualified people, e.g. scientists who actually work at the LHC? Or publish a paper? Why do you not publish a paper disproving all of the progress the LHC made (as said above, about 200 papers/year) and publish another one raising your knock-down arguments?

[32519]

 gwnn, on 2014-March-26, 09:00, said:

Why do you not publish a paper disproving all of the progress the LHC made and publish another one raising your knock-down arguments?

OK, I took up your challenge but I don't need to publish any paper to disprove all of the (non) progress the LHC made. I think this post will be enough!

The Large Electron-Positron Collider also failed to deliver. Around 2001 it was dismantled to make way for the LHC, which re-used the LEP tunnel.

As of 2014, the LHC remains one of the largest and most complex experimental facilities ever built. But hidden underneath all the hype of supposedly having found the Higgs boson you guys have already admitted defeat with plans for an International Linear Collider. Japan is considered the most likely candidate, as the Japanese government is willing to contribute half of the costs. CERN is known to be experiencing cashflow problems. So now the Japanese taxpayer has been suckered into carrying the cost for your next toy.

But when the International Linear Collider also fails to produce you have another planned toy, the Compact Linear Collider competing against it.

[Trinidad]

 billw55, on 2014-March-26, 07:47, said:

Interesting, I guess am not understanding the difference between your terms "college" and "university". We often use them interchangeably in the USA. Is this a clear cut distinction in Netherlands?

The American system as I understand it (and I got a PhD from a school that used to be a college and later became a university):
A college is an educational institute for undergraduate studies, awarding a bachelor degree.
A university is an educational institute for undergraduate studies, awarding a bachelor degree, as well as graduate studies, awarding master's degrees and doctoral degrees (after the bachelor degree). At the same time, it is a research institute.

In the Netherlands:
A college is a school for high level professions: You end up as a trained engineer, registered nurse, or a teacher and get a bachelor's degree.
A university traditionally educates directly towards a master's degree (in 4 years, so we have a few MSc's that are 22 years old), and subsequently to a PhD. This is possible since the knowledge level of the first year students is approximately equal to the level of the third year students (juniors) at an American college or university. What American students learn in their freshman and sophomore years, Dutch students have learned at the VWO (e.g. what a Higgs boson is ).

A result of all of this is that, generally speaking, Dutch university graduates have a broader knowledge: Not only do they have a master's level on their specialty. They also have a junior's level in quite a few other disciplines.

At the other end of the spectrum, the kids are taught at their own level, rather than not being taught (because they can't grasp) at the level above their level. This reduces the number of high school drop-outs.

The drawback of the dutch system is that it creates a bit of an elite: Some of my study friends do not understand that there are people who are not capable of understanding what a Higgs' boson is. If you spend your whole high school time with friends that didn't have the luck to get dealt a great IQ, this is much less likely to happen. At the same time, the dutch lower educated people don't have a clue just how smart some people can be: they have always been in the same class with less intelligent kids and they simply don't know smart people.

Rik

[gwnn]

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 09:20, said:

OK, I took up your challenge but I don't need to publish any paper to disprove all of the (non) progress the LHC made. I think this post will be enough!

Which post? I hope it got lost in the mail somehow because this one below:

Quote

The Large Electron-Positron Collider also failed to deliver. Around 2001 it was dismantled to make way for the LHC, which re-used the LEP tunnel.

As of 2014, the LHC remains one of the largest and most complex experimental facilities ever built. But hidden underneath all the hype of supposedly having found the Higgs boson you guys have already admitted defeat with plans for an International Linear Collider. Japan is considered the most likely candidate, as the Japanese government is willing to contribute half of the costs. CERN is known to be experiencing cashflow problems. So now the Japanese taxpayer has been suckered into carrying the cost for your next toy.

But when the International Linear Collider also fails to produce you have another planned toy, the Compact Linear Collider competing against it.

Just seems to show that there will be bigger particle colliders. I could have told you that before they started building the LHC. Also, believe it or not, there will be faster cars than today, and more-than-64-bit operating systems. Maybe it is a shock to you but things change and there is technological progress.

I asked you a specific question here. This is a list of data publications made possible by LHC: https://lpcc.web.cer...ge=lhc-articles Probably thousands of hours of work have gone into each of them. If you think that none of these articles are valuable knowledge, you should explain what you mean by that statement on each of these examples. Just stating that there will be other particle colliders falls quite a bit short of that mark.

[32519]

 gwnn, on 2014-March-26, 09:38, said:

Just seems to show that there will be bigger particle colliders.

Some questions:
1. What is the ceiling speed that these colliders can be built to collide particles?
2. What happens when you go beyond the ceiling speed?
3. How close are you already at the ceiling speed?
4. If you are already at the ceiling speed with the current LHC, what’s the point of building a bigger and more expensive one?

[ArtK78]

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

Some questions:
1. What is the ceiling speed that these colliders can be built to collide particles?
2. What happens when you go beyond the ceiling speed?
3. How close are you already at the ceiling speed?
4. If you are already at the ceiling speed with the current LHC, what’s the point of building a bigger and more expensive one?

Everyone knows that at some point one of these Colliders will do something that causes the Earth to vaporize.

[Trinidad]

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

Some questions:
1. What is the ceiling speed that these colliders can be built to collide particles?
2. What happens when you go beyond the ceiling speed?
3. How close are you already at the ceiling speed?
4. If you are already at the ceiling speed with the current LHC, what’s the point of building a bigger and more expensive one?

One counter question (very impolite, I apologize):

Are you sincerely interested in the answers?

Think twice.

If you are sincerely interested in the answers then- and only then- you are allowed to read the spoiler.

Spoiler

I will try to explain this in simple terms:

There is a "ceiling speed", the speed of light. These colliders are operated under conditions where the speed of light would have been exceeded by a factor of about 100 -if there would not be relativity. But there is relativity.

In our normal everyday lives, when you increase the energy of an object, it is going to move faster: E=mv²/2. E is the energy, m is the mass and v is the speed. So, when you increase the energy of a car by a factor of 4, the mass of the car stays the same and the car will move twice as fast.

But when an object starts to approach the speed of light, and you add energy to the object, then not only is its speed increasing. Its mass is increasing too. And the closer you get to the speed of light, the more of the energy will be put into mass, rather than speed. At the same time, as the object is getting heavier, it is getting harder and harder to increase the speed.

So when more energy is pumped into these particles, they will get closer and closer to the speed of light, but they will never reach it since they get so very heavy.

To answer to your question 4: the point is that with each improved collider, we get a little bit closer to the speed of light and can observe new interesting phenomena that we couldn't observe before.

If you are not sincerely interested in the answers, please read this:

Spoiler

Rik

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2014-March-26, 07:47, said:

Interesting, I guess am not understanding the difference between your terms "college" and "university". We often use them interchangeably in the USA. Is this a clear cut distinction in Netherlands?

There's a clear cut distinction here in the US as well.

College's offer undergraduate degrees.
Universities offer both undergraduate and graduate degrees.

As a practical example, consider the "little three".

Williams and Amherst are both colleges.
Wesleyan is a university

[32519]

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

Some questions:
1. What is the ceiling speed that these colliders can be built to collide particles?

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-26, 15:08, said:

There is a "ceiling speed", the speed of light. These colliders are operated under conditions where the speed of light would have been exceeded by a factor of about 100 -if there would not be relativity. But there is relativity.

In our normal everyday lives, when you increase the energy of an object, it is going to move faster: E=mv²/2. E is the energy, m is the mass and v is the speed. So, when you increase the energy of a car by a factor of 4, the mass of the car stays the same and the car will move twice as fast.

But when an object starts to approach the speed of light, and you add energy to the object, then not only is its speed increasing. Its mass is increasing too. And the closer you get to the speed of light, the more of the energy will be put into mass, rather than speed. At the same time, as the object is getting heavier, it is getting harder and harder to increase the speed.

So when more energy is pumped into these particles, they will get closer and closer to the speed of light, but they will never reach it since they get so very heavy.

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

2. What happens when you go beyond the ceiling speed?

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-26, 15:08, said:

So when more energy is pumped into these particles, they will get closer and closer to the speed of light, but they will never reach it since they get so very heavy.

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

3. How close are you already at the ceiling speed?

Any takers on this one?

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

4. If you are already at the ceiling speed with the current LHC, what’s the point of building a bigger and more expensive one?

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-26, 15:08, said:

To answer to your question 4: the point is that with each improved collider, we get a little bit closer to the speed of light and can observe new interesting phenomena that we couldn't observe before.

[Trinidad]

 32519, on 2014-March-27, 00:27, said:

 32519, on 2014-March-26, 12:02, said:

3. How close are you already at the ceiling speed?

Any takers on this one?

That question is impossible to answer. Think about it:
If I run from Los Angeles to New York, I can say at any given point how close I am to New York, because if I will just keep running, I will get to New York.

But now, instead of running from Los Angeles to New York, I decide to run from Los Angeles to Vladivostok, a place that I will never be able to reach (assuming you agree with me that people can't run over water ). I can run up North, and I will get closer to Vladivostok. Once I have reached Seattle, I can say that I am closer to Vladivostok than when I was in Los Angeles. But I am still infinitely far away from Vladivostok, since I will never reach it.

It is the same with answering the question: "How close are we to the speed of light?". The answer is: "Closer than we ever were before, but still infinitely far away from it."

Rik

[32519]

The LHC is already just below the speed of light. This from the LHC Design.

Quote:
At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 0.999999991 c, or about 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light ©.

The LHC is currently undergoing upgrades which will probably take it to the speed of light, maybe even beyond.

So let me repeat the question – What happens when these collisions start going beyond the speed of light?

[gwnn]

http://en.wikipedia....gy_and_momentum

[Trinidad]

 32519, on 2014-March-27, 03:53, said:

The LHC is already just below the speed of light. This from the LHC Design.

Quote:
At this energy the protons have a Lorentz factor of about 7,500 and move at about 0.999999991 c, or about 3 metres per second slower than the speed of light ©.

The LHC is currently undergoing upgrades which will probably take it to the speed of light, maybe even beyond.

So let me repeat the question – What happens when these collisions start going beyond the speed of light?

So, by now, the LHC ran all the way to Alaska. Trust me, it will not get to Vladivostok.

When we put enough effort in it and keep upgrading colliders like LHC, we may be able to turn the last '1' in '0.999999991 c' into a '2', a '5', or a '9'. Perhaps we will be able to put in more and more 9's. But the first digit will always remain a '0'. We will not, never ever, reach the speed of light (in vacuum) with these collisions.

So "What happens when these collisions start going beyond the speed of light?" is a similar question to "What happens when Easter and Christmas fall on the same day?". Don't worry, it ain't gonna happen.

If you are interested what happens when particles go faster than the speed of light in the medium that they are traveling through (but still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), you could read about Cherenkov radiation.

Rik