Nov262007 is when the Large Hadron Collider will be turned on for the first time! It’s been almost two decades in creation; a 6 billion dollar 50 country experiment will be sending protons at {near} light speed through 17 miles of magnets having them collide in the middle in a stargate type structure.
Creating in this experiment a "possible" theoretical particles /energy called Higgs enabling us to see time back when the universe began. Although most people “me included “wouldn’t care for such an experiment the dangers are known and are real.
The Hadron Collider is the largest physics project ever. Six Thousand of These scientists are well informed but feel the risk out ways the benefits, " risk destroy the earth, see the second right after the big bang.”
Technical details aside lets just say the people of CERN emit they will create black holes with the Large Hadron Collider " incase you don’t remember black holes devour everything, matter, light etc. And are usually formed when stars implode." But! They say according to Hawking theory “would dissipate in a burst of gamma rays that would be produced by materialization of real particles from virtual particles at the black hole's event horizon.”in other worlds just disappear.
Albert Einstein once said that a zero miscalculated was the biggest mistake of his life in his cosmological equation, he was happy this could not affect the earth. Hawkins theory wasn’t even proven and it forms the back bone of the safety argument of the CERN Large Hadron Collider group.
To add to the danger, the Large Hadron Collider "LHC" cannot produce " calculated" fast as speed of light, which means not only can it produce black holes we are looking at a host of unknown dangers
Most common strangelets & monopoles
Strangelets are moving probably hitting earth right now but because they move at such high speeds are harmless but if strangelets get slown down,” say by a Large Hadron Collider"
We are looking at a danger of being hit by one of these which according to scientist cause nuclei to turn into strange matter. “It’s never happened on earth but on neutron stars yes"
Monopoles are by fact will be created during the experiment but according to the CERN scientist at LHC they believe it will occur but will "will quickly traverse the earth and escape into space" monopoles destroy neurons, commonly found on the Sun.
There other unknown “could be dangerous" black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non definitive theories
The CERN study is a remake of a similar study for the earlier Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven (RHIC) adapted to the LHC. So it’s been done before but not with so much " luminosity"
“Important fact the study at Brookhaven was conducted with guaranteed no black holes, CERN LHC say black holes could be created."
Adrian Kent's admonition on GLOBAL RISKS and science states
Danger to inhabitants of earth should not exceed 0.000001% A YEAR to be acceptable.
Adding all the risks realistic scientist at www.risk-evaluation-forum.org say there is an 11. % to 25. % risk for cataclysmic catastrophe for the CERN Large Hadron Collider experiment. "Even testing it!"
So as the French and Swiss governments push for an activation date and giddy scientist waiting to make history gladly ablige. We as a Human race should not hold our breath. Because even if nothing goes wrong the first test there is an eminent danger as long as the LHC runs. "Not even giving gradual deterioration of facility"( where and tear). Deliberate production of black holes wanted or not should be seriously banned by international law till it has been studied thoroughly or at least when the risk of danger is lowered.
As far as I am concerned those billions should have gone to Anthropological fields and Epidemiological programs to stop the spread of super strains of TB or STAFF or HIV etc ....which still plague our species.
Routers NEWs RePoRTs
On Tuesday, March 27, 2007, there was a devastating explosion deep in the tunnel at the CERN particle accelerator complex that actually blew a 20 ton magnet right off its mountings. The explosion filled the tunnel with helium and forced a mass evacuation of the facility.
Even Dr. Lyn Evans, who heads the accelerator project at CERN said Quote “There was a hell of a bang! “
An investigation by the researchers found that basic math flaws had caused the explosion -- which gives one pause in contemplating how much faith can bestowed upon 6,000 scientists who can overlook basic math mistakes. Not only was this mistake made in the original design phase, but it was also missed on four engineering reviews carried out over a period of four years.
Refference(s)
risk-evaluation-forum.org/anon1.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
having them collide in the middle
Wrong.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
in a stargate type structure.
Wrong.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
enabling us to see time back when the universe began.
Wrong.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
most people ... wouldn’t care for such an experiment
Needs citation.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
the dangers are known
Needs citation.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
and are real.
Wrong. Potential problems are never "real," they are imagined.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
the people of CERN [admit] they will create black holes with the Large Hadron Collider
Wrong. This is a fringe theory based on the assumption of Extra Large Hidden Dimensions.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
black holes devour everything, matter, light etc.
Overstatement.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
according to Hawking theory “would dissipate in a burst of gamma rays that would be produced by materialization of real particles from virtual particles at the black hole's event horizon.”
Almost correct. Hawking's result is a theorem and is is robust to many changes of what physical theory is used.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
in other worlds just disappear.
Wrong. Energy and momentum are conserved.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Albert Einstein once said that a zero miscalculated was the biggest mistake of his life in his cosmological equation,
Wrong. He said allowing a paramter to vary from zero was the mistake. Modern cosmology suggests the mistake was assuming it to be zero.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
he was happy this could not affect the earth.
Needs citation.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Hawkins
Wrong. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character. S. Hawking is a famous scientist.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
theory wasn’t even proven
Wrong. The theorem was proven many times.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
and it forms the back bone of the safety argument of the CERN Large Hadron Collider group.
Wrong. Conservation of angular momentum and GR also play large roles.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
a host of unknown dangers
Tautology, therefore no reason to take action except to experiment to discover the unknown.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Most common strangelets & monopoles
Wrong. They can't be common if they've never been observed.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Strangelets are moving probably hitting earth right now but because they move at such high speeds are harmless
Wrong. They may be actually harmless.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
It’s never happened on earth but on neutron stars yes
Citation needed.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Monopoles are by fact will be created during the experiment
Citation needed.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
monopoles destroy neurons, commonly found on the Sun.
Wrong.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
There other unknown “could be dangerous" black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non definitive theories
Wrong. Black mass and energy, by definition, can't be dangerous. You can't create vacuum energy.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
The CERN study is a remake of a similar study for the earlier Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven (RHIC) adapted to the LHC. So it’s been done before but not with so much " luminosity"
Or energy.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Important fact the study at Brookhaven was conducted with guaranteed no black holes, CERN LHC say black holes could be created.
Wrong. The Brookhaven result stands for CERN as well. Blackholes, as the term is understood generally, have no chance of being formed in CERN. You need a new theory of gravity to allow them to be created, and so the "CERN Black Holes" are not classical Black Holes at all. Indeed, if they have even 1 fermion of spin, they won't form event horizons.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Adrian Kent's admonition on GLOBAL RISKS and science states Danger to inhabitants of earth should not exceed 0.000001% A YEAR to be acceptable.
Probably because of all the Extinction-Level-Events which the universe is full of.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
Adding all the risks realistic scientist at http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/ say there is an 11. % to 25. % risk for cataclysmic catastrophe for the CERN Large Hadron Collider experiment. "Even testing it!"
Well, they are wrong.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
As far as I am concerned those billions should have gone to Anthropological fields and Epidemiological programs to stop the spread of super strains of TB or STAFF or HIV etc ....which still plague our species.
What about the Trillions of dollars which go into making War?
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
there was a devastating explosion
... to equipment and budgets and schedules.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 23 2007, 11:10 PM)
deep in the tunnel
All parts of the tunnel are "deep".
(I) would have very strong reservations on the idea that they could produce anything analogous to a Black Hole in a Collider - given the nature and requirements of the Birthing of a True Black Hole......but (I) too could be wrong.
Will be back to read more ...later.....nice post though, food for thought....
Will be back to read more ...later.....nice post though, food for thought....
I agree 100% the CERN LHC tests will probably do more harm then good alot more...
I like how some people on this forum like to take a post and qoute it section by section and point out all the flaws and then not add anything useful to the topic besides that the poster above was wrong on xyz accounts...
I guess we really dont have much of a choice tho honestly CERNs LHC is gona go off with a bang. The question is how big will the bang be? I personaly think its gona end up creating an explosion that will probably cause europe to look like a giant hole in the ground... Basicaly I dont see how you can think putting that many magnets/energys into one place and recreating stuff like mini-blackholes is ever a good idea...
I like how some people on this forum like to take a post and qoute it section by section and point out all the flaws and then not add anything useful to the topic besides that the poster above was wrong on xyz accounts...
I guess we really dont have much of a choice tho honestly CERNs LHC is gona go off with a bang. The question is how big will the bang be? I personaly think its gona end up creating an explosion that will probably cause europe to look like a giant hole in the ground... Basicaly I dont see how you can think putting that many magnets/energys into one place and recreating stuff like mini-blackholes is ever a good idea...
.
Let's be realistic.
After expending that 6 billion, does anyone here seriously think that ANYTHING anyone says (no matter how right/wrong) will convince them to pull that project....and admit to having WASTED that 6 billion? I don't think so....after all, we are dealing with HUMANS...and worse...POLITICIANS and VESTED INTERESTS.
Personally, I don't see any danger in the LHC.
Since the 'charge conservation' and 'magnetic/electric' dipole moments/interactions would have TRAPPED (in vast galactic space nebulae and giant stars (as well as MAGNETARS and NEUTRONSTARS) all the COSMIC RAY produced 'micro-holes' ever created.....and there would be hardly anything to 'observe' in our sky NOW.
As for that 'momentum' argument...remember that any micro holes travelling along PARALLEL SPACE PLASMA FLOWS and SPACE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES would accumulate (if they actually exist and can accumulate before 'expiring') matter because they would have no momentum 'differential' to speak of when compared to the flows/lines thay are trapped to 'join' over thousands of light years.
And we observe a dearth of black holes. So nil 'accumulation' is the only possible conclusion.
On balance, there are more arguments against such a PUTATIVE' micro-hole ever being formed...let alone allegedly accumulating as feared.
BESIDES, if LHC DOES produce such things and we all die in a few thousand years, so what?
Atheists will be satified to die 'happy' having 'cracked it'.
While agnostics/and theists will have their 'gods' to receive them in a 'better place' (and if as some think that 'judgement day' is coming in a 1,000 years, then we won't be here to worry about a micro-hole killing us in a few thousand years, hehehe).
Either way, life's a wonderful thing....but BORING if we humans always did the 'sensible' thing! Like the man said earlier, there's WAR to be getting rid of FIRST; then there's possible GLOBAL WARMING 'greenhouse effect' (whatever the cause) to think about over the next few decades....let's worry about something we CAN do something about, eh...and spend our efforts on THOSE 'achievable' things.
But whatever is going to 'get us first', we had better DO something that IS 'doable'....and not waste time trying to convince politicians and vested interests to cancel and write off 6 billion....never happen, no mater HOW 'true' the fears are!
Cheers all; and as the song goes..."don't worry, be happy"!
And as Mr Adams would have it: see ya'll in "The restaurant at the end of the universe", hehehe.
......oh, but don't forget your babbelfish; so we can then all FINALLY 'speak the same language' and at last understand each other and ourselves a little better!
Good luck and good thinking till then, folks!
RC.
.
Let's be realistic.
After expending that 6 billion, does anyone here seriously think that ANYTHING anyone says (no matter how right/wrong) will convince them to pull that project....and admit to having WASTED that 6 billion? I don't think so....after all, we are dealing with HUMANS...and worse...POLITICIANS and VESTED INTERESTS.
Personally, I don't see any danger in the LHC.
Since the 'charge conservation' and 'magnetic/electric' dipole moments/interactions would have TRAPPED (in vast galactic space nebulae and giant stars (as well as MAGNETARS and NEUTRONSTARS) all the COSMIC RAY produced 'micro-holes' ever created.....and there would be hardly anything to 'observe' in our sky NOW.
As for that 'momentum' argument...remember that any micro holes travelling along PARALLEL SPACE PLASMA FLOWS and SPACE MAGNETIC FIELD LINES would accumulate (if they actually exist and can accumulate before 'expiring') matter because they would have no momentum 'differential' to speak of when compared to the flows/lines thay are trapped to 'join' over thousands of light years.
And we observe a dearth of black holes. So nil 'accumulation' is the only possible conclusion.
On balance, there are more arguments against such a PUTATIVE' micro-hole ever being formed...let alone allegedly accumulating as feared.
BESIDES, if LHC DOES produce such things and we all die in a few thousand years, so what?
Atheists will be satified to die 'happy' having 'cracked it'.
While agnostics/and theists will have their 'gods' to receive them in a 'better place' (and if as some think that 'judgement day' is coming in a 1,000 years, then we won't be here to worry about a micro-hole killing us in a few thousand years, hehehe).
Either way, life's a wonderful thing....but BORING if we humans always did the 'sensible' thing! Like the man said earlier, there's WAR to be getting rid of FIRST; then there's possible GLOBAL WARMING 'greenhouse effect' (whatever the cause) to think about over the next few decades....let's worry about something we CAN do something about, eh...and spend our efforts on THOSE 'achievable' things.
But whatever is going to 'get us first', we had better DO something that IS 'doable'....and not waste time trying to convince politicians and vested interests to cancel and write off 6 billion....never happen, no mater HOW 'true' the fears are!
Cheers all; and as the song goes..."don't worry, be happy"!
And as Mr Adams would have it: see ya'll in "The restaurant at the end of the universe", hehehe.
......oh, but don't forget your babbelfish; so we can then all FINALLY 'speak the same language' and at last understand each other and ourselves a little better!
Good luck and good thinking till then, folks!
RC.
.
I think they will start it, and like all big projects, it will fail to launch.
Then the punch lists will start showing up.
Another delay will then put it into 2008 where the next test fails.
I think maybe in 2010 a real test may show up. AT this point people will complain about the money the money the money the money.
However the startup date will not happen, it is just a hope for the waiting.
I'll bet
and raise you two
if you show a good hand on the day it runs.
Then the punch lists will start showing up.
Another delay will then put it into 2008 where the next test fails.
I think maybe in 2010 a real test may show up. AT this point people will complain about the money the money the money the money.
However the startup date will not happen, it is just a hope for the waiting.
I'll bet
and raise you two
if you show a good hand on the day it runs.
This is dangerous. Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong.
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 24 2007, 04:38 AM)
I think they will start it, and like all big projects, it will fail to launch.
Projects like the transcontinental railroad (pick your continent), the transatlantic cables, The Manhattan Project, D-Day, The Moon Landing, previous incarnations of CERN colliders, Linux and the Internet?
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 24 2007, 04:38 AM)
Another delay will then put it into 2008 where the next test fails.
Near-tautology, or are you predicting a specific delay?
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 24 2007, 04:38 AM)
AT this point people will complain about the money the money the money the money.
What are you saying. People are already complaining. It's a thing people do. Perhaps you meant to say important people will complain, but you fail to understand that CERN is trivially cheap against the world GNP, so it doesn't matter how many complain as long as enough people want to do it.
QUOTE (rethinker+Oct 24 2007, 04:38 AM)
However the startup date will not happen, it is just a hope for the waiting.
USD $50 says you are wrong and LHC will have first beams prior to September 1, 2008.
http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lh...chine-outreach/
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
http://foraz.web.cern.ch/foraz/schedule.pdf
http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lh...chine-outreach/
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
http://foraz.web.cern.ch/foraz/schedule.pdf
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 24 2007, 05:07 AM)
Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong.
Saying so does not make it so. Perhaps the clarity you perceive is a mirage? Why is it neither you, Walter Wagner, nor jdemchenko, can give a physics reason why a collider experiment which is just barely fractionally more than any collider we built before is dangerous when we commonly observe particle with energies many thousands of times higher that LHC is capable of without even a hint that they are dangerous? You are claiming it's endangering the lives of everyone in France to overfeed Americans despite that fact that the Yokozuna has shaken hands with many a Frenchman without statistical effect on mortality.
The only way you promote this danger is by positing a threshold effect which is just beyond our grasp today which someone will cross tomorrow, despite the fact that we have plenty of samples from beyond the threshold. This same argument has been used by fearful deceivers for 195 years.
Change happens and it's not uniformly good or bad. But change teaches us new things, and we can't stop change just by standing still. The world changes about us. To not change is to fail to survive.
The lesson of Icarus is not that innovation is bad, but that unhappy conservative people like to tell fictions about people who aim high.
The only way you promote this danger is by positing a threshold effect which is just beyond our grasp today which someone will cross tomorrow, despite the fact that we have plenty of samples from beyond the threshold. This same argument has been used by fearful deceivers for 195 years.
Change happens and it's not uniformly good or bad. But change teaches us new things, and we can't stop change just by standing still. The world changes about us. To not change is to fail to survive.
The lesson of Icarus is not that innovation is bad, but that unhappy conservative people like to tell fictions about people who aim high.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 24 2007, 05:07 AM)
This is dangerous. Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong.
[Quote] 37 year old ubavondipstick (early 19th Century):
"Stephenson's Rocket is dangerous ..... every passanger will die when its speed exceeds 20mph."
Same old faecal material, spanning 3 Centuries.
[Quote] 37 year old ubavondipstick (early 19th Century):
"Stephenson's Rocket is dangerous ..... every passanger will die when its speed exceeds 20mph."
Same old faecal material, spanning 3 Centuries.
QUOTE
magpies Posted on Today at 11:51 AM I like how some people on this forum like to take a post and qoute it section by section and point out all the flaws
the original poster then has a chance to point out all the flaws in the critique, it is not a case of you are wrong and you have no chance of reply. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| magpies Posted on Today at 11:51 AM I like how some people on this forum like to take a post and qoute it section by section and point out all the flaws |
the original poster then has a chance to point out all the flaws in the critique, it is not a case of you are wrong and you have no chance of reply.
and then not add anything useful to the topic besides that the poster above was wrong on xyz accounts...
and then not add anything useful to the topic besides that the poster above was wrong on xyz accounts...
expert opinion may seem as such, but what does it say about the original post if the original poster can not defend their claims.
me personally, i would expect the experts at CERN to know more about what they are doing than what can be dredged off the net. i would assume that for every meeting on experiment design there would be one on safety, that is if safety is not discussed at the experiment design stage ....
me personally, i would expect the experts at CERN to know more about what they are doing than what can be dredged off the net. i would assume that for every meeting on experiment design there would be one on safety, that is if safety is not discussed at the experiment design stage ....
To generate a Black Hole you would need an accumulation of Neutrons, enough that they initiate a 'self collapsing' (Implosive) event.....anyone who knows atomic physics should know that a small quantity of free neutrons - in a small enough space - fast enough - creates-generates a nuclear blast (A Bomb or fission event)...so the little Particles might just be quite a bit more difficult to get assembled into a mass - large enough - fast enough - to get it to generate a Black Hole formative (Collapsing) assemblage....even a Mini one.....
It should also be recalled that these colliding events will be including Protons as a part of the projected mass, they (the protons) would help to stop potential Free neutron formations, as they tend to bind to-with them - somewhat - plus the simplicity of too much positive energy present would work to counteract (Like charge repels) any complete collapsing energy's potential effects.
So, not likely to get-cause even Mini Black Holes....
It should also be recalled that these colliding events will be including Protons as a part of the projected mass, they (the protons) would help to stop potential Free neutron formations, as they tend to bind to-with them - somewhat - plus the simplicity of too much positive energy present would work to counteract (Like charge repels) any complete collapsing energy's potential effects.
So, not likely to get-cause even Mini Black Holes....
Yes there may be a (miniscule) risk but this is a violent universe. We won't survive by cowering in ignorance and waiting for the next cosmological cataclysm. The survival of the human race this far is due to hard won knowledge. The same will apply in the future.
I like how rpenner said my description of the LHC structure as stargate like WRONG! When its totally subjective, I could have said it looked like a whales vigina and still be just stating my point of view.... but still many of his corrections were correct or just seemed reworded to look "can I say it" more correct ?
Concerning Hawking
“Wrong. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character. S. Hawking is a famous scientist. “Thanks I should hope you would of understood what I meant next time I’ll be more careful.
Concerning Strangelets
“Wrong. They may be actually harmless” The key word is MAY, Strangelets MAY be dangerous
RealityCheck is the master for he/she delivered the most potent response "there is nothing we can do about it"
If there are any grammatical errors here I apologize in advanced
Concerning Hawking
“Wrong. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character. S. Hawking is a famous scientist. “Thanks I should hope you would of understood what I meant next time I’ll be more careful.
Concerning Strangelets
“Wrong. They may be actually harmless” The key word is MAY, Strangelets MAY be dangerous
RealityCheck is the master for he/she delivered the most potent response "there is nothing we can do about it"
If there are any grammatical errors here I apologize in advanced
Also I like to learn more so if rpenner or anyone can explain the ones rpenner wrote as WRONG and gave no explanation id like to read it please.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 24 2007, 06:07 PM)
This is dangerous. Clearly the arguments put forward by the safety committee are wrong.
Clearly the claims of danger are being exaggerated by the alarmists.
Clearly the claims of danger are being exaggerated by the alarmists.
Clearly the claims of danger are being exaggerated by the idiots.
QUOTE (Rabbit+Oct 25 2007, 07:52 AM)
Clearly the claims of danger are being exaggerated by the idiots.
∀ x (exaggerates(x) → idiotic(x))
∀ x (alarmist(x) → exaggerates(x))
⇒ ∀ x (alarmist(x) → idiotic(x))
∀ x (exaggerates(x) → idiotic(x))
∀ x (alarmist(x) → exaggerates(x))
⇒ ∀ x (alarmist(x) → idiotic(x))
It’s not an alarmist to be prudent about wasteful experiments destined to produce little and risk everything. “It just seems reckless to assume we know enough to produce this LHC right now. “
To many Einstein not enough Aristotle’s?
To many Einstein not enough Aristotle’s?
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 24 2007, 09:55 PM)
“It just seems reckless to assume we know enough to produce this LHC right now. “
Who exactly are you quoting?
The SM is 30 years old. SUSY is 20 years old. Experiment is way behind theory and the TeV energy scales are crying out for experiments. If we don't know, on theoretical grounds, enough about the LHC energy scales, we never will! Thousands of papers mapping out all kinds of LHC physics have been published. Just search www.arxiv.org for 'LHC' or 'TeV' and you'll get back more results than the search engine can manage!
By some of the whiners here, we'll never know enough about physics to be able to know what the LHC is going to do. The only way we'd know is if we have done the experiments but we can't, because we don't know the outcome! If we knew the outcome, we'd not need to do the experiments. Catch 22.
Who exactly are you quoting?
The SM is 30 years old. SUSY is 20 years old. Experiment is way behind theory and the TeV energy scales are crying out for experiments. If we don't know, on theoretical grounds, enough about the LHC energy scales, we never will! Thousands of papers mapping out all kinds of LHC physics have been published. Just search www.arxiv.org for 'LHC' or 'TeV' and you'll get back more results than the search engine can manage!
By some of the whiners here, we'll never know enough about physics to be able to know what the LHC is going to do. The only way we'd know is if we have done the experiments but we can't, because we don't know the outcome! If we knew the outcome, we'd not need to do the experiments. Catch 22.
Thanks AlphaNumeric some guidence .
by the way that book was awsome!
by the way that book was awsome!
I've often wondered, Alpha, if you don't just create a slew of random logins to pander to your own online ego.
Newton was convinced early on in the existence on an Aether.
Einstein's first published paper was in regards to the state of the Aether in Magnetic Fields.
Anyone who says they know enough to be able to discount the risk involved in any activity, be it scientific or even simply walking down a flight of stairs, is more often than not laughed at by God.
Is it possible to create a black hole using the LHC? Possibly not... I'm enjoying the logical examination of the time requirements to create the event horizon, which by necessity would be infinite. A naked singularity would be much more fun to play with, but good luck spinning that Event Horizon (with it's infinite time requirement) up to light speed.
It is worth trying? Maybe...
Is it worth the money invested? The magic 8-ball says "All signs point to no."
At the end of the day, the LHC could simply prove to be a white elephant, a supremely expensive device thats not capable of dealing with the energies it's attempting to direct. In that case, the only proven theory will be this:
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
Newton was convinced early on in the existence on an Aether.
Einstein's first published paper was in regards to the state of the Aether in Magnetic Fields.
Anyone who says they know enough to be able to discount the risk involved in any activity, be it scientific or even simply walking down a flight of stairs, is more often than not laughed at by God.
Is it possible to create a black hole using the LHC? Possibly not... I'm enjoying the logical examination of the time requirements to create the event horizon, which by necessity would be infinite. A naked singularity would be much more fun to play with, but good luck spinning that Event Horizon (with it's infinite time requirement) up to light speed.
It is worth trying? Maybe...
Is it worth the money invested? The magic 8-ball says "All signs point to no."
At the end of the day, the LHC could simply prove to be a white elephant, a supremely expensive device thats not capable of dealing with the energies it's attempting to direct. In that case, the only proven theory will be this:
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
I've often wondered, Alpha, if you don't just create a slew of random logins to pander to your own online ego.
I don't need to. Firstly because I don't have an online ego and secondly, I see no need to try to convince others I'm 'popular'.
My comments about physics speak for themselves. Shocking as you might find it, but actually knowing some physics and providing others with help in that regard is a way of getting people to like you. In the last 24 hours I've offered to provide help to two people on these forums on material considered degree level. That is why people thank me, not because they are my sock puppets.
I don't need to. Firstly because I don't have an online ego and secondly, I see no need to try to convince others I'm 'popular'.
My comments about physics speak for themselves. Shocking as you might find it, but actually knowing some physics and providing others with help in that regard is a way of getting people to like you. In the last 24 hours I've offered to provide help to two people on these forums on material considered degree level. That is why people thank me, not because they are my sock puppets.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
is more often than not laughed at by God.
And anyone who falls back onto 'God says...' in a scientific discussion gets laughed at by 'Rationality'.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
I'm enjoying the logical examination of the time requirements to create the event horizon, which by necessity would be infinite.
By whose perspective? An outside observer wouldn't see a black hole form in a complete way but anyone or anything falling into the system sure would. As you get closer to the system, you'd see the event horizon form just as you pass through it.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
but good luck spinning that Event Horizon (with it's infinite time requirement) up to light speed.
You don't spin it up to light speed, you spin it up to a speed where M²=a², in natural units. If the black hole is charged, this is reduced to M²=a²+Q², so a highly charged black hole has to hardly spin (if at all!).
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
Is it worth the money invested? The magic 8-ball says "All signs point to no."
Because €6 billion dollars to advance both high end technology and our understanding of the universe isn't worth it while the trillions of dollars wasted every year on weapons is?
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
At the end of the day, the LHC could simply prove to be a white elephant, a supremely expensive device thats not capable of dealing with the energies it's attempting to direct.
Except that we already have a machine (the Tevatron) which works at the lower end of the LHC's energy scales.
You sure you're not sucking on a straw through the ol' glory hole?
You sure you're not sucking on a straw through the ol' glory hole?
And anyone who falls back onto 'God says...' in a scientific discussion gets laughed at by 'Rationality'.
Anyone confuses 'God Laughs' with 'God says' deserves a rational kick in the teeth. I could have easily said 'The Universe Laughs' without changing the meaning or intent.
Long before you did.
USD $50 says you are wrong and LHC will have first beams prior to September 1, 2008.
http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lh...chine-outreach/
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
http://foraz.web.cern.ch/foraz/schedule.pdf
Well I will not take you up on the bet as You may be correct.
I looked into some history and I must say I have lots to learn.
Scientific achievements
Several important achievements in particle physics have been made during experiments at CERN. These include, but are not limited to:
* 1973: The discovery of neutral currents in the Gargamelle bubble chamber.
* 1983: The discovery of W and Z bosons in the UA1 and UA2 experiments.
* 1995: The first creation of antihydrogen atoms in the PS210 experiment.
* 2001: The discovery of direct CP-violation in the NA48 experiments.
The 1984 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer for the developments that lead to the discoveries of the W and Z bosons.
The 1992 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to CERN staff researcher Georges Charpak "for his invention and development of particle detectors, in particular the multiwire proportional chamber."
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 10:27 PM)
In that case, the only proven theory will be this:
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
"A fool and his money are soon parted."
I love how it's always the most ignorant who are the ones trying to give the impression they've some divine knowledge about this stuff.
Got your head around virtual particles yet?
Got your head around virtual particles yet?
QUOTE
I don't need to. Firstly because I don't have an online ego and secondly, I see no need to try to convince others I'm 'popular'.
My comments about physics speak for themselves. Shocking as you might find it, but actually knowing some physics and providing others with help in that regard is a way of getting people to like you. In the last 24 hours I've offered to provide help to two people on these forums on material considered degree level. That is why people thank me, not because they are my sock puppets.
My comments about physics speak for themselves. Shocking as you might find it, but actually knowing some physics and providing others with help in that regard is a way of getting people to like you. In the last 24 hours I've offered to provide help to two people on these forums on material considered degree level. That is why people thank me, not because they are my sock puppets.
You sure you're not sucking on a straw through the ol' glory hole?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't need to. Firstly because I don't have an online ego and secondly, I see no need to try to convince others I'm 'popular'. My comments about physics speak for themselves. Shocking as you might find it, but actually knowing some physics and providing others with help in that regard is a way of getting people to like you. In the last 24 hours I've offered to provide help to two people on these forums on material considered degree level. That is why people thank me, not because they are my sock puppets. |
You sure you're not sucking on a straw through the ol' glory hole?
And anyone who falls back onto 'God says...' in a scientific discussion gets laughed at by 'Rationality'.
Anyone confuses 'God Laughs' with 'God says' deserves a rational kick in the teeth. I could have easily said 'The Universe Laughs' without changing the meaning or intent.
QUOTE
Got your head around virtual particles yet?
Long before you did.
Hi all!
Even briefer today; just can't seem to focus the eyes without a bit of strain/pain. Oh well....
Just wanted to mention soemthing that may (or may not! hehehe) put that 'low net momentum' argument to rest once for all.
When stars collapse to form NEUTRON STARS, can the EXPLOSIVE TUMULT and/or the INFALLING/COMPRESSED stellar material (both as colliding particles AND/OR the mass bulk) produce sufficient localised/centralised energy density so as to form these comjectured/putative micro B Hs?
If so, and if there IS NO micro/macro b h formed by such cataclysmic NEUTRON STAR formation events, then NEITHER can micro-holes BE formed in the first place NOR can they have the time/capability to 'accumulate' so as to form a black hole from all that high density/pressure NEUTRON BODY stellar remnant.
Discuss, ladies and gentlemen please....and no rancour, if you will....life's too short and wonderful to waste on such things.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Even briefer today; just can't seem to focus the eyes without a bit of strain/pain. Oh well....
Just wanted to mention soemthing that may (or may not! hehehe) put that 'low net momentum' argument to rest once for all.
When stars collapse to form NEUTRON STARS, can the EXPLOSIVE TUMULT and/or the INFALLING/COMPRESSED stellar material (both as colliding particles AND/OR the mass bulk) produce sufficient localised/centralised energy density so as to form these comjectured/putative micro B Hs?
If so, and if there IS NO micro/macro b h formed by such cataclysmic NEUTRON STAR formation events, then NEITHER can micro-holes BE formed in the first place NOR can they have the time/capability to 'accumulate' so as to form a black hole from all that high density/pressure NEUTRON BODY stellar remnant.
Discuss, ladies and gentlemen please....and no rancour, if you will....life's too short and wonderful to waste on such things.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 24 2007, 06:23 AM)
USD $50 says you are wrong and LHC will have first beams prior to September 1, 2008.
http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lh...chine-outreach/
http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/
http://foraz.web.cern.ch/foraz/schedule.pdf
Well I will not take you up on the bet as You may be correct.
I looked into some history and I must say I have lots to learn.
Scientific achievements
Several important achievements in particle physics have been made during experiments at CERN. These include, but are not limited to:
* 1973: The discovery of neutral currents in the Gargamelle bubble chamber.
* 1983: The discovery of W and Z bosons in the UA1 and UA2 experiments.
* 1995: The first creation of antihydrogen atoms in the PS210 experiment.
* 2001: The discovery of direct CP-violation in the NA48 experiments.
The 1984 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to Carlo Rubbia and Simon van der Meer for the developments that lead to the discoveries of the W and Z bosons.
The 1992 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded to CERN staff researcher Georges Charpak "for his invention and development of particle detectors, in particular the multiwire proportional chamber."
If Reality Check's last statement is fact. which Im looking up" I do not major in physics" in terms simply put LHC will not have enough power to create MBH's because the centralized energy will not be great enough to concentrate?
[QUOTE]micro/macro b h formed by such cataclysmic NEUTRON STAR formation events, then NEITHER can micro-holes BE formed in the first place NOR can they have the time/capability to 'accumulate' so as to form a black hole from all that high density/pressure NEUTRON BODY stellar remnant.
That response felt spoon fed RealityCheck haha Thanks
[QUOTE]micro/macro b h formed by such cataclysmic NEUTRON STAR formation events, then NEITHER can micro-holes BE formed in the first place NOR can they have the time/capability to 'accumulate' so as to form a black hole from all that high density/pressure NEUTRON BODY stellar remnant.
That response felt spoon fed RealityCheck haha Thanks
Waste of money? How? all of the money is spent, ergo ends up in the hands of people who worked for the money, they spend it, returning the money to the government's coffers by taxation...where is the waste?? Economics gets pushed by six billion Euros more....where is that a waste?
Governments can only waste money in two manners, Ship it out of there own country, (not really a waste of money - but one of time, the time it takes to return) or burn it.
Governments can only waste money in two manners, Ship it out of there own country, (not really a waste of money - but one of time, the time it takes to return) or burn it.
Solid State Universe and I are the only ones who find the cost preverse
Yes billions accumilated over the years still was it really worth it? Even if the out come is positive.
What will this enable for man kind, seriously? Im sure my country men dont care what Europeans are doing but I am sure the French and Swiss do.
Im sorry I just watch the BBC doc on the LHC and it still seems like even the people of CERN are unsure about what there hoping to create there. I guess thats apart of science...so be it
Yes billions accumilated over the years still was it really worth it? Even if the out come is positive.
What will this enable for man kind, seriously? Im sure my country men dont care what Europeans are doing but I am sure the French and Swiss do.
Im sorry I just watch the BBC doc on the LHC and it still seems like even the people of CERN are unsure about what there hoping to create there. I guess thats apart of science...so be it
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 11:38 PM)
You sure you're not sucking on a straw through the ol' glory hole?
So now it's gone from patting myself on the back to pleasuring someone else? You cannot even keep your insults consistent.
So now it's gone from patting myself on the back to pleasuring someone else? You cannot even keep your insults consistent.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 11:38 PM)
Anyone confuses 'God Laughs' with 'God says' deserves a rational kick in the teeth.
And anyone who has to default to completely unscientific lines of debate needs to realise a rational discussion is not going to include them.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Oct 24 2007, 11:38 PM)
Long before you did.
It's funny you believe that. And I don't mean in the 'ha ha' way.
Hi MrRP, jdem! I think the economics jargon for that sort of 'cost component' of anything in particular (in this case the LHC) in lieu of something else, is "OPPORTUNITY COST".
But in any case, the "MULTIPLIER EFFECT of the same funds spent in the same 'MARKETS/ECONOMIES' would be exactly the same, irrespective of 'chosen' opportunities being one way or the other between alternative projects.
Cheers!
RC.
.
RC, you brought back nightmares of my economics class with that response. I honestly felt I needed a dictionary to translate haha
But really to the core I ask would the French and Swiss if voted on be so accepting total cost of the project?
Swiss the project more than likely had created "jobs" locally
This has nothing to do with the topic just defending something I wrote
RC you have to be a(n) professor
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 24 2007, 11:38 PM)
Im sorry I just watch the BBC doc on the LHC and it still seems like even the people of CERN are unsure about what there hoping to create there. I guess thats apart of science...so be it
You do realise that's the point of doing most experiments right? You don't know the answer and you want to find out.
Mr Parson money can be wasted many ways say if you were to buy a CD player when you could just have easily spent the same amount on an MP3 player more practical because its likely to be in use for years to come unlike the former
Example
Billions spent on a war in an foreign country with little or no gain for the people being "liberated"
Sending human beings to the moon to beat a rival super power during a time of a civil strife
Example
Billions spent on a war in an foreign country with little or no gain for the people being "liberated"
Sending human beings to the moon to beat a rival super power during a time of a civil strife
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 25 2007, 01:33 AM)
You do realise that's the point of doing most experiments right? You don't know the answer and you want to find out.
Yes, I do realize hence
" the I guess this is apart of science... so be it."
Yes, I do realize hence
" the I guess this is apart of science... so be it."
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 25 2007, 01:08 AM)
Waste of money? How? all of the money is spent, ergo ends up in the hands of people who worked for the money, they spend it, returning the money to the government's coffers by taxation...where is the waste?? Economics gets pushed by six billion Euros more....where is that a waste?
Governments can only waste money in two manners, Ship it out of there own country, (not really a waste of money - but one of time, the time it takes to return) or burn it.
Also I just used the term, you just got all technical so I’ll just reiterate and say the governments squandered the money. My humble opinion
But what government occasionally doesn’t?
Governments can only waste money in two manners, Ship it out of there own country, (not really a waste of money - but one of time, the time it takes to return) or burn it.
Also I just used the term, you just got all technical so I’ll just reiterate and say the governments squandered the money. My humble opinion
But what government occasionally doesn’t?
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 25 2007, 01:37 AM)
Mr Parson money can be wasted many ways say if you were to buy a CD player when you could just have easily spent the same amount on an MP3 player more practical because its likely to be in use for years to come unlike the former
Example
Billions spent on a war in an foreign country with little or no gain for the people being "liberated"
Sending human beings to the moon to beat a rival super power during a time of a civil strife
Hi MrRP, jdem! I think the economics jargon for that sort of 'cost component' of anything in particular (in this case the LHC) in lieu of something else, is "OPPORTUNITY COST".
But in any case, the "MULTIPLIER EFFECT of the same funds spent in the same 'MARKETS/ECONOMIES' would be exactly the same, irrespective of 'chosen' opportunities being one way or the other between alternative projects.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Example
Billions spent on a war in an foreign country with little or no gain for the people being "liberated"
Sending human beings to the moon to beat a rival super power during a time of a civil strife
Hi MrRP, jdem! I think the economics jargon for that sort of 'cost component' of anything in particular (in this case the LHC) in lieu of something else, is "OPPORTUNITY COST".
But in any case, the "MULTIPLIER EFFECT of the same funds spent in the same 'MARKETS/ECONOMIES' would be exactly the same, irrespective of 'chosen' opportunities being one way or the other between alternative projects.
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 25 2007, 02:07 AM)
Hi MrRP, jdem! I think the economics jargon for that sort of 'cost component' of anything in particular (in this case the LHC) in lieu of something else, is "OPPORTUNITY COST".
But in any case, the "MULTIPLIER EFFECT of the same funds spent in the same 'MARKETS/ECONOMIES' would be exactly the same, irrespective of 'chosen' opportunities being one way or the other between alternative projects.
Cheers!
RC.
.
RC, you brought back nightmares of my economics class with that response. I honestly felt I needed a dictionary to translate haha
But really to the core I ask would the French and Swiss if voted on be so accepting total cost of the project?
Swiss the project more than likely had created "jobs" locally
This has nothing to do with the topic just defending something I wrote
RC you have to be a(n) professor
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 24 2007, 09:37 PM)
Mr Parson money can be wasted many ways say if you were to buy a CD player when you could just have easily spent the same amount on an MP3 player more practical because its likely to be in use for years to come unlike the former
It is not wasted if you get what you need........or, sometimes - simply - want....
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 24 2007, 09:37 PM)
Example Billions spent on a war in an foreign country with little or no gain for the people being "liberated" Sending human beings to the moon to beat a rival super power during a time of a civil strife
Billions spent on securing a future Oil supply for the continuance of your own country's Future economics, there - there is the No Gain?
Your right though, little or no gain for the People being 'liberated' at-till this time.....
Millions spent inside your own country to advance humanities knowledge, skills and abilities, (Trained-educated Workforce base) ergo increasing economic activities - therefore spurring tax collection - results in Governance being enabled to spend money to help to end Civil Strife....
Yes only if 'they' do the right thing.....
Your right though, little or no gain for the People being 'liberated' at-till this time.....
Millions spent inside your own country to advance humanities knowledge, skills and abilities, (Trained-educated Workforce base) ergo increasing economic activities - therefore spurring tax collection - results in Governance being enabled to spend money to help to end Civil Strife....
Yes only if 'they' do the right thing.....
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 24 2007, 06:04 PM)
Also I like to learn more so if rpenner or anyone can explain the ones rpenner wrote as WRONG and gave no explanation id like to read it please.
I wrote "Wrong" in lieu of detailed rebuttal, because you did not support your opinion in any way, including with a correct description of the LHC. Since you are not my student and showed ever indication of being satisfied with your own current level of understanding, "Wrong" is simply a notation from me to others to not repeat your mistakes. "Wrong" at the minimum should have been impeteus to document your reasoning and research to show that you came by your misinformation in a honest attempt at discovery, and at best prompt you to actually research the subject with better sources.
Likewise, "Needs citation" is where you state a "well-known fact" which in fact is not well-known or not a fact. Unlike "Wrong" you claim to know things which you could not possibly know without having conducting a research project. I am just asking for evidence of that research project because the claim is new to me.
I wrote "Wrong" in lieu of detailed rebuttal, because you did not support your opinion in any way, including with a correct description of the LHC. Since you are not my student and showed ever indication of being satisfied with your own current level of understanding, "Wrong" is simply a notation from me to others to not repeat your mistakes. "Wrong" at the minimum should have been impeteus to document your reasoning and research to show that you came by your misinformation in a honest attempt at discovery, and at best prompt you to actually research the subject with better sources.
Likewise, "Needs citation" is where you state a "well-known fact" which in fact is not well-known or not a fact. Unlike "Wrong" you claim to know things which you could not possibly know without having conducting a research project. I am just asking for evidence of that research project because the claim is new to me.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
having them collide in the middle
Wrong. The protons collide in the LHC at various locations (at least one) on the ring. The center of the ring only important in that it is equidistance from the ring and therefore a good place to wire up computers or electronic equipment where the primary consideration is having equal communications delays from all parts of the ring. Otherwise, you might as well use it to run a farm or make cheese.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
in a stargate type structure.
Wrong. A Stargate is a fictional solid anulus with the purpose to make transits through the plane of the anulus. There are some GR theorectical constructions which much more closely resemble a Stargate. A ring collider (like LHC) is a toroidal vacuum chamber with a lot of electromagnetic equipment designed to keep protons moving in a circle at nearly the speed of light.
Wrong. A Stargate is a fictional solid anulus with the purpose to make transits through the plane of the anulus. There are some GR theorectical constructions which much more closely resemble a Stargate. A ring collider (like LHC) is a toroidal vacuum chamber with a lot of electromagnetic equipment designed to keep protons moving in a circle at nearly the speed of light.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
enabling us to see time back when the universe began.
Wrong. Time travel has nothing to do with it. LHC is constructed with entirely SR engineering which forbids time travel. LHC collisions are pretty hot, but not hot enough to restart the universe. Collisions 1 million times hotter than the hottest LHC collision are not even that hot.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
most people ... wouldn’t care for such an experiment
Needs citation. It would take a major research project to documented the details wants and desired of 3 billion people. Unless you have a published paper, you are guessing. I know of no scientific poll which even samples world opinion on the subject.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
the dangers are known
Needs citation. If the dangers are known, someone must have written something concrete down on paper some time. Where is this paper?
Needs citation. If the dangers are known, someone must have written something concrete down on paper some time. Where is this paper?
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
and are real.
Wrong. Potential problems are never "real," they are imagined. The "realness" of the dangers is the issue. No one in the world is going to stop the LHC unless in the next few months you document the reality of these dangers and quantify them.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
the people of CERN [admit] they will create black holes with the Large Hadron Collider
Wrong. This is a fringe theory based on the assumption of Extra Large Hidden Dimensions. (Being a Fringe theory, a relatively small number of "people of CERN" have written about it.) Mainstream experiments are looking for evidence of Higgs and perhaps SUSY.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
black holes devour everything, matter, light etc.
Overstatement. Black holes only devour what makes it to their event horizon. This is not a trivial obstacle, because the event horizon "target" is very small, gravity is a central force, and conservation of angular momentum makes it very easy to miss the hole entirely.
Black holes are sloppy eaters. Gravity is not a magic vacuum cleaner. The black hole at the center of the galaxy is not going to eat the solar system. (If however we are unlucky enough to see it eat a star or molecular cloud, we may not have to worry about people shutting down CERN anymore, however. But that's a statement about x-rays, not colliders.)
Black holes are sloppy eaters. Gravity is not a magic vacuum cleaner. The black hole at the center of the galaxy is not going to eat the solar system. (If however we are unlucky enough to see it eat a star or molecular cloud, we may not have to worry about people shutting down CERN anymore, however. But that's a statement about x-rays, not colliders.)
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
according to Hawking theory “would dissipate in a burst of gamma rays that would be produced by materialization of real particles from virtual particles at the black hole's event horizon.”
Almost correct. Hawking's result is a theorem and is is robust to many changes of what physical theory is used.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
in other worlds just disappear.
Wrong. Energy and momentum are conserved. The total gravity (as seen by people far enough away) doesn't change when an hole Hawking-evaporates. To suggest energy and momentum "just disappear" makes you sound ignorant of all physics, especially particle physics.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
Albert Einstein once said that a zero miscalculated was the biggest mistake of his life in his cosmological equation,
Wrong. He said allowing a paramter to vary from zero was the mistake. Modern cosmology suggests the mistake was assuming it to be zero.
Not knowing the history of this makes you sound ignorant of GR and cosmology as well.
Not knowing the history of this makes you sound ignorant of GR and cosmology as well.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
he was happy this could not affect the earth.
Needs citation. Because I don't believe you know what made Einstein happy or sad.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
Hawkins
Wrong. Jim Hawkins is a fictional character. S. Hawking is a famous scientist.
This is such a famous mistake made by ignorant people, it's been imortalized on the Crank Index listing.
This is such a famous mistake made by ignorant people, it's been imortalized on the Crank Index listing.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
theory wasn’t even proven
Wrong. The theorem was proven many times. That's why it's important to know what is a physics theory and what is a theorem of mathematical physics. If the universe behaves anything like we see, then not-directly observed things like gravitational radiation and Hawking Radiation must exist. We have indirect evidence for both: 1) loss of momentum from binary pulsar systems exactly matches predictions from GR. 2) If there was no Hawking radiation, then there should be a background radiation of primordial micro-black holes which has not been observered.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
and it forms the back bone of the safety argument of the CERN Large Hadron Collider group.
Wrong. Conservation of angular momentum and GR also play large roles.
Microscopic black holes should be harder to make than their larger counterparts, even if you accept the fringe theory of extra large dimensions.
Microscopic black holes should be harder to make than their larger counterparts, even if you accept the fringe theory of extra large dimensions.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
a host of unknown dangers
Tautology, therefore no reason to take action except to experiment to discover the unknown.
You can't list the unknown dangers because they are unknown. They might even be an empty set. You can't tell us because they are unknown. Therefore you have made an appeal to emotion, which means you don't even have convincing descriptions of known dangers.
You can't list the unknown dangers because they are unknown. They might even be an empty set. You can't tell us because they are unknown. Therefore you have made an appeal to emotion, which means you don't even have convincing descriptions of known dangers.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
Most common strangelets & monopoles
Wrong. They can't be common if they've never been observed. Dr. Price, who helped organize and co-authored the paper which Walter Wagner thinks contains a discovery of a magnetic monopole, also co-authored a follow-up paper where they dismiss entirely the possibility that the observation was a magnetic monopole. In their estimation, the unknown track was mostly likely a very massive particle which roughly corresponds to the properties given by latter predictions of a stranglet. So there is no observation of a magetic monopole on the record, and if the observation was a strangelet, then it follows that there is already a rain of stranglets from space with no gross impact on the stability of the planet.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
Strangelets are moving probably hitting earth right now but because they move at such high speeds are harmless
Wrong. They may be actually harmless. The Price, et.al. observation was of a massive, slow-moving particle. So the Earth should have quite decent stopping power for these objects.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
It’s never happened on earth but on neutron stars yes
Citation needed. You are not an astronomer specializing in neutron stars, so if this is a fact, you read it somewhere. Where is that paper?
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
Monopoles are by fact will be created during the experiment
Citation needed. You are not a particle physicist specializing in magnetic monopoles, so if this is a fact, you read it somewhere. Where is that paper?
Also, all monopole production, if possible, would have to be pair-production. Wouldn't a pair of monopoles fated to annihilate seem much less dangerous than spare monopoles?
Also, all monopole production, if possible, would have to be pair-production. Wouldn't a pair of monopoles fated to annihilate seem much less dangerous than spare monopoles?
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
monopoles destroy neurons, commonly found on the Sun.
Wrong. So wrong in so many ways, it's funny.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
There other unknown “could be dangerous" black energy, black mass, quintessence, vacuum energy, and many non definitive theories
Wrong. Black mass and energy, by definition, can't be dangerous. You can't create vacuum energy. So wrong it's funny.
QUOTE (jdemchenko @ Oct 23 2007+ 11:10 PM)
The CERN study is a remake of a similar study for the earlier Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at Brookhaven (RHIC) adapted to the LHC. So it’s been done before but not with so much " luminosity"
Or energy.
RHIC - less than 200 GeV/nucleon (specialized for heavy nuclei)
Tevatron - less than 1000 GeV/nucleon (specialized for protons)
LHC - about 7000 GeV/nucleon (specialized for protons, with future plans for heavy ions)
Or energy.
RHIC - less than 200 GeV/nucleon (specialized for heavy nuclei)
Tevatron - less than 1000 GeV/nucleon (specialized for protons)
LHC - about 7000 GeV/nucleon (specialized for protons, with future plans for heavy ions)
rpenner
With sincere respect for what you are doing on the forum,can you explain the power of the magnetic field that is created within the tunnel?
Is there any chance of the electromagnets creating such disturbance as to cause a chain reaction if indeed the forces are so powerful to overcome engineering?
With sincere respect for what you are doing on the forum,can you explain the power of the magnetic field that is created within the tunnel?
Is there any chance of the electromagnets creating such disturbance as to cause a chain reaction if indeed the forces are so powerful to overcome engineering?
Here is a website of links to papers and publications pro and con on this topic.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
And here is this:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
if you want it all from the source.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
And here is this:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
if you want it all from the source.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Oct 26 2007, 01:08 AM)
Here is a website of links to papers and publications pro and con on this topic.
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
And here is this:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
if you want it all from the source.
Thanks soundhertz
I was hoping for this
edit WOW!
http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/links.htm
And here is this:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
if you want it all from the source.
Thanks soundhertz
I was hoping for this
edit WOW!
What are the possible advances in science these type of experiments can bring and is the world ready for them?
I am really interested in knowning if these type of tests could lead to new energy sorces same as way the nuclear tests lead to new energy sorces. If thats true we as a race may find ourselfs with an energy sorce we dont know how to properly control on all levels... I.E. keep out of the hands of terrorists and such if information about them gets leaked in some way...
I know this is a huge What IF but I think its a what IF worth asking before doing...
I am really interested in knowning if these type of tests could lead to new energy sorces same as way the nuclear tests lead to new energy sorces. If thats true we as a race may find ourselfs with an energy sorce we dont know how to properly control on all levels... I.E. keep out of the hands of terrorists and such if information about them gets leaked in some way...
I know this is a huge What IF but I think its a what IF worth asking before doing...
Here is my small take.
''Jonathan Leake in the Times of London:
''A £2 billion project to answer some of the biggest mysteries of the universe has been delayed by months after scientists building it made basic errors in their mathematical calculations.
The mistakes led to an explosion deep in the tunnel at the Cern particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland. It lifted a 20-ton magnet off its mountings, filling a tunnel with helium gas and forcing an evacuation.
It means that 24 magnets located all around the 17-mile circular accelerator must now be stripped down and repaired or upgraded. The failure is a huge embarrassment for Fermilab, the American national physics laboratory that built the magnets and the anchor system that secured them to the machine.
It appears Fermilab made elementary mistakes in the design of the magnets and their anchors that made them insecure once the system was operational.''
And they want to meddle with with more powerful forces in the near future. Why the hell do we allow these egg-heads to work on these dangerous schemes? How many more mathematical errors will it take us to realize that these forces must not be meddled with... no matter what the scientific price? ''
And i have even postulated the following.
I was reading an article today concerning black hole production at the LHC...
You know... the same dogma; ''its alright... that damn thing will evaporate,'' lingo.
At E>M(Planck), we should be able to create black holes. It turns out, that gravity might become strong at about 1 TeV, and thus theory suggests that M(Planck) might also be of the same magnitude, which is reasonably small. If 1 TeV is the limit, then we might be able to create Black Holes with a mass of something like 5 TeV.
The reason why it is causing such a fuss right now, is because we know black holes to ‘’swallow’’ matter and energy. If one is created at the LHC, we might think that the mini black hole would eat the LHC first, then move towards the center of the Earth, and start eating away at the planets core. But Hawking says that this is not a problem. The mini black hole would be a tiny superhot and dense object that would radiate away its mass so quickly, it wouldn’t even have a chance to devour anything. Of course, many physicists are not convinced, and proclaim that Hawking Radiation is still only a theory.
Other scientists have asked the question of how Hawking Radiation is able to escape the strong spacetime curvature produced by the black hole, without the radiation simply falling back into the black hole. Either way, we simply do not know enough about black holes (I think), to go about meddling with these primordial forces. I dare say, by the time I get myself into gear and get this book published (possibly a very long while yet), they will have tested the theory, because scientists are just like that… maybe I’ll be surprised?
Black Holes have no upper limit. They can be as big as nature wishes. But the smallest black hole must be in accordance with the Planck Mass (hc/2piG)^1/2, where h is Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light and G is the Gravitational Constant. Mini black holes seem to be the best chance for scientists. There is simply no way we could create a minimum sized hole with a mass of about 22 micrograms because we would need about 10^16 TeV just to produce it, which is many magnitudes higher than we can produce today. A mini black hole would have a radius of about 2 x 10^-19m – very small – with a very large temperature of 1.5 x 10^14 K, or about 25 billion times hotter than the Sun!
Now, here comes the interesting parts. One of my favorite scientists, John G. Cramer has made a proposal concerning the production of black holes. He says that white holes might also be produced in pairs with black holes, and the black holes would feed off its cousin.
Now, white holes are nothing but time reversed black holes. But, what did come to mind again, was all of this discussion concerning the Hawking Radiation. The black hole, according to the theorists, will have evaporated nearly as quick as it arrives; BUT, will that still be the same if the black hole is found to be created in a pair with a white hole, only to find that the black hole is eating nearly as much as it is evaporating>? If so, then wouldn't this give the balck hole enough time to move towards the center of the earth?
''Jonathan Leake in the Times of London:
''A £2 billion project to answer some of the biggest mysteries of the universe has been delayed by months after scientists building it made basic errors in their mathematical calculations.
The mistakes led to an explosion deep in the tunnel at the Cern particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland. It lifted a 20-ton magnet off its mountings, filling a tunnel with helium gas and forcing an evacuation.
It means that 24 magnets located all around the 17-mile circular accelerator must now be stripped down and repaired or upgraded. The failure is a huge embarrassment for Fermilab, the American national physics laboratory that built the magnets and the anchor system that secured them to the machine.
It appears Fermilab made elementary mistakes in the design of the magnets and their anchors that made them insecure once the system was operational.''
And they want to meddle with with more powerful forces in the near future. Why the hell do we allow these egg-heads to work on these dangerous schemes? How many more mathematical errors will it take us to realize that these forces must not be meddled with... no matter what the scientific price? ''
And i have even postulated the following.
I was reading an article today concerning black hole production at the LHC...
You know... the same dogma; ''its alright... that damn thing will evaporate,'' lingo.
At E>M(Planck), we should be able to create black holes. It turns out, that gravity might become strong at about 1 TeV, and thus theory suggests that M(Planck) might also be of the same magnitude, which is reasonably small. If 1 TeV is the limit, then we might be able to create Black Holes with a mass of something like 5 TeV.
The reason why it is causing such a fuss right now, is because we know black holes to ‘’swallow’’ matter and energy. If one is created at the LHC, we might think that the mini black hole would eat the LHC first, then move towards the center of the Earth, and start eating away at the planets core. But Hawking says that this is not a problem. The mini black hole would be a tiny superhot and dense object that would radiate away its mass so quickly, it wouldn’t even have a chance to devour anything. Of course, many physicists are not convinced, and proclaim that Hawking Radiation is still only a theory.
Other scientists have asked the question of how Hawking Radiation is able to escape the strong spacetime curvature produced by the black hole, without the radiation simply falling back into the black hole. Either way, we simply do not know enough about black holes (I think), to go about meddling with these primordial forces. I dare say, by the time I get myself into gear and get this book published (possibly a very long while yet), they will have tested the theory, because scientists are just like that… maybe I’ll be surprised?
Black Holes have no upper limit. They can be as big as nature wishes. But the smallest black hole must be in accordance with the Planck Mass (hc/2piG)^1/2, where h is Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light and G is the Gravitational Constant. Mini black holes seem to be the best chance for scientists. There is simply no way we could create a minimum sized hole with a mass of about 22 micrograms because we would need about 10^16 TeV just to produce it, which is many magnitudes higher than we can produce today. A mini black hole would have a radius of about 2 x 10^-19m – very small – with a very large temperature of 1.5 x 10^14 K, or about 25 billion times hotter than the Sun!
Now, here comes the interesting parts. One of my favorite scientists, John G. Cramer has made a proposal concerning the production of black holes. He says that white holes might also be produced in pairs with black holes, and the black holes would feed off its cousin.
Now, white holes are nothing but time reversed black holes. But, what did come to mind again, was all of this discussion concerning the Hawking Radiation. The black hole, according to the theorists, will have evaporated nearly as quick as it arrives; BUT, will that still be the same if the black hole is found to be created in a pair with a white hole, only to find that the black hole is eating nearly as much as it is evaporating>? If so, then wouldn't this give the balck hole enough time to move towards the center of the earth?
Neo you bring up a great point with the whiteholes aspect. If blackholes are tied to whiteholes then I do believe we should be equaly worried about the implications of creating 1 or more whiteholes on earth because they are probably even less understood and could be just as dangerous...
Thank you.
QUOTE (NeoNo.1+Oct 26 2007, 03:03 AM)
Here is my small take.
''Jonathan Leake in the Times of London:
''A £2 billion project to answer some of the biggest mysteries of the universe has been delayed by months after scientists building it made basic errors in their mathematical calculations.
The mistakes led to an explosion deep in the tunnel at the Cern particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland. It lifted a 20-ton magnet off its mountings, filling a tunnel with helium gas and forcing an evacuation.
It means that 24 magnets located all around the 17-mile circular accelerator must now be stripped down and repaired or upgraded. The failure is a huge embarrassment for Fermilab, the American national physics laboratory that built the magnets and the anchor system that secured them to the machine.
It appears Fermilab made elementary mistakes in the design of the magnets and their anchors that made them insecure once the system was operational.''
But this is from March 27, 2007, and repaired on July 13, 2007 -- the engineering was started on flawed premises.
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/2007/04/
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29874
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29874
While the sector cooling progressed steadily, problems arose in a different sector when a quadrupole magnet, one of an "inner triplet" of three focusing magnets, failed a high-pressure test at Point 5 on 27 March. Each inner triplet set of magnets contains two quadrupole magnets (Q2 and Q3) built at KEK and one (Q1) built at Fermilab. The asymmetric force generated during the test broke the supports, made of the glass cloth–epoxy laminate G-11, that hold the Q1 magnet's cold mass inside the cryostat, and also damaged electrical connections.
CERN and Fermilab now know that this is an intrinsic design flaw that must be addressed in all triplet magnets assembled at Fermilab. Computer-aided calculations after the accident show that the G-11 support structure could not withstand the associated longitudinal forces. Review of engineering designs reveals that the longitudinal force from asymmetric loading was not included in the engineering design or identified as an issue in the four design reviews. An external review committee will analyse how this problem occurred and determine the root causes and the lessons learned.
''Jonathan Leake in the Times of London:
''A £2 billion project to answer some of the biggest mysteries of the universe has been delayed by months after scientists building it made basic errors in their mathematical calculations.
The mistakes led to an explosion deep in the tunnel at the Cern particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland. It lifted a 20-ton magnet off its mountings, filling a tunnel with helium gas and forcing an evacuation.
It means that 24 magnets located all around the 17-mile circular accelerator must now be stripped down and repaired or upgraded. The failure is a huge embarrassment for Fermilab, the American national physics laboratory that built the magnets and the anchor system that secured them to the machine.
It appears Fermilab made elementary mistakes in the design of the magnets and their anchors that made them insecure once the system was operational.''
But this is from March 27, 2007, and repaired on July 13, 2007 -- the engineering was started on flawed premises.
http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/2007/04/
QUOTE
But, [David Bradley] just heard from Fermilab visiting scientist Peter Limon, who is helping to commission the LHC, and he tells an entirely different story. What exactly was the cause of the accident deep underground at the CERN particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland?
...
“In short,” Limon told me, “this was not a mathematical error, but an engineering omission. The full extent of the unbalanced longitudinal force (as much as 15 tons!) was not taken into account when the suspension was designed.”
...
“In short,” Limon told me, “this was not a mathematical error, but an engineering omission. The full extent of the unbalanced longitudinal force (as much as 15 tons!) was not taken into account when the suspension was designed.”
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29874
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But, [David Bradley] just heard from Fermilab visiting scientist Peter Limon, who is helping to commission the LHC, and he tells an entirely different story. What exactly was the cause of the accident deep underground at the CERN particle accelerator complex near Geneva in Switzerland? ... “In short,” Limon told me, “this was not a mathematical error, but an engineering omission. The full extent of the unbalanced longitudinal force (as much as 15 tons!) was not taken into account when the suspension was designed.” |
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29874
While the sector cooling progressed steadily, problems arose in a different sector when a quadrupole magnet, one of an "inner triplet" of three focusing magnets, failed a high-pressure test at Point 5 on 27 March. Each inner triplet set of magnets contains two quadrupole magnets (Q2 and Q3) built at KEK and one (Q1) built at Fermilab. The asymmetric force generated during the test broke the supports, made of the glass cloth–epoxy laminate G-11, that hold the Q1 magnet's cold mass inside the cryostat, and also damaged electrical connections.
CERN and Fermilab now know that this is an intrinsic design flaw that must be addressed in all triplet magnets assembled at Fermilab. Computer-aided calculations after the accident show that the G-11 support structure could not withstand the associated longitudinal forces. Review of engineering designs reveals that the longitudinal force from asymmetric loading was not included in the engineering design or identified as an issue in the four design reviews. An external review committee will analyse how this problem occurred and determine the root causes and the lessons learned.
Yes... the beginning of this year, though it still makes us wonder how errors like this are supposed to arise from infallible, impervious mathematics: Conversely, you haven't commented on the black-hole/white-hole production?
QUOTE (Rabbit+Oct 24 2007, 07:09 AM)
"Stephenson's Rocket is dangerous ..... every passanger will die when its speed exceeds 20mph."
And what's that to do with the CERN safety committee arguments being wrong?
And what's that to do with the CERN safety committee arguments being wrong?
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 24 2007, 06:23 AM)
Saying so does not make it so. Perhaps the clarity you perceive is a mirage? Why is it neither you, Walter Wagner, nor jdemchenko, can give a physics reason why a collider experiment which is just barely fractionally more than any collider we built before is dangerous when we commonly observe particle with energies many thousands of times higher that LHC is capable of without even a hint that they are dangerous?
Did you not understand that naturally occurring collisions are completely different (relative to the earth) than the CERN collisions?
What are you jabbering on about? Are you high?
What are you jabbering on about? Are you high?
The only way you promote this danger is by positing a threshold effect which is just beyond our grasp today which someone will cross tomorrow, despite the fact that we have plenty of samples from beyond the threshold. This same argument has been used by fearful deceivers for 195 years.
Show me the samples. Where are they?
Change is a very good thing (mostly). That doesn't mean we should commit to every potentially dangerous activity without due consideration. The safety committee got their arguments wrong. The safety committe needs to reconvene and reconsider.
Change is a very good thing (mostly). That doesn't mean we should commit to every potentially dangerous activity without due consideration. The safety committee got their arguments wrong. The safety committe needs to reconvene and reconsider.
The lesson of Icarus is not that innovation is bad, but that unhappy conservative people like to tell fictions about people who aim high.
That's incorrect. The lesson of Icarus wasn't about not trying new things (he did), but rather it was about not being foolish and cocky (while trying the new thing). To conduct this experiment, in spite of the fact that the safety committee got it wrong, would be foolish and cocky.
Did you not understand that naturally occurring collisions are completely different (relative to the earth) than the CERN collisions?
QUOTE
You are claiming it's endangering the lives of everyone in France to overfeed Americans despite that fact that the Yokozuna has shaken hands with many a Frenchman without statistical effect on mortality.
What are you jabbering on about? Are you high?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are claiming it's endangering the lives of everyone in France to overfeed Americans despite that fact that the Yokozuna has shaken hands with many a Frenchman without statistical effect on mortality. |
What are you jabbering on about? Are you high?
The only way you promote this danger is by positing a threshold effect which is just beyond our grasp today which someone will cross tomorrow, despite the fact that we have plenty of samples from beyond the threshold. This same argument has been used by fearful deceivers for 195 years.
Show me the samples. Where are they?
QUOTE
Change happens and it's not uniformly good or bad. But change teaches us new things, and we can't stop change just by standing still. The world changes about us. To not change is to fail to survive.
Change is a very good thing (mostly). That doesn't mean we should commit to every potentially dangerous activity without due consideration. The safety committee got their arguments wrong. The safety committe needs to reconvene and reconsider.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Change happens and it's not uniformly good or bad. But change teaches us new things, and we can't stop change just by standing still. The world changes about us. To not change is to fail to survive. |
Change is a very good thing (mostly). That doesn't mean we should commit to every potentially dangerous activity without due consideration. The safety committee got their arguments wrong. The safety committe needs to reconvene and reconsider.
The lesson of Icarus is not that innovation is bad, but that unhappy conservative people like to tell fictions about people who aim high.
That's incorrect. The lesson of Icarus wasn't about not trying new things (he did), but rather it was about not being foolish and cocky (while trying the new thing). To conduct this experiment, in spite of the fact that the safety committee got it wrong, would be foolish and cocky.
QUOTE (TimESimmons+Oct 24 2007, 04:10 PM)
Yes there may be a (miniscule) risk but this is a violent universe. We won't survive by cowering in ignorance and waiting for the next cosmological cataclysm. The survival of the human race this far is due to hard won knowledge. The same will apply in the future.
No matter how "miniscule" the risk, the stakes are too high (literally, the world!). This experiment should be moved off world.
No matter how "miniscule" the risk, the stakes are too high (literally, the world!). This experiment should be moved off world.
Bottom Line
33TeV is now achievable at Fermilab.
Next it will be more and more and more.
We will find errors in our calculus, and the world will suffer from such scientific-ego.
33TeV is now achievable at Fermilab.
Next it will be more and more and more.
We will find errors in our calculus, and the world will suffer from such scientific-ego.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 24 2007, 06:26 PM)
Clearly the claims of danger are being exaggerated by the alarmists.
How so?
How so?
rpenner
If i had known you were a professor I would have raised my hand, also
is there a pocket version of you so I can bring you to take my exams ?
(You find every little mistake)
If i had known you were a professor I would have raised my hand, also
is there a pocket version of you so I can bring you to take my exams ?
(You find every little mistake)
QUOTE (Rabbit+Oct 24 2007, 06:52 PM)
Clearly the claims of danger are being exaggerated...
Other than parroting others, have you any relevant information to add? I doubt it.
Other than parroting others, have you any relevant information to add? I doubt it.
QUOTE (jdemchenko+Oct 24 2007, 08:55 PM)
It’s not an alarmist to be prudent about wasteful experiments destined to produce little and risk everything.
An excellent observation.
An excellent observation.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 24 2007, 08:59 PM)
By some of the whiners here, we'll never know enough about physics to be able to know what the LHC is going to do. The only way we'd know is if we have done the experiments but we can't, because we don't know the outcome! If we knew the outcome, we'd not need to do the experiments. Catch 22.
It's a good idea to conduct the experiments. But it should be at a safe distance.
It's a good idea to conduct the experiments. But it should be at a safe distance.
QUOTE (Mr. Robin Parsons+Oct 25 2007, 01:08 AM)
Waste of money? How? all of the money is spent, ergo ends up in the hands of people who worked for the money, they spend it, returning the money to the government's coffers by taxation...where is the waste?? Economics gets pushed by six billion Euros more....where is that a waste?
Governments can only waste money in two manners, Ship it out of there own country, (not really a waste of money - but one of time, the time it takes to return) or burn it.
The waste is in the nonproductive labor. These same people could've been building hospitals and medical reasearch labs.
Governments can only waste money in two manners, Ship it out of there own country, (not really a waste of money - but one of time, the time it takes to return) or burn it.
The waste is in the nonproductive labor. These same people could've been building hospitals and medical reasearch labs.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 05:35 AM)
Other than parroting others, have you any relevant information to add? I doubt it.
None that you'd understand.
None that you'd understand.
QUOTE (Rabbit+Oct 26 2007, 06:15 AM)
None that you'd understand.
I thought not. Maybe you should run along now and let the grownups talk.
I thought not. Maybe you should run along now and let the grownups talk.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 05:45 PM)
Did you not understand that naturally occurring collisions are completely different (relative to the earth) than the CERN collisions?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 04:27 AM)
And what's that to do with the CERN safety committee arguments being wrong?
Right or wrong, white to black, through shades of grey .... I was just exemplifying by use of the anti-Stephensons Rocket comment to show how insanely wrong you are. Typical of a delusionary 'low brow simpleton', who actually thinks his small minded judgements are vastly superior to immoderately smarter individuals who've actually earnt the right to decide.
Right or wrong, white to black, through shades of grey .... I was just exemplifying by use of the anti-Stephensons Rocket comment to show how insanely wrong you are. Typical of a delusionary 'low brow simpleton', who actually thinks his small minded judgements are vastly superior to immoderately smarter individuals who've actually earnt the right to decide.
edit
QUOTE (Rabbit+Oct 26 2007, 06:51 AM)
Right or wrong, white to black, through shades of grey .... I was just exemplifying by use of the anti-Stephensons Rocket comment to show how insanely wrong you are. Typical of a delusionary 'low brow simpleton', who actually thinks his small minded judgements are vastly superior to immoderately smarter individuals who've actually earnt the right to decide.
He says "earnt" and "immoderately smarter" in the same paragraph! I love it.
What trailer park do you live in?
All the people have the right to decide.
He says "earnt" and "immoderately smarter" in the same paragraph! I love it.
What trailer park do you live in?
All the people have the right to decide.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 09:06 PM)
He says "earnt" and "immoderately smarter" in the same paragraph! I love it.
What trailer park do you live in?
All the people have the right to decide.
If they're given all of the information by people who actually know what they're talking about? Sure.
But panic stricken... Blithering, for lack of a better word, from someone who can't derive the conservation of energy for a falling body, throwing around buzzwords like conservation of momentum...
You claim that the conservation of momentum means that the cosmic ray argument is invalid, because the micro black holes created by cosmic rays are travelling too fast to be captured by the earth (or any other stellar object).
Thus he has (indirectly) claimed that the conservation of momentum will doom us all if we turn the LHC on.
What he neglects to take into account is that because the momentum is constant before and after the collision, the black hole, which is more massive then the particle which created it, must be travelling slower then the particle which created it, and that some collisions (may) occur which produce black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, and definitely less then the escape velocity of say, a neutron star.
What trailer park do you live in?
All the people have the right to decide.
If they're given all of the information by people who actually know what they're talking about? Sure.
But panic stricken... Blithering, for lack of a better word, from someone who can't derive the conservation of energy for a falling body, throwing around buzzwords like conservation of momentum...
You claim that the conservation of momentum means that the cosmic ray argument is invalid, because the micro black holes created by cosmic rays are travelling too fast to be captured by the earth (or any other stellar object).
Thus he has (indirectly) claimed that the conservation of momentum will doom us all if we turn the LHC on.
What he neglects to take into account is that because the momentum is constant before and after the collision, the black hole, which is more massive then the particle which created it, must be travelling slower then the particle which created it, and that some collisions (may) occur which produce black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, and definitely less then the escape velocity of say, a neutron star.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 26 2007, 08:29 AM)
What he neglects to take into account is that because the momentum is constant before and after the collision, the black hole, which is more massive then the particle which created it, must be travelling slower then the particle which created it, and that some collisions (may) occur which produce black holes with residual velocities less then the escape velocity of the earth, and definitely less then the escape velocity of say, a neutron star.
Slower relative to what?
What if your observer is in a reference frame where the earth and the particle are coming together at the same rate (relative to him)? What will he see?
Obviously, if what you say is true, then "slower" has a bizarre, universal frame of reference. Relativity is dead. Causality is dead.
Slower relative to what?
What if your observer is in a reference frame where the earth and the particle are coming together at the same rate (relative to him)? What will he see?
Obviously, if what you say is true, then "slower" has a bizarre, universal frame of reference. Relativity is dead. Causality is dead.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 09:39 PM)
Slower relative to what?
What if your observer is in a reference frame where the earth and the particle are coming together at the same rate (relative to him)? What will he see?
Obviously, if what you say is true, then "slower" has a universal frame of reference. Relativity is dead.
I've already answered this question.
Choose your refference frame.
it doesn't matter
You could be talking about a stationary observer on the earth.
You could be talking about a stationary observer relative to the fixed and distance stars.
You could be talking about an observer moving in a co-moving reference frame with the original Proton.
It DOESN'T MATTER.
All three observers would see the mass of the black hole change as they measured it.
All three observers would agree that it increased in mass.
All three observers would agree that the velocity decreased.
All three observers would agree that momentum was conserved before and after the collision.
Where they might/would disagree is when and by how much.
What if your observer is in a reference frame where the earth and the particle are coming together at the same rate (relative to him)? What will he see?
Obviously, if what you say is true, then "slower" has a universal frame of reference. Relativity is dead.
I've already answered this question.
Choose your refference frame.
it doesn't matter
You could be talking about a stationary observer on the earth.
You could be talking about a stationary observer relative to the fixed and distance stars.
You could be talking about an observer moving in a co-moving reference frame with the original Proton.
It DOESN'T MATTER.
All three observers would see the mass of the black hole change as they measured it.
All three observers would agree that it increased in mass.
All three observers would agree that the velocity decreased.
All three observers would agree that momentum was conserved before and after the collision.
Where they might/would disagree is when and by how much.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 26 2007, 08:51 AM)
I've already answered this question.
Choose your refference frame.
it doesn't matter
You could be talking about a stationary observer on the earth.
You could be talking about a stationary observer relative to the fixed and distance stars.
You could be talking about an observer moving in a co-moving reference frame with the original Proton.
It DOESN'T MATTER.
All three observers would see the mass of the black hole change as they measured it.
All three observers would agree that it increased in mass.
A clear violation of the conservation laws. Mass/energy can neither be created or destroyed.
A clear violation of causality. Let's suppose the earthbound observer says he saw it be captured by the earth. The starbound observer would probably see it escape (depending on which distant stars you choose), the co-moving observer would have to see it quickly exit the earth (the earth carries onward).
A clear violation of causality. Let's suppose the earthbound observer says he saw it be captured by the earth. The starbound observer would probably see it escape (depending on which distant stars you choose), the co-moving observer would have to see it quickly exit the earth (the earth carries onward).
All three observers would agree that momentum was conserved before and after the collision.
But mass/energy was not?
Violating causality.
Choose your refference frame.
it doesn't matter
You could be talking about a stationary observer on the earth.
You could be talking about a stationary observer relative to the fixed and distance stars.
You could be talking about an observer moving in a co-moving reference frame with the original Proton.
It DOESN'T MATTER.
All three observers would see the mass of the black hole change as they measured it.
All three observers would agree that it increased in mass.
A clear violation of the conservation laws. Mass/energy can neither be created or destroyed.
QUOTE
All three observers would agree that the velocity decreased.
A clear violation of causality. Let's suppose the earthbound observer says he saw it be captured by the earth. The starbound observer would probably see it escape (depending on which distant stars you choose), the co-moving observer would have to see it quickly exit the earth (the earth carries onward).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All three observers would agree that the velocity decreased. |
A clear violation of causality. Let's suppose the earthbound observer says he saw it be captured by the earth. The starbound observer would probably see it escape (depending on which distant stars you choose), the co-moving observer would have to see it quickly exit the earth (the earth carries onward).
All three observers would agree that momentum was conserved before and after the collision.
But mass/energy was not?
QUOTE
Where they might/would disagree is when and by how much.
Violating causality.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 10:11 PM)
A clear violation of the conservation laws. Mass/energy can neither be created or destroyed.
A clear violation of causality. Let's suppose the earthbound observer says he saw it be captured by the earth. The starbound observer would probably see it escape (depending on which distant stars you choose), the co-moving observer would have to see it quickly exit the earth (the earth carries onward).
But mass/energy was not.
Violating causality.
Only in your world.
A clear violation of causality. Let's suppose the earthbound observer says he saw it be captured by the earth. The starbound observer would probably see it escape (depending on which distant stars you choose), the co-moving observer would have to see it quickly exit the earth (the earth carries onward).
But mass/energy was not.
Violating causality.
Only in your world.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 26 2007, 09:19 AM)
Only in your world.
My world? NOT! I merely described the consequences of yours.
You just won't admit you were wrong.
My world? NOT! I merely described the consequences of yours.
You just won't admit you were wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 10:27 PM)
My world? NOT! I merely described the consequences of yours.
You just won't admit you were wrong.
This is funny.
None of what you're claiming is implied in anything I've said.
Do you have anything of substance? Anything other then strawmen?
If you think I'm wrong, do the math.
I can do the lorentz transforms for each of the three observers I mentioned.
The co-moving observer would argue that particle gains mass and starts moving backwards.
The stationary observer on earth (or relative to the fixed and distant stars - they amount to much the same thing over short periods of time) would see the particle slow down.
Moving with a negative velocity is the same as slowing down - you've added a negative vector from the point of view of the co-moving observer.
So you see? You're full of hot air.
You can't do the calculations for this scenario. You can't even derive classical physics.
You just won't admit you were wrong.
This is funny.
None of what you're claiming is implied in anything I've said.
Do you have anything of substance? Anything other then strawmen?
If you think I'm wrong, do the math.
I can do the lorentz transforms for each of the three observers I mentioned.
The co-moving observer would argue that particle gains mass and starts moving backwards.
The stationary observer on earth (or relative to the fixed and distant stars - they amount to much the same thing over short periods of time) would see the particle slow down.
Moving with a negative velocity is the same as slowing down - you've added a negative vector from the point of view of the co-moving observer.
So you see? You're full of hot air.
You can't do the calculations for this scenario. You can't even derive classical physics.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 26 2007, 09:43 AM)
This is funny.
You're right. This is funny.
Yes it is. You've even said mass isn't conserved.
Yes it is. You've even said mass isn't conserved.
Do you have anything of substance? Anything other then strawmen?
Read about Noether's Theorem.
Math is dangerous, in the wrong hands.
Math is dangerous, in the wrong hands.
The co-moving observer would argue that particle gains mass and starts moving backwards.
A mass conservation violation!
If it starts moving backwards, then gaining mass now causes a massive acceleration? That's a momentum violation! Make up your mind!
Oh, now it slows down.
Oh, now it slows down.
Moving with a negative velocity is the same as slowing down - you've added a negative vector from the point of view of the co-moving observer.
But the earth was moving at half the speed of light relative to him! That's one HUGE negative vector!
Whatever.
Whatever.
You can't do the calculations for this scenario. You can't even derive classical physics.
Obviously you can't either.
Good, night!
You're right. This is funny.
QUOTE
None of what you're claiming is implied in anything I've said.
Yes it is. You've even said mass isn't conserved.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| None of what you're claiming is implied in anything I've said. |
Yes it is. You've even said mass isn't conserved.
Do you have anything of substance? Anything other then strawmen?
Read about Noether's Theorem.
QUOTE
If you think I'm wrong, do the math.
I can do the lorentz transforms for each of the three observers I mentioned.
I can do the lorentz transforms for each of the three observers I mentioned.
Math is dangerous, in the wrong hands.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you think I'm wrong, do the math. I can do the lorentz transforms for each of the three observers I mentioned. |
Math is dangerous, in the wrong hands.
The co-moving observer would argue that particle gains mass and starts moving backwards.
A mass conservation violation!
If it starts moving backwards, then gaining mass now causes a massive acceleration? That's a momentum violation! Make up your mind!
QUOTE
The stationary observer on earth (or relative to the fixed and distant stars - they amount to much the same thing over short periods of time) would see the particle slow down.
Oh, now it slows down.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The stationary observer on earth (or relative to the fixed and distant stars - they amount to much the same thing over short periods of time) would see the particle slow down. |
Oh, now it slows down.
Moving with a negative velocity is the same as slowing down - you've added a negative vector from the point of view of the co-moving observer.
But the earth was moving at half the speed of light relative to him! That's one HUGE negative vector!
QUOTE
So you see? You're full of hot air.
Whatever.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So you see? You're full of hot air. |
Whatever.
You can't do the calculations for this scenario. You can't even derive classical physics.
Obviously you can't either.
Good, night!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 11:02 PM)
You're right. This is funny.
Yes it is. You've even said mass isn't conserved.
Read about Noether's Theorem.
Math is dangerous, in the wrong hands.
A mass conservation violation!
If it starts moving backwards, then gaining mass now causes a massive acceleration? That's a momentum violation! Make up your mind!
Oh, now it slows down.
But the earth was moving at half the speed of light relative to him! That's one HUGE negative vector!
Whatever.
Obviously you can't either.
Good, night!
You're right. However I've also said that TOTAL ENERGY is conserved.
TOTAL ENERGY includes REST ENERGY.
This simple fact is something you have not been able to grasp, and yet you've come so close to it on more then one occasion.
I don't need. I've already read about it. You on the other hand have claimed on at least one occasion to have disproven it.
Moving backwards relative to what?
There's no momentum violation, and anyone in a co-moving reference frame can verify this for themselves, by comparing the velocity of the black hole to the velocity of the stationary observers, or the fixed and distant stars.
Not only are you blithering, but you're lying, twisting things, and taking them deliberately out of context.
I can do the calculations, and I know this because I have done the calculations. In fact, anybody who's interested can simply duck over to the other thread in which you have been promulgating your weak fear mongering to see the plethora of ways in which you have been proven wrong.
Yes it is. You've even said mass isn't conserved.
Read about Noether's Theorem.
Math is dangerous, in the wrong hands.
A mass conservation violation!
If it starts moving backwards, then gaining mass now causes a massive acceleration? That's a momentum violation! Make up your mind!
Oh, now it slows down.
But the earth was moving at half the speed of light relative to him! That's one HUGE negative vector!
Whatever.
Obviously you can't either.
Good, night!
You're right. However I've also said that TOTAL ENERGY is conserved.
TOTAL ENERGY includes REST ENERGY.
This simple fact is something you have not been able to grasp, and yet you've come so close to it on more then one occasion.
I don't need. I've already read about it. You on the other hand have claimed on at least one occasion to have disproven it.
Moving backwards relative to what?
There's no momentum violation, and anyone in a co-moving reference frame can verify this for themselves, by comparing the velocity of the black hole to the velocity of the stationary observers, or the fixed and distant stars.
Not only are you blithering, but you're lying, twisting things, and taking them deliberately out of context.
I can do the calculations, and I know this because I have done the calculations. In fact, anybody who's interested can simply duck over to the other thread in which you have been promulgating your weak fear mongering to see the plethora of ways in which you have been proven wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 05:53 AM)
This experiment should be moved off world.
As I pointed out to Zephir in another thread like this, if you don't like the cost of the LHC at the moment, try working out how much it would cost to build a 10 million ton nuclear powered collider 27km in circumference in space. Not just at the height of the ISS (which is only 2% further from the centre of the Earth than you and I are) but are from danger of falling back into the atmosphere (since such a thing would cause massive destruction).
If you took all the worlds GDP for the last ..... ever, you'd still not be able to build such a machine with current technology.
It costs tens of thousands of dollars per pound weight to put something into low Earth orbit (<200 miles). That goes up by a factor of 10 or 100 when you consider distances of thousands of miles.
If you're al whining about the chump change the LHC costs in terms of human resources, you'll certainly whine about doing the same thing at a billion times the cost in space.
As I pointed out to Zephir in another thread like this, if you don't like the cost of the LHC at the moment, try working out how much it would cost to build a 10 million ton nuclear powered collider 27km in circumference in space. Not just at the height of the ISS (which is only 2% further from the centre of the Earth than you and I are) but are from danger of falling back into the atmosphere (since such a thing would cause massive destruction).
If you took all the worlds GDP for the last ..... ever, you'd still not be able to build such a machine with current technology.
It costs tens of thousands of dollars per pound weight to put something into low Earth orbit (<200 miles). That goes up by a factor of 10 or 100 when you consider distances of thousands of miles.
If you're al whining about the chump change the LHC costs in terms of human resources, you'll certainly whine about doing the same thing at a billion times the cost in space.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 05:53 AM)
You've even said mass isn't conserved
It isn't.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 05:53 AM)
Read about Noether's Theorem.
Coming from you, that's pretty damn rich!
Read about quantum mechanics and relativity!
Read about quantum mechanics and relativity!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 11:02 PM)
Read about Noether's Theorem.
Oh, before I go to bed.
I'm going to give this a little special attention.
Last time I checked, Noethers theorem stated that conserved quantities come about because of a symmetry.
In this case, it allows us to say that because there is a symetry between mass and energy, that when we anihilate a positron and electron, although we've destroyed 'mass' because of the symetry between mass and energy, and because the positron and electron have rest energy, conservation still applies because the total energy of the positron and electron is the same as the total energy of the photon.
Oh, before I go to bed.
I'm going to give this a little special attention.
Last time I checked, Noethers theorem stated that conserved quantities come about because of a symmetry.
In this case, it allows us to say that because there is a symetry between mass and energy, that when we anihilate a positron and electron, although we've destroyed 'mass' because of the symetry between mass and energy, and because the positron and electron have rest energy, conservation still applies because the total energy of the positron and electron is the same as the total energy of the photon.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 08:06 AM)
He says "earnt" and "immoderately smarter" in the same paragraph! I love it.
What trailer park do you live in?
All the people have the right to decide.
I merely employ the odd trash erroneous grammar/word, so that you may feel more comfortable when you receive my linguistic lashings. So comfortable and peachy in fact, that you actually reply.
.... as for my humble trailer park home. If you really need to know where I live, just crawl out of your sewer-vent hovel, and it's the caravan opposite your 1st drainhole on the left .... yes!, the one with the crap-pipe that comes down your chimney.
What trailer park do you live in?
All the people have the right to decide.
I merely employ the odd trash erroneous grammar/word, so that you may feel more comfortable when you receive my linguistic lashings. So comfortable and peachy in fact, that you actually reply.
.... as for my humble trailer park home. If you really need to know where I live, just crawl out of your sewer-vent hovel, and it's the caravan opposite your 1st drainhole on the left .... yes!, the one with the crap-pipe that comes down your chimney.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Oct 26 2007, 10:32 AM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Oct 26 2007, 05:53 AM)
You've even said mass isn't conserved
It isn't.
AlphaNumeric is, as expected of a PhD student, correct.
To the best of the empirical data:
As this is precisely the type of interaction which all the Chicken Little arguments are based on (strangelets, black holes, monopoles, etc.) it is surprising to me that a Trust-My-Physics-We're-All-Gonna-Die fearmonger would remain ignorant of this basic fact about all their disaster scenarios. Clearly you aren't serious about your fearmongering. May I suggest getting a degree in experimental particle physics.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=277053
Since c is large in ordinary units, when the change is not huge, this non-conservation of mass can be hard to detect which is why Lavoisier's detailed experiments failed to notice it.
AlphaNumeric is, as expected of a PhD student, correct.
To the best of the empirical data:
- Momentum is conserved.
- Energy is conserved.
- Mass is not conserved in the types of interactions particle physicists call inelastic.
As this is precisely the type of interaction which all the Chicken Little arguments are based on (strangelets, black holes, monopoles, etc.) it is surprising to me that a Trust-My-Physics-We're-All-Gonna-Die fearmonger would remain ignorant of this basic fact about all their disaster scenarios. Clearly you aren't serious about your fearmongering. May I suggest getting a degree in experimental particle physics.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=277053
QUOTE
The law of conservation of matter is 99.9999999% accurate in chemistry, but only about 99.2% accurate in nuclear chemistry, and useless in high-energy physics.
The separate laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy have yet not a single found inaccuracy.
The three laws are related: E² - (pc)² = (mc²)² and this expression is reliable. But since (E_1 + E_2)² adds in one way and (p_1 + p_2)² adds a different way unless p_1 and p_2 are both in the same direction, it follows that mass need not be conserved when multiple particles are involved.
The separate laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy have yet not a single found inaccuracy.
The three laws are related: E² - (pc)² = (mc²)² and this expression is reliable. But since (E_1 + E_2)² adds in one way and (p_1 + p_2)² adds a different way unless p_1 and p_2 are both in the same direction, it follows that mass need not be conserved when multiple particles are involved.
Since c is large in ordinary units, when the change is not huge, this non-conservation of mass can be hard to detect which is why Lavoisier's detailed experiments failed to notice it.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 27 2007, 09:04 AM)
AlphaNumeric is, as expected of a PhD student, correct.
To the best of the empirical data:
Thankyou RPenner.
Times like this that I wish I had a greater knowledge of some of the details to be able to make more detailed posts, like this one, on some of these subjects.
And thankyou also Alphanumeric.
To the best of the empirical data:
- Momentum is conserved.
- Energy is conserved.
- Mass is not conserved in the types of interactions particle physicists call inelastic.
Thankyou RPenner.
Times like this that I wish I had a greater knowledge of some of the details to be able to make more detailed posts, like this one, on some of these subjects.
And thankyou also Alphanumeric.
Yeah great and nobody is even talking about the effect any new technology we will probably gain from these tests in science... I mean are we really ready as a race to have the type of knowledge these experiments could give us. I would think our energy could be better used in trying to stop the current wars on this planet then to try to develope technology that will undoubtedly be used in the wars of the future. I guess I really just dont see why almost nobody has a problem with having the people running these programs having control over the knowledge we will learn from them and thus having the ability to control any of the information that comes out. Leading the eliets of our society to have even more power over the common folk... To me CERN even tho its presents a risk factor that might cause the end of life on earth doesnt make any sense for the commoner who we should really be looking out for if we are truely concerned with the well being of all humans and not just ourselfs... Altho I have a very wierd feeling there are many people who post on this site that could care less about common folk...
The "science elite" by which I assume you mean professional researchers do not form a "power elite" by which I mean a clique capable of exerting dominant political power. That would only be possible in an meritocracy.
There are a few scientists throughout history which gained political office, but usually in a limited capacity. (Isaac Newton in charge of the mint, etc.) But for the most part political power and wealth have been far more closely associated than scientists and political power. And wealth, in 20th century democracies, has been closely associated with technological businesses, exploitation of natural resources, entertainment and speculation. None of these roles is very effective at channeling wealth to professional researchers. (I don't think Bill Nye or Brian Greene have broken the $1 million mark in television or book revenues.)
Technology and mining are dominated by engineers, not researchers; entertainment by actors and other artists. But the real money is in lending money to people who might succeed in business in exchange for a percentage of the business.
So the LHC project at CERN does not progress because the researchers wield great political power. It's because that the history of answering questions has benefited humanity and based on that record those who are in power find it worthwhile to fund CERN, even though not a single researcher at CERN has a Higgs- or XLD- related consumer product in mind.
Like the space race before it, the LHC benefits all of humanity because humanity as a whole gets new magnet, refrigeration, underground construction and materials science data. G-11 glass cloth might go into the next stadium your city builds. Already, the CERN team has done things which have never been attempted before, and humanity benefits.
It's not about the haves and the have nots. Anyone can do science, most anyone can learn science, and there's always more science to do and learn. No-one "has it all." Likewise this thread isn't about the haves and the have nots. Either LHC will kill us all mid-2008 or it won't. And not one of the people who say it might has evidence. They push scary words like "black hole" around and ignore details like the size, lifetime, dangerousness, or chance of producing it. It is this lack of reasonableness which caused RHIC complaints to be tossed out of court in the plaintiff-friendly United States. The fear-mongering is just that, the selling of fear without any information. The hubris is on the side that makes physics claims without any physics knowledge. The story of Icarus is a fiction. And the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
There are a few scientists throughout history which gained political office, but usually in a limited capacity. (Isaac Newton in charge of the mint, etc.) But for the most part political power and wealth have been far more closely associated than scientists and political power. And wealth, in 20th century democracies, has been closely associated with technological businesses, exploitation of natural resources, entertainment and speculation. None of these roles is very effective at channeling wealth to professional researchers. (I don't think Bill Nye or Brian Greene have broken the $1 million mark in television or book revenues.)
Technology and mining are dominated by engineers, not researchers; entertainment by actors and other artists. But the real money is in lending money to people who might succeed in business in exchange for a percentage of the business.
So the LHC project at CERN does not progress because the researchers wield great political power. It's because that the history of answering questions has benefited humanity and based on that record those who are in power find it worthwhile to fund CERN, even though not a single researcher at CERN has a Higgs- or XLD- related consumer product in mind.
Like the space race before it, the LHC benefits all of humanity because humanity as a whole gets new magnet, refrigeration, underground construction and materials science data. G-11 glass cloth might go into the next stadium your city builds. Already, the CERN team has done things which have never been attempted before, and humanity benefits.
It's not about the haves and the have nots. Anyone can do science, most anyone can learn science, and there's always more science to do and learn. No-one "has it all." Likewise this thread isn't about the haves and the have nots. Either LHC will kill us all mid-2008 or it won't. And not one of the people who say it might has evidence. They push scary words like "black hole" around and ignore details like the size, lifetime, dangerousness, or chance of producing it. It is this lack of reasonableness which caused RHIC complaints to be tossed out of court in the plaintiff-friendly United States. The fear-mongering is just that, the selling of fear without any information. The hubris is on the side that makes physics claims without any physics knowledge. The story of Icarus is a fiction. And the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
Hi everyone I have been reading the post but never added a comment. I do not know much about physics so my input may not be helpful. But i am curious I am a laymen, with no understanding of all this. I have read posts for and against and not sure which is right.
From the last comment by rpenner I am wondering if he admited that there is a chance that this is dangerous or did I misunderstand the paragraph
"Either LHC will kill us all mid-2008 or it won't. And not one of the people who say it might has evidence. They push scary words like "black hole" around and ignore details like the size, lifetime, dangerousness, or chance of producing it. It is this lack of reasonableness which caused RHIC complaints to be tossed out of court in the plaintiff-friendly United States. The fear-mongering is just that, the selling of fear without any information. The hubris is on the side that makes physics claims without any physics knowledge. The story of Icarus is a fiction. And the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
"
Thank You
From the last comment by rpenner I am wondering if he admited that there is a chance that this is dangerous or did I misunderstand the paragraph
"Either LHC will kill us all mid-2008 or it won't. And not one of the people who say it might has evidence. They push scary words like "black hole" around and ignore details like the size, lifetime, dangerousness, or chance of producing it. It is this lack of reasonableness which caused RHIC complaints to be tossed out of court in the plaintiff-friendly United States. The fear-mongering is just that, the selling of fear without any information. The hubris is on the side that makes physics claims without any physics knowledge. The story of Icarus is a fiction. And the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
"
Thank You
Nope. I'm using an tautology to get attention, but I have yet to see one physically consistant description on how the LHC might kill us and still cosmic influx has not yet.
It doesn't help when some people have so little connection with physics they model things with science fiction television programs.
It doesn't help when some people have so little connection with physics they model things with science fiction television programs.
Ok I am still confused on that one to...
Also as I said not to much is known to me about physics, but dosent the fact that outspace is difference than the lhc tunnel, woulnd't this possibly change anything.
Like if it happens much strongers all the time to the earth that is to the earth and not in the lhc
Also as I said not to much is known to me about physics, but dosent the fact that outspace is difference than the lhc tunnel, woulnd't this possibly change anything.
Like if it happens much strongers all the time to the earth that is to the earth and not in the lhc
QUOTE (slasher1975+Oct 27 2007, 12:51 PM)
Ok I am still confused on that one to...
Also as I said not to much is known to me about physics, but dosent the fact that outspace is difference than the lhc tunnel, woulnd't this possibly change anything.
Like if it happens much strongers all the time to the earth that is to the earth and not in the lhc
The only difference is that the LHC will probably have a more perfect vacuum then most parts of the universe.
Cosmic rays have energies in the same range as the LHC will be using.
The collisions are the same.
One of the arguments for the saftey of the LHC is precisely that - Cosmic rays hit us with energies in the range that the LHC use, at a rate of something like 1 per day per square meter, so they're not exactly rare either.
If the LHC is going to produce black holes, then these collisions should also produce black holes, and well, we're still here.
There are some on this forum that erroneously claim that the conservation of momentum means that the black holes are travelling at the same speed as the original particle, ignoring the fact that because the black hole is heavier then the original particle, it must be travelling slower, and in some cases it is, or may be possible for the black hole to have a velocity below the escape velocity of the earth.
And, well, we're still here.
To put this in perspective, according to wikipedia, Earth has a surface area of 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, and has been around for 1,643,625,000,000 days (give or take) which gives us a total of 838,356,571,800,000,000,000,000,000 collisions. Even if my calulations of velocity were out, and it required a special geometry that only occured once in every billion collisions to create a black hole with a residual velocity less then 11 km/s (which is another argument that has been forwarded - that it requires a set of virtually impossible circumstances) in fact, I'll be generious, if this alignment occurs only once in every billion billion collisions, that still leaves 838,356,571 collisions that could have produced a black hole - that's over eight hundred million black holes over the course of the earth's history.
And we're still here.
Also as I said not to much is known to me about physics, but dosent the fact that outspace is difference than the lhc tunnel, woulnd't this possibly change anything.
Like if it happens much strongers all the time to the earth that is to the earth and not in the lhc
The only difference is that the LHC will probably have a more perfect vacuum then most parts of the universe.
Cosmic rays have energies in the same range as the LHC will be using.
The collisions are the same.
One of the arguments for the saftey of the LHC is precisely that - Cosmic rays hit us with energies in the range that the LHC use, at a rate of something like 1 per day per square meter, so they're not exactly rare either.
If the LHC is going to produce black holes, then these collisions should also produce black holes, and well, we're still here.
There are some on this forum that erroneously claim that the conservation of momentum means that the black holes are travelling at the same speed as the original particle, ignoring the fact that because the black hole is heavier then the original particle, it must be travelling slower, and in some cases it is, or may be possible for the black hole to have a velocity below the escape velocity of the earth.
And, well, we're still here.
To put this in perspective, according to wikipedia, Earth has a surface area of 510,065,600,000,000 m^2, and has been around for 1,643,625,000,000 days (give or take) which gives us a total of 838,356,571,800,000,000,000,000,000 collisions. Even if my calulations of velocity were out, and it required a special geometry that only occured once in every billion collisions to create a black hole with a residual velocity less then 11 km/s (which is another argument that has been forwarded - that it requires a set of virtually impossible circumstances) in fact, I'll be generious, if this alignment occurs only once in every billion billion collisions, that still leaves 838,356,571 collisions that could have produced a black hole - that's over eight hundred million black holes over the course of the earth's history.
And we're still here.
It occurs to me to mention that this is an underestimate, rather then an over estimate, because I have only considered "Cosmic rays with this energy" but in reality we'd be dealing with "Cosmic rays of this energy and above" - for example, I haven't included in my calculations cosmic rays with energies in teh 10,000 TeV range which is ten times higher then the highest energy lead atoms that will be used in the LHC, but bombard the earth once per year per square meter.
Ok then, I just realized that not only is physics a weak point for me but so is math...lol
I am trying to understand,
Thank you for trying it was a very nice gesture, but my head does not grasp the concept, sorry for bothering you.
I am trying to understand,
Thank you for trying it was a very nice gesture, but my head does not grasp the concept, sorry for bothering you.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 27 2007, 01:47 AM)
It occurs to me to mention that this is an underestimate, rather then an over estimate, because I have only considered "Cosmic rays with this energy" but in reality we'd be dealing with "Cosmic rays of this energy and above" - for example, I haven't included in my calculations cosmic rays with energies in teh 10,000 TeV range which is ten times higher then the highest energy lead atoms that will be used in the LHC, but bombard the earth once per year per square meter.
Hi everyone!
And that doesn't include those instances where TWO OPPOSITELY TRAVELLING COSMIC RAY PARTICLES COLLIDE so as to give LITTLE or PRACTICALLY NO 'net momentum' relative to our solar system as a whole.
And as far as I know we are still here because there has NEVER been such 'slow' micro holes formed. At least none that has been observed. It would be hard to miss....so the conclusion is that micro holes NEVER HAVE AND NEVER CAN be produced....neither naturally or by man.
I think I mentioned that and many other likely events long ago in one of these threads. Add all my and others' arguments to date and it shows a practical certainty that micto bh do NOT nor ever have existed or been produced in any process currently going on NOW or within the lifetime of our solar system (or even the lifetime of the local/observable universal volume?).
Cheers all.....and do get stuck into the political/religious/fundamentalist warmongers and ignorants who are fiddling around with petty feuds, vendettas and self-interested fiddle-faddle while this globe burns NOW.
RC.
.
Hi everyone!
And that doesn't include those instances where TWO OPPOSITELY TRAVELLING COSMIC RAY PARTICLES COLLIDE so as to give LITTLE or PRACTICALLY NO 'net momentum' relative to our solar system as a whole.
And as far as I know we are still here because there has NEVER been such 'slow' micro holes formed. At least none that has been observed. It would be hard to miss....so the conclusion is that micro holes NEVER HAVE AND NEVER CAN be produced....neither naturally or by man.
I think I mentioned that and many other likely events long ago in one of these threads. Add all my and others' arguments to date and it shows a practical certainty that micto bh do NOT nor ever have existed or been produced in any process currently going on NOW or within the lifetime of our solar system (or even the lifetime of the local/observable universal volume?).
Cheers all.....and do get stuck into the political/religious/fundamentalist warmongers and ignorants who are fiddling around with petty feuds, vendettas and self-interested fiddle-faddle while this globe burns NOW.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Oct 27 2007, 03:06 PM)
Hi everyone!
And that doesn't include those instances where TWO OPPOSITELY TRAVELLING COSMIC RAY PARTICLES COLLIDE so as to give LITTLE or PRACTICALLY NO 'net momentum' relative to our solar system as a whole.
And as far as I know we are still here because there has NEVER been such 'slow' micro holes formed. At least none that has been observed. It would be hard to miss....so the conclusion is that micro holes NEVER HAVE AND NEVER CAN be produced....neither naturally or by man.
I think I mentioned that and many other likely events long ago in one of these threads. Add all my and others' arguments to date and it shows a practical certainty that micto bh do NOT nor ever have existed or been produced in any process currently going on NOW or within the lifetime of our solar system (or even the lifetime of the local/observable universal volume?).
Cheers all.....and do get stuck into the political/religious/fundamentalist warmongers and ignorants who are fiddling around with petty feuds, vendettas and self-interested fiddle-faddle while this globe burns NOW.
RC.
.
And that doesn't include those instances where TWO OPPOSITELY TRAVELLING COSMIC RAY PARTICLES COLLIDE so as to give LITTLE or PRACTICALLY NO 'net momentum' relative to our solar system as a whole.
And as far as I know we are still here because there has NEVER been such 'slow' micro holes formed. At least none that has been observed. It would be hard to miss....so the conclusion is that micro holes NEVER HAVE AND NEVER CAN be produced....neither naturally or by man.
I think I mentioned that and many other likely events long ago in one of these threads. Add all my and others' arguments to date and it shows a practical certainty that micto bh do NOT nor ever have existed or been produced in any process currently going on NOW or within the lifetime of our solar system (or even the lifetime of the local/observable universal volume?).
Cheers all.....and do get stuck into the political/religious/fundamentalist warmongers and ignorants who are fiddling around with petty feuds, vendettas and self-interested fiddle-faddle while this globe burns NOW.
RC.
.