LHC Ready for Duty Again

Feb 21, 2010 by Miranda Marquit weblog
Image source: Julian Herzog via Wikimedia Commons

(PhysOrg.com) -- For the Christmas holiday, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN was shut down for a break and for a little technical tinkering. But next week, the hope is that the LHC will start up again around the 25 of February.

The is used in experiments involving smashing particles together at high speeds. Just before the Christmas break, the LHC had sent careening into each other and resulting in energies not seen before. The hope later this year is to gradually get the LHC to the goal of 7 TeV, smashing the previous record. The collider is built for collisions resulting in 14 TeV, but that level probably won't be reached anytime in the immediate future.

Just reaching 7 TeV will take some time. Scientists plan to rev up the LHC slowly, starting initial beams at that produce relatively low energies of around 900 GeV at collision. CERN honchos want to avoid a situation similar to the explosion that marred the LHC's initial run in 2008. The hope is that a gradual warm up for the LHC will ensure that everything is in working order as CERN races the Tevatron in the U.S. to be the first to pinpoint the elusive .

The LHC is expected to help solve some mysteries in , as well as possibly provide information about other dimensions and further insight into the origins of the universe.

Explore further: The unifying framework of symmetry reveals properties of a broad range of physical systems

More information: CERN LHC: lhc.web.cern.ch/
via TheRegister / BBC

Related Stories

Large Hadron Collider sets new power world record

Nov 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- CERN's Large Hadron Collider has today become the world's highest energy particle accelerator, having accelerated its twin beams of protons to an energy of 1.18 TeV in the early hours of the ...

Large Hadron Collider produces first physics results

Dec 15, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first paper on proton collisions in the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC) - designed to provide the highest energy ever explored with particle accelerators - is published online this week ...

LHC now colder than deep space

Oct 20, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The LHC (Large Hadron Collider) is once again colder than deep space as it is prepared for experiments to resume in late November.

CERN boss wants to bid for linear collider

Sep 16, 2009

CERN’s director general Rolf-Dieter Heuer will push for the linear collider, the next big experiment in particle physics after the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), to be built at the Geneva lab. Heuer made his call to situate ...

Recommended for you

What time is it in the universe?

19 hours ago

Flavor Flav knows what time it is. At least he does for Flavor Flav. Even with all his moving and accelerating, with the planet, the solar system, getting on planes, taking elevators, and perhaps even some ...

Watching the structure of glass under pressure

Aug 28, 2014

Glass has many applications that call for different properties, such as resistance to thermal shock or to chemically harsh environments. Glassmakers commonly use additives such as boron oxide to tweak these ...

Inter-dependent networks stress test

Aug 28, 2014

Energy production systems are good examples of complex systems. Their infrastructure equipment requires ancillary sub-systems structured like a network—including water for cooling, transport to supply fuel, and ICT systems ...

Explainer: How does our sun shine?

Aug 28, 2014

What makes our sun shine has been a mystery for most of human history. Given our sun is a star and stars are suns, explaining the source of the sun's energy would help us understand why stars shine. ...

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

StarDust21
1 / 5 (4) Feb 19, 2010
What, he went broken again?? I hadn't heard about it
seneca
2.7 / 5 (3) Feb 19, 2010
Short circuit owing to faulty insulation had caused the failure in the 18 kV power supply network, which affected the injectors and the computing centre. Although this problem was a "less significant" reportedly, LHC was stopped for another two months.

http://cosmiclog....810.aspx

It's well known, CERN is very secretive about its internal problems - for example the first photos from accident in 2007 (which was presented as a "technical glitch" during first days - although it destroyed one quarter of collider) were released just half year after accident - apparently detailed informations about accident were embargoed.

http://www.newsci...lhc.html
addidis
1.2 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2010
The possibilities of what harm this could do boggle the mind. A smaller device apparently reached 4 trillion degrees c(for a billionth of a trillionth of a second) . Now I want to know the origin of the universe as much as the next guy, but not much scares me and this is one of the things that does. I hope they continue to proceed with the utmost care. And appreciate the secrecy with regards to their mishaps. Not sleeping makes ya crazy and understanding what i do of what they are playing with , I really dont wanna know. At least until they decide not to use it any more. Then I will research what really could have gone wrong. Like the cuban missile crisis , no one knew planes were dispatched with orders to drop nukes and stopped by pulling a truck onto the runway. Thats how this should be. I believe the potential for understanding warrants the risk but I leave it to the experts to worry.
Ant
1 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2010
OK Just for a moment lets hypothesise and pose a question:
Suppose that our space is a minute lattice structure in which the centre of each lattice cell contains some or all of our known particles. The work to date by the LHC suggests that there are unknown items producing the excess of fragments seen in recent runs.

Just suppose that enough energy can break apart the links of that cell structure to the extent that all the other links of that structure start to collapse upon themselves leading to a cascade collapse.

My question is: What will you do to stop the collapse?
Alizee
Feb 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (19) Feb 20, 2010
My question is: What will you do to stop the collapse?
The collapse will stop as soon as all material in imminent vicinity (sub femto-meter scale) is sucked up and a certain treshold is reached. The treshold being the equilibrum of the attractive strong force and the repulsive force of EM charge separation, at a certain distance.

Or in other words - when all material at a certain distance is sucked up, then the attractive force (strong force) becomes not strong enough (dropping rapidly with distance) to suck in more material, because of the repulsive EM force combined with the higher relative energy levels (kinetic) of more distant material.

It's all about equilibrum and thresholds. Else we would not be here.
Ant
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2010
Hi Daywalk3r
I here what you say but surely your argument supports the supposition that there is an inward attraction rather than simple collapse? The black holes in space are enormous, how did they become that large.

Another question: was there a percentage figure for the excess of fragments recorded earlier? Is it not possible to make some assumptions based on the percentage excess? For example if it was about 85% would this not be in line with the missing (dark) matter of the universe?
Alizee
Feb 20, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (18) Feb 20, 2010
Well, this is probably not the idea, which the concept of black hole in general relativity is based on.
If you are talking about the point-like singularity concept, then no, it is not. But that is far from being the only viable BH concept compatible with general relativity.

You're saying, black hole cannot exist, because strong nuclear force isn't strong enough and weak nuclear force would repel particles of matter sufficiently.
Not exactly. You can not directly compare the macro-scopic with the femto-scopic and assume a linear scaledown of all the known forces. And especially the strong force is wastly non-linear in regards to action radius. The ratio between all the fundamental forces at a specific scale is important. We should not assume scale invariance a-priori. It is possible, that even if something seems quite linear from the measurements on our scales, it can still break down near the extremes and act in much steeper curves (one adept would be gravity).
daywalk3r
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2010
It means, that for a baby-BH to grow at that scales (femto), you would need to feed the BH very "directly" - throwing new particles at it with sub-femtometer accuracy with VERY HIGH kinetic energy, so it does not get deflected first by the atomic shell (easier to penetrate), and then by the nuclear shell itself, which repulsion should be strong enough to deflect anything bellow many TeV energies. Not even mentioning the relative momentum differences, which are quite big, especialy for particles that come from outside the atom/nucleus. That aswell makes the capture of new matter by the baby-BH alot harder.

If you want a BH to grow, then there is not many more options than force enough particles into a sufficiently small place, and keep forcing more and more after the first ones get "ingested". Keep it up until the BH has enough mass for gravity to start play a major role, and your baby-BH just became a teen-BH! ^^ Which is now able to take food from the fridge all by itself! ;-)
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2010
continuation...

Even stars that are many times more massive than our sun often fail to create a stable black hole and in many cases end up just 1 step before the final phase, as a neutron star, in which the neutron repulsion (degeneracy) is still stronger than the force of gravity to overcome it. And we are talking about insane amounts of avaliable mass "to swallow" here. Still no guarantee it will work - as for the baby-BH to be able to grow, it needs to be fed and "taken care of" very carefully, until it reaches maturity and can be stable. That's why there is a minimum mass threshold for stellar BH's aswell and why you don't see various mini-BH's flying all across the universe. There most probably is an upper limit aswell, but that is well out of our reach even to think about at the moment.
daywalk3r
3.4 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2010
Now lets take, for example, an LHC collision..
How many particles do collide in 1 run and what is the average mean distance between those collisions?

Taking into account how much energy and precission (sub-femtometer) is needed to feed a baby-BH, there is not much chances for a BH feast fest, if you ask me.. It most probably won't even have a chance to eat more than a few percent of the two head-on collided hadrons from which it was created. Poor thing.. :-D
And we know that if it does not feed fast enough, it will perish before it has a chance to find more "food" (particles).

Of course these explanations are oversimplified quite alot (not taking all the forces at play into account, just mentioning the most significant for the specific situations). I know they are not perfect and can't really be taken as scientifically sufficient. Just throwing some food for thought at the crowd :-)

Peace and out.
daywalk3r
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 21, 2010
I hear what you say but surely your argument supports the supposition that there is an inward attraction rather than simple collapse?
Inward attraction based on?

At the sub-femtometer scale, it is the strong interaction, and on femtometer-scale (less than 2fm) it is the residual strong force (being principialy the same) that is responsible for the "inward attraction".

That is the strongest of all fundamental forces we know of, but it is very speciffic in regard to its action radius - which at its farthest end is about 2 femto-meters. Any particles that are more than 2fm away are affected by it either only very weakly, or not at all.

Thats why there is a point/treshold, at which the other (weaker,repulsive) forces won't let the farther away particles come close enough - creating kind of a "barrier". Only if the particles have high enough energy (and the right course) or are "forced inside" (by pressure, for example) can this "barrier" be penetrated (and the BH fed).
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 21, 2010
The black holes in space are enormous, how did they become that large.
Yes, because at their creation, they were able to reach a point, at which gravity becomes more significant and takes the leading role, which makes the BH become stable and self-sufficient in attracting more matter at distance. Effectively making it able to "acquire more food", feed and grow.

However, even that big hole once did start at the femto-scale aswell. But in contrast to the possible discussed collider BH, was fed efficiently enough to reach the gravity treshold, which is Yotta-Parsecs away from what will be possible at the LHC, for example.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2010
These people know it might be dangerous, yet they continue anyway.

From Wikipedia: Mad Scientist:
...Mad scientists also, whilst definitely being intelligent, if not necessarily brilliant, usually fail to think things through to their conclusion...

Some excerpts from the LSAG summary report:

"Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays. Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral.

If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth."

... So just what do they think stable, neutral black holes, which remain on Earth, might do next?
Ant
1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2010
Hi daywalk3r
While I do not have the knowledge to contradict your well informed arguments it is quite obvious that there are structures at the smallest scale which science does not know of,otherwise the suprise of recent collisions would not be so suprising. Going back to my original thought that there may be an as yet unknown structure at the smallest scale which is the scaffold of our universe, suppose that energy structure provides/creates/powers the forces such as the strong force. It would follow that damage to this structure would also destroy the forces that you speak of, no longer maintaining the whole. In this scenario there would be nothing to stop the very fast cascade collapse and the BH would grow exponentially. Your arguments are based on current knowledge but we are trading into the unknown. When you find yourself in a hole isnt it best to stop digging?
copernicus
Feb 21, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ant
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2010
I bet he wears a clown suit too. At least 5 of his assumptions are incorrect, dramatically.
mdmagnotti
5 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2010
@Ant, if you can't refute any of the claims of someone who you yourself said is better informed, then why are you still arguing?
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2010
The possibilities of what harm this could do boggle the mind. A smaller device apparently reached 4 trillion degrees c(for a billionth of a trillionth of a second) .

Please note that cosmic rays with energies of about 4*10^7 greater that the energies of the protons that will be studied in the LHC have been observed in the Earth's atmosphere. I'm pretty sure we'll be alright.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2010
Yes, because at their creation, they were able to reach a point, at which gravity becomes more significant and takes the leading role, which makes the BH become stable and self-sufficient in attracting more matter at distance. Effectively making it able to "acquire more food", feed and grow.

However, even that big hole once did start at the femto-scale aswell. But in contrast to the possible discussed collider BH, was fed efficiently enough to reach the gravity treshold, which is Yotta-Parsecs away from what will be possible at the LHC, for example.


Do you even have a concept of the energy density within the earth's core?

Saying, "Micro black holes in the earth are safe because they're very tiny in relation to particles." ignores particle/wave duality.

That's like saying I couldn't take energy away from a wave at the beach with a Dixie cup! Of course I can. I just dip it into the wave and pull a little out. Double the size of the cup each time, and pretty soon...
broglia
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2010
I'm pretty sure we'll be alright.
You shouldn't - by many theories and/or computer models stable black holes should be really observable at LHC. In fact they're expected there.

http://arxiv.org/.../0606193
http://news.scien...-01.html
http://news.disco...ner.html
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
I'm pretty sure we'll be alright.
You shouldn't - by many theories and/or computer models stable black holes should be really observable at LHC.
And how many theories tell you that those potential BHs are so instable that they can't do any harm?
Your kind of referring to selected (but unnamed) theories without giving any reasonable kriterion for your selection is not a proper scientific discussion.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2010
how many theories tell you that those potential BHs are so instable
The Randall-Sundrum model based on string theory considers, such micro-black holes should survive big bang up to these days. If such black hole will be created in LHC, it should be stable infinitelly - or this theory cannot be tested...

http://www.pbs.or...iny.html

The computer simulation presented in the another link simply illustrates the formation of stable black holes without further details.

http://physics.pr...i_L2.mpg

I presume, these objects are equivalent to strangelets, predicted by Bodmer and Ed Witten, they're not real black holes. The don't suck Earth, but it could cause less or large explosion by avalanche like reaction with Earth under formation of another strangelets:

http://en.wikiped...rangelet
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2010
I'm pretty sure we'll be alright.
You shouldn't - by many theories and/or computer models stable black holes should be really observable at LHC. In fact they're expected there.

That's fine and all. The only problem with your statement that I SHOULD be worried is that high energy cosmic rays have been bombarding the earth's atmosphere for billions of years. I can't put a number on it right now, but probability that the LHC will produce an earth endangering event is essentially zero.
daywalk3r
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2010
Saying, "Micro black holes in the earth are safe because they're very tiny in relation to particles." ignores particle/wave duality.
Firstly, where did I say that? And secondly, what if I tell you that quarks or even neutrons could possibly be micro-blackholes? How the heck they stay in shape inside the nucleus and don't merge/suck everything up?

I tell you why: Because there is a certain equilibrium.
Matter - as we know it - becomes stable (relatively) only when certain "equilibrial states" are reached. Those states depend solely on actual conditions (like pressure,temperature,etc.)
For example, that is why we can observe some exotic atoms/nuclei being stable only under certain pressure/temperatures, because at those conditions, the equilibrial states are pushed to different levels.

Then, there are thresholds, which provide a certain "tolerance" under which the equilibrial states remain intact. Those thresholds are especially important in regard to the feared "micro-BHs"
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2010
.. The whole Universe is a manifestation of relatively stable equilibrial states (or quasi-equilibrial, if you like that more). But I have to emphasize on the word "relatively". Nothing lasts for ever - everything is in constant motion - and at the nuclear level, this can be observed as decay.

Now, why am I mentioning all this? What is the relevance?

One of the reasons is: Every state of stability is bound to certain conditions, which dictate the level of stability (thresholds) and decay times/curves of the construct in question.

Now, the collisions at LHC could possibly be energetic enough to cause conditions at which certain thresholds will be overcome for some of the sub-atomic particles to come close enough to merge/collapse into a more denser state (or micro-BH, if you like). However, these conditions will be present only for a very short time interval - for the moment of collision. And after the collision, these conditions will fade back to ambient unimaginably fast.
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 22, 2010
.. With the conditions getting back to normal, the equilibrial states shift back aswell - essentially de-stabilizing the newly formed dense construct AND, at the same time, "starving it out" as the energy levels required for collisions with other particles to happen rise.

Which in essence means, that until the conditions are kept at certain levels, there is just no room for over-growth.

In the case of stellar BH's, these conditions were kept up at the time of their creation (stellar core-collapse). After they are created, the conditions are kept up mostly by themselves as they are massive enough for gravity to become more significant of a factor, which in turn makes them (relatively) stable and (also relatively) self-sustainable.

As I mentioned earlier, you can't just take a stellar-scale BH and make a linear scaledown to the femto-scale, including a linear scaledown of all the forces, to make a "viable" model. That just won't work, as the forces are not that linear down there.
broglia
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2010
I can't put a number on it right now, but probability that the LHC will produce an earth endangering event is essentially zero..
Well, you see - and this article puts hard numbers, from which follows, the formation of stable black-hole like object in LHC is undeniable. And there are many other articles with soft numbers.

http://laplace.ph...p/ads.ps
http://arxiv.org/.../0606193

Do you know, what the scientific approach to problem means? Shut up - and calculate. Physicist doesn't ask, in what you're believing or not - but what is it possible to compute. This is what distinguishes scientist from religious crackpots.
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 22, 2010
To add a bit more on the case of stellar BH's and complement my previous post:

The conditions for stellar-scale black holes to grow at the moment of their creation are kept up by the collapsing matter of the star. And the whole process is only successfull when these conditions are kept up long enough for the BH to gain sufficient mass to become (relatively) self-sustainable, which happens when a certain (gravity/radius) threshold is reached. This sets a lower-limit for all the stellar black holes. They can be only THAT SMALL.

However, what is more interesting in regard to micro-BH's, is the upper-limit, which I described partially in my previous posts (although I did not present it like that).

In my opinion, the upper & lower limit is quite strictly bound to the scale. The specific upper & lower limits for a certain scale, where BH's are quasi-stable, could be approximated from the plot of curves of fundamental forces within the scale in question.

I hate the 1000 char limit..
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
Daywalk3r,

I've read the entire conversation and I can only say well put. I also hate the 1k character limit.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
Physicist doesn't ask, in what you're believing or not - but what is it possible to compute. This is what distinguishes scientist from religious crackpots.


You're basically saying anyone who has ever conducted an experiment in any form of science based on an unproven theory is a religious crackpot.
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
Well, you see - and this article puts hard numbers, from which follows, the formation of stable black-hole like object in LHC is undeniable. And there are many other articles with soft numbers.

http://arxiv.org/.../0606193

Hi. You clearly don't understand physics, nor do you understand statistics. The most energetic collisions at the LHC will have center of momentum frame energies of very close to 1.1*10^15eV (for colliding lead nuclei). The incindent flux of cosmic rays at this energy on the earth is approximately 2*10^-13 particles/sec/m^2 which translates to very nearly 100particles per second across the entire face of the earth. Let this flux impinge on the earth for, let's say, 1billion years, and that translates to 3.23*10^18 particles. I don't know about you, but it looks like the earth is still around last I checked. Considering that there are much higher energy particles that strike the earth, I repeat: I'm pretty sure we'll be alright.

Oh, and learn physics.
Ant
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
OK Bloodoflamb
Explain the excess of fragments allready seen that should be easy for you.
Ant
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2010
OK mdmagnotti, lets use a bit of logic here, are you saying that this copurnicus individual is really daywalk3r? From what I have read of his posts he wouldnt be that stupid.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Feb 22, 2010
..you clearly don't understand physics, nor do you understand statistics...
I needn't to understand physics. Those who are understanding it already computed the formation of stable black holes or strangelets in LHC. Another people, who understand physics predicted the possibility of avalanche like conversion of Earth into another strangelets. I didn't invented these theories. After all, searches of strangelets are planned for the LHC ALICE detector.

http://arxiv.org/.../0301003

Strangelets, which are formed from gamma ray collisions with nonzero momentum toward Earth have no time to interact with Earth. A group of researchers reported the possibility that strangelets may have been responsible for a seismic event recorded on October 22 and November 24 in 1993.

http://www.arxiv..../0205089

All these guys understand physics, they're pretty sure by their stuff too and my knowledge here is irrelevant...;-)
Bloodoflamb
5 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2010
*Sigh*

You can quote physics articles all day, it doesn't change the fact that the LHC will never produce events with as much energy density as have been seen by the Earth since its formation billions of years ago. These higher energy events have occurred orders of magnitude more times than the number of collision events that will occur in the LHC over the entire duration of its operation.
broglia
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
Frankly, I don't care about beliefs of religious zealots too much, when the risk factor is already present here. For example, the 15 megaton yield of Castle Bravo nuclear explosion exceeded the expected yield of 4 to 6 megatons, thus leading to the most significant accidental radiological contamination ever caused by the USA.

http://arxiv.org/...04v6.pdf

If most of theories predict formation of strangelets and stable black holes and collider experiments could be done in more safe way in cosmic space and we have no practical usage for such research, then the general decision is clear: we have nothing to achieve, only to lose.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
.you can quote physics articles all day, it doesn't change the fact...
You just demonstrated, what all these physical articles are for: it's just a salary machine for another articles - as no one really cares about their real content.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
If most of theories predict formation of strangelets and stable black holes and collider experiments could be done in more safe way in cosmic space and we have no practical usage for such research, then the general decision is clear: we have nothing to achieve, only to lose.
So you think that scientific decisions have to be made after averaging over all present theories? Wouldn't you prefer to base your decisions an AWT and neglect what other theories tell us? Or how do you construct your weighted sum over all theories?
Bloodoflamb
not rated yet Feb 23, 2010
Frankly, I don't care about beliefs of religious zealots too much, when the risk factor is already present here.


*I'M* the zealot? You're the one citing unproven theory. I'm citing the physical expression of reality. YOU'RE the zealot.

If most of theories predict formation of strangelets and stable black holes and collider experiments could be done in more safe way in cosmic space and we have ***no practical usage for such research***, then the general decision is clear: we have nothing to achieve, only to lose.

Many important scientific discoveries have happened accidentally. You don't understand science, nor do you want to. You're a hack, and you need to shut your mouth if all that's going to come out is vomit. Try educating yourself before you speak.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2010
You're the one citing unproven theory. I'm citing the physical expression of reality.
??? You're citing your feelings and belief without any physical theory, some calculations the less. Even if LHC will not blown the Earth, scientists will build a larger collider - and whole situation will just repeat. Such approach simply has no solution - the Earth is too small for such experiments. Someone has to say "STOP!" - soon or later.
Ant
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
The problem is Bloodoflamb you are citing known results as though they have anything to do with the current venture into the unknown. Many of us here are scared of what you might do that is current ignorance. You assume that all the current theories are correct Lets be honest does anyone know what a BH really is or how they came about? Do you really know why too many fragments were evident? This list goes on and on of unproven supposions. Beware them that know it all, for they will destroy mankind in their ignorance. I for one hope that my worries will be completely unfounded, new knowledge is interesting. We can be certain of one thing, however, that is, no matter what anyone thinks the research experiments will go ahead even if it were certain of the dangers. Joe Bloggs wants his nobel piece of paper.
Bloodoflamb
not rated yet Feb 23, 2010
They absolutely have something to do with the LHC. You simply are incapable of thinking critically about physics, or you would understand exactly what I'm saying.
seneca
not rated yet Feb 23, 2010
They absolutely have something to do with the LHC
But recent calculations of collision scenarios are based on highest scientific approach possible - the calculations in real numbers.

http://news.scien...-01.html

In addition, they're consistent with Randall-Sundrum models of microblack holes, independently made before years:

http://en.wikiped...ack_hole

with strangelet models independently made

http://en.wikiped...rangelet

and with predictions made on background Standard model

http://arxiv.org/.../0606193
http://arxiv.org/.../0605062

All four mainstream physical theories are saying the same: stable microscopic dense objects CAN be formed at LHC during this year. In addition we have observational evidence of tetraquark and pentaquark states as the initial phase of condensation expected:

http://en.wikiped...traquark

Sorry, but are you still willing to talk just about your feelings only?
Bloodoflamb
not rated yet Feb 23, 2010
As I've stated, I'm not talking about my feelings. I'm talking about the ACTUAL STATE OF THE EARTH OVER THE LAST 4.5 BILLION YEARS. A period of time where we have seen ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE EVENTS of HIGHER ENERGY DENSITY strike our planet than will occur at the LHC for its ENTIRE operational period.

To sum up:

1) The earth has seen more than 10^18 events of equal or greater energy than will be seen at the LHC.
2) The earth is still here.
3) 10^18 events >> number of events that will be produced in the LHC

1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that:

4) These high energy events have not produced catastrophic events in terms of the safety of the planet.

3 and 4 lead me to the conclusion that:

5) The probability of any earth threatening occurrence due to the LHC is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

If you can't follow the argument, well, there's not much I can do about it. To sum up: I have completely trounced you and your ridiculous arguments.
seneca
not rated yet Feb 23, 2010
In fact, mainstream physics could even have the evidence of strangelet formation already: during recent experiments at Tevatron the formation of strange muon (heavy electron pairs) was observed a well outside collider tube, i.e. the place of collision. So far no particle, able to transport such heavy and unstable particles at so large distance is known. One of the viable explanation is the formation of stable strangelet, which escaped from collider tube.

http://news.softp...28.shtml

The another search for strangelet is planned for the LHC ALICE detector:

http://arxiv.org/.../0301003

If the strange matter hypothesis is correct and a strangelet comes in contact with a lump of ordinary matter such as Earth, it could convert the ordinary matter to strange matter.

http://www.arxiv..../9910471

Please note, all the above is based on standard mainstream physics and experiments done so far.
seneca
not rated yet Feb 23, 2010
The earth has seen more than 10^18 events of equal or greater energy than will be seen at the LHC.
Sorry, but all these events were caused by particle of cosmic radiation, which are always formed by single individualprotons - not by collimated proton jets. And they always result into formation of products with high speed toward Earth, so that even if some strangelet was formed, it has simply no time to interact with Earth. The higher speed of cosmic rays, the lower is the probability of interaction: we can compare it to the low crossection of fast neutrons during nuclear fusion: the fast neutrons are ineffective here in accordance to Lawson criterion. The density of neutron flux and their low temperature is what makes nuclear fusion sustainable.

The analogy of nuclear chain fusion mediated by cold neutrons and collapse of Earth mediated by slow strangelets is quite apparent here - the only problem is, I'm just the very only person, who is considering it seriously.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2010
Saying, "Micro black holes in the earth are safe because they're very tiny in relation to particles." ignores particle/wave duality.
Firstly, where did I say that?
I felt it was implied in your "equilibrium" assertions.

And secondly, what if I tell you that quarks or even neutrons could possibly be micro-blackholes? How the heck they stay in shape inside the nucleus and don't merge/suck everything up?
This hypothesis has been falsified.

I tell you why: Because there is a certain equilibrium... The conditions for stellar-scale black holes to grow at the moment of their creation are kept up by the collapsing matter of the star. And the whole process is only successfull when these conditions are kept up long enough for the BH to gain sufficient mass to become (relatively) self-sustainable, which happens when a certain (gravity/radius) threshold is reached
This is wrong. The collapsing matter is simply falling into the gravity well, not "maintaining" it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
Hi. You clearly don't understand physics, nor do you understand statistics. The most energetic collisions at the LHC will have center of momentum frame energies of very close to 1.1*10^15eV (for colliding lead nuclei). The incindent flux of cosmic rays at this energy on the earth is approximately 2*10^-13 particles/sec/m^2 which translates to very nearly 100particles per second across the entire face of the earth. Let this flux impinge on the earth for, let's say, 1billion years, and that translates to 3.23*10^18 particles. I don't know about you, but it looks like the earth is still around last I checked. Considering that there are much higher energy particles that strike the earth, I repeat: I'm pretty sure we'll be alright.

Oh, and learn physics.
It's you that needs to learn physics! The cosmic ray argument is dead. Even the CERN safety analysis admits it (read my post from 2/21 - 16th from the top).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
Bloodoflamb:

Some excerpts from the LSAG (CERN safety committee) summary report:

"Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays. Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral.

If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth."

...So you see, cosmic ray collision energies are irrelevant to the debate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
*Sigh*

You can quote physics articles all day, it doesn't change the fact that the LHC will never produce events with as much energy density as have been seen by the Earth since its formation billions of years ago. These higher energy events have occurred orders of magnitude more times than the number of collision events that will occur in the LHC over the entire duration of its operation.
*Sigh*

As shown above, this argument is falsified.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
As I've stated, I'm not talking about my feelings. I'm talking about the ACTUAL STATE OF THE EARTH OVER THE LAST 4.5 BILLION YEARS. A period of time where we have seen ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE EVENTS of HIGHER ENERGY DENSITY strike our planet than will occur at the LHC for its ENTIRE operational period.

To sum up:

1) The earth has seen more than 10^18 events of equal or greater energy than will be seen at the LHC.
2) The earth is still here.
3) 10^18 events >> number of events that will be produced in the LHC

1 and 2 lead me to the conclusion that:

4) These high energy events have not produced catastrophic events in terms of the safety of the planet.

3 and 4 lead me to the conclusion that:

5) The probability of any earth threatening occurrence due to the LHC is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

If you can't follow the argument, well, there's not much I can do about it. To sum up: I have completely trounced you and your ridiculous arguments.
Irrelevant.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
Some excerpts from the LSAG (CERN safety committee) summary report:
Why don't you provide a link?
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2010
The conditions for stellar-scale black holes to grow at the moment of their creation are kept up by the collapsing matter of the star. And the whole process is only successfull when these conditions are kept up long enough for the BH to gain sufficient mass to become (relatively) self-sustainable, which happens when a certain (gravity/radius) threshold is reached
The collapsing matter is simply falling into the gravity well, not "maintaining" it.
You seem to think that BlackHoles of any mass are stable.
IF the infalling mass during the genesis of a BH from a SN is not needed to maintain it (as you postulate) THEN the additional infalling mass would not be necessary to keep the forming BH stable.
Do you have any theory backing up your opinion?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
The cosmic ray argument is dead. Even the CERN safety analysis admits it (read my post from 2/21 - 16th from the top).
In that post you just cited "Some excerpts from the LSAG summary report". Without providing any link, without telling what parts of the LSAG summary report you've been omitting.
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2010
I felt it was implied in your "equilibrium" assertions.
First indice you totally missed the point. The only thing that might have been implied by it is, that at such a small scale, a micro-BH can't grow "on its own". It needs some external force/energysource to "push" matter inside, until the gravity threshold is reached.

This hypothesis has been falsified.
If you say so, then it must be true. But to my humble knowledge - even if some "scientists" might not agree - we simply are not advanced enough yet to make failproof conclusions about things of such fundamental nature.

This is wrong. The collapsing matter is simply falling into the gravity well, not "maintaining"
So Mr.Einstein, then please tell me how big the gravity well of a microscopic black hole is? Second indice you totally missed the point. And it just shows that you most probably don't have a clue what I was talking about.
daywalk3r
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2010
Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral.
Ok, then lets take this to the stellar level - show us some examples of "electricaly charged" and "neutral" stellar black holes :) Are you sure you know what it even means?

"Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays."
Ok, head-on collision of 2 cosmic ray protons on the edge of Earths atmosphere with small after-collision momentum towards Earth? Or you think it did not happen yet in the last few billions of years?
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2010
If most of theories predict formation of strangelets and stable black holes and collider experiments could be done in more safe way in cosmic space and we have no practical usage for such research, then the general decision is clear: we have nothing to achieve, only to lose.
So you think that scientific decisions have to be made after averaging over all present theories? Wouldn't you prefer to base your decisions on AWT and neglect what other theories tell us?

Or how do you construct your weighted sum over all theories?
Basing on my observation, it seems that is exactly, what he is doing in AWT. Taking bits from various mainstream (GR,SR,SM,ST,SuSy) and other seemingly potent theories, and then putting them together so that it looks (to a certain extent) compatible with most of the mainstream - which imo was not the most fortunate way to go with the otherwise to some point interesting concept. But well..

Not trashing it in any means, just expressing my opinion.
broglia
Feb 24, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
broglia
not rated yet Feb 24, 2010
....So you see, cosmic ray collision energies are irrelevant to the debate...
Not quite, as the argument of high energy of cosmic ray could be used like argument AGAINST LHC safety in similar way, like hot neutrons are working against nuclear fusion. It's a matter of effective crossection of strangelet interaction with Earth, which decreases with increasing speed of strangelets. Therefore I can consider, fast strangelets are rather harmless.

In May 2002 researchers reported the possibility that strangelets may have been responsible for a seismic event recorded in 1993. It has been suggested that the International Monitoring System of nuclear tests may be useful as a sort of "strangelet observatory" using the entire Earth as its detector, because IMS will be designed to detect seismic disturbances down to 1 kiloton of TNT's equivalent energy. Strangelet is supposed to originate earthquakes at two places of Earth surface at the same moment, which is the way, how to detect it.
broglia
not rated yet Feb 24, 2010
Some studies were published claiming, strangelets are responsible for solar flares. Again, if such flare appears at two places of Sun surface at the same moment, it could serve as an indicia, strangelets are still threatening the solar system. There is grant for detection of strangelets and/or microscopic black holes formed in stratosphere by UHECR.
Ant
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
In all these discussions, no one in favour of endangering the whole planet (maybe the surrounding universe) seems to have an answer to the question - what caused the excessive fragments in the recent runs-. perhaps the nobel commitee should have an extra award " biggest selfish scientist award" or "One who endangers most people" the " planet destroyer award" would be as pointless as the LHC experiments. Proof is what we need not speculation. How many times has current science been proved to be wrong. We dont need your scientific arguments, with this machine they are all going to be proved to be wrong. Take heed of the results of the recent runs- you dont know what will happen. Unfortunately we may all die to prove it.
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
no one in favour of endangering the whole planet (maybe the surrounding universe)
You are devaluating your own stance by insinuating that there are scientist with bad intentions of this kind.
Proof is what we need not speculation
How about a proof for your strange matter hypothesis?
Take heed of the results of the recent runs- you dont know what will happen.
You want to forbid the fruits from the tree of cognition?
frajo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2010
I'm not saving civilization, I'm just saving my own neck - and I'd reccomend You to do the same
Why should I want to save your neck?
Ant
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2010
nothing stange about my thoughts. Known particles have energy, where from? A background lattice structure in which the particles move could possibly generate that energy. The recent runs suggest that there is something which has provided an excess of fragments, damage that structure and all the limiting factors that daywalk3r speaks of may vanish in a flash. Above all else I hope that I am wrong because there's one thing for certain they are going to procead until something really distasterous happens. As for the post that suggested there will be bigger and bigger machines. Oh no there wont, the waste on this feasco will never be repeated.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2010
..the waste on this fiasco will never be repeated..
Larger colliders like the International Linear Collider are planned already, because scientists have families and they need perspective in job... We can expect, large countries like China will develop their own colliders from prestigious reasons. The same situation exist in space travel: Russia plans to develop nuclear-powered spaceships, despite their crash could destroy life environment for years - prestige goes first.
Ant
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
What prestige is there in putting a potential disaster in place. We can all list the man-made disters of the last 50 years Bopal, chenobal the american nuke disaster and so on but these were accidents. Cern knows there is a potential for an incident and yet they are being allowed by the international community to continue. An incident at cern will stop these type of test forever. Certanly for the few years I have left. For me that's forever.
Skeptic_Heretic
Feb 27, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
daywalk3r
3.9 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2010
What American Nuke Disaster?
Don't feed the trolls! ^^

(Sorry, could not resist) :o)

And don't worry Ant, the Universe is not painted on glass. It won't break apart when we poke it :)
Ant
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2010
Hi guys
I'm Ants mother. I'm 88 years old and have serious vascular dementure. He's out now so I thought I would just say hello. Hello! Now on the news There has been a massive earthquake in Chilly. Have you been running that damn machine again. He says its a large hadron collisioner cant you get one that uses small hadrons. In France I think it is. Could it be that those holes are falling through the mantle and causing all the shakes? Do you have public liability insurance for it? If so I would like to make a claim, because its giving me the shits.
I had better go now. Dont tell him I emailed you
Love Mabel
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 27, 2010
Don't feed the trolls! ^^

(Sorry, could not resist) :o)

And don't worry Ant, the Universe is not painted on glass. It won't break apart when we poke it :)

No, seriously, there have been several so I'm wondering which one he's referring to.
Ant
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2010
Sorry about my mum I was too late to edit it out.
She says why does everyone use childish names? and that I should respond to septic hetic and ask him how he knows, and does he have a reference for that statement? The only accident which came to mind was 3 mile island but I guessed there must have been many so I left it to you. You are right that its not made of or uses glass It comprises a micro cubic matrix which maintains the known particles in place. Space has the same matrix but no particles a black hole has neither. Particle charges and energy come from the movement of the matrix in relation to the particles thus acting as a generator. The matrix itself is the missing dark matter and dark energy is the energy the matrix generates.
I rest my case
Tony, Anthony or Ant
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 27, 2010
3 mile island wasn't a disaster. It was a near disaster. The copious amounts of nuclear waste our navy and airforce have lost and ejected into the ocean are the disasters. The molten salt reactor meltdown in Chicago was pretty bad but also not really a disaster.
Ant
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
I bow to your greater knowledge of the mess your nation is causing our planet. It seems you have more secret problems than othet third world countries
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 27, 2010
I bow to your greater knowledge of the mess your nation is causing our planet. It seems you have more secret problems than othet third world countries

No, just different ones. And I came here, made and raised elsewhere. For it's misgivings, it's still the best life you can get anywhere in the world, but only if you want it bad enough.

If you think the US issues with nuclear waste are bad take a look at the UK and France. Half of Ireland's coastline is a radioactive cesspool.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2010
There has been a massive earthquake in Chille. Have you been running that damn machine again.

The Santiago quake struck at Saturday 3:34 am (06:34 GMT). Beam commissioning has started for 2010, with beam back in the LHC starting early Sunday morning. The plan is for roughly a month until colliding beams at 3.5 TeV/beam. Someone should really check this.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2010
So Mr.Einstein, then please tell me how big the gravity well of a microscopic black hole is?
Years ago, pro-LHC scientists argued even a micro black hole with the mass of a mountain (about the size of an atom) would be safe. I quickly calculated that at about a meter distance, it would have about 1g (earth gravity). I then pointed out that things fall down all the time in 1g. Funny thing, that argument rapidly faded away after that.

Although most people think of the size of a black hole as the diameter of its event horizon, hypothetically, there is no limit to the reach of gravity - regardless of the size of the black hole. Rather, it's the gravity gradient you need to be mindful of.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2010
Stable black holes could be either electrically charged or neutral.
Ok, then lets take this to the stellar level - show us some examples of "electricaly charged" and "neutral" stellar black holes :) Are you sure you know what it even means?
You're confused. That came from the LSAG report. It's in regard to micro black holes, not stellar/cosmic black holes (which are generally expected to be neutral).

"Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays."
Ok, head-on collision of 2 cosmic ray protons on the edge of Earths atmosphere with small after-collision momentum towards Earth? Or you think it did not happen yet in the last few billions of years?
The odds are extremely high against it (to say the least), but how do you know this isn't what precipitated the asteroid belt?
seneca
not rated yet Mar 01, 2010
..I quickly calculated that at about a meter distance, it would have about 1g (earth gravity)....
How the mountain weighting black hole could have the same gravity, like the whole Earth? Can you show me such calculation?
daywalk3r
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2010
..I quickly calculated that at about a meter distance, it would have about 1g (earth gravity)....
How the mountain weighting black hole could have the same gravity, like the whole Earth? Can you show me such calculation?
Certainly nothing based on the law of universal gravitation as that result is many orders of magnitude different. Or maybe he used his own gravitational constant, tailored to his needs? ^^

You're confused.
Right. :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
..I quickly calculated that at about a meter distance, it would have about 1g (earth gravity)....
How the mountain weighting black hole could have the same gravity, like the whole Earth? Can you show me such calculation?
Certainly nothing based on the law of universal gravitation as that result is many orders of magnitude different. Or maybe he used his own gravitational constant, tailored to his needs? ^^

You're confused.
Right. :)

Oh brother. Obviously, neither of you understand the concept of a gravitational gradient. It's as strong as earth gravity at one meter. At two meters it's significantly less, at three meters even less, at four meters...

For some reason, people mistakenly believe things only fall into black holes at, or near, the event horizon. When actually, things start falling in a good distance from it.
broglia
not rated yet Mar 02, 2010
..actually, things start falling in a good distance from it...
It's very interesting, because if you're right, it would completelly change existing model of black holes - not just some estimation of speed, in which black hole at LHC would swallow Earth.

For example, classical derivation of Schwarzschild radius (r=2Gm/c2) is based on assumption, attractive force around dense object follows Newton's law.

http://en.wikiped...d_radius
http://design.lbl...dex.html

Note that even Einstein considered Schwarzchild work a controversial and he didn't believe in black hole existence. But with your consideration the radius of black hole event horizon would be much smaller, then this one predicted by Schwarzchild.
broglia
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
If I understand this stuff correctly, Schwarzschild radius is relevant for space-time expanded by presence of black hole, i.e. for observer, whose space-time measure remains influenced by black hole.

But when such black hole will be sufficiently tiny, the observer would alays stay outside of space-time expanded by black hole and he would experience radius of black hole smaller. It would mean (between others), (event horizon of) tiny black holes could form at substantially smaller mass/energy density, then those predicted by classical relativity, simply because from perspective of outer observer the force curving path of light would be larger. Maybe even mass corresponding atom nuclei could be considered as a black holes from the exsintric perspective of outer observer.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Mar 02, 2010
The odds are extremely high against it (to say the least), but how do you know this isn't what precipitated the asteroid belt?

Because the belt is there, we can study it and its origins. It was a process of several collisions as evidenced by the trajectory of its components. Don't be silly.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
The odds are extremely high against it (to say the least), but how do you know this isn't what precipitated the asteroid belt?

Because the belt is there, we can study it and its origins. It was a process of several collisions as evidenced by the trajectory of its components. Don't be silly.
Collisions? Really? Please, elaborate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
..actually, things start falling in a good distance from it...
It's very interesting, because if you're right, it would completelly change existing model of black holes - not just some estimation of speed, in which black hole at LHC would swallow Earth.

For example, classical derivation of Schwarzschild radius (r=2Gm/c2) is based on assumption, attractive force around dense object follows Newton's law.

http://en.wikiped...d_radius

Note that even Einstein considered Schwarzchild work a controversial and he didn't believe in black hole existence. But with your consideration the radius of black hole event horizon would be much smaller, then this one predicted by Schwarzchild.
So like you think gravity starts and ends at the event horizon?
seneca
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
Quoting of the single sentence from my post should be enough. In nothing else, it would be more apparent, why you're asking such question. Event horizon is the place, where gravity is strong enough to trap the photons - why it should start just here?

On the contrary, the model presented above explains, the location of event horizon is dynamical: when you come closer to black hole, event horizon would expand. In certain sense, dark night sky is greatly expanded event horizon of black hole, which we are living in - and the cosmic microwave background radiation is the Hawking radiation of that event horizon.
seneca
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2010
..you think gravity starts and ends at the event horizon?
Only for objects, which are able to exist there. We aren't able to live at event horizon of black holes, which we can observe inside of our Universe, because we would evaporate into radiation well before we could reach this horizon.

If we are able to live at the event horizon of our Universe without presence of apparent gravitation field, it still doesn't mean, some observable object could observe us from outside, to visit us the less: it would evaporate here too.