Detecting proton collisions at unprecedented levels of energy

Mar 03, 2010
Detecting proton collisions at unprecedented levels of energy
The pixel detector at the centre of the CMS after the installation stage at CERN. (Photo: H.R.Bramaz)

(PhysOrg.com) -- CERN has been able to take the first measurements of collisions between the highest-energy particles ever generated. These collisions were performed at CERN's new LHC accelerator and recorded with the CMS Experiment, which involved a key component (the barrel pixel detector) contributed by the Paul Scherrer Institute in collaboration with Swiss Universities. The first LHC operation in Dezember 2009 has now resulted in a first particle physics publications of the CMS experiment. This is after a remarkable short time , given the compexity and the size of this gigantic experiment with over 3000 physicists and engineers from close to 40 countries.

The new ring accelerator at CERN, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) resumed operation end of November 2009 after the major incident, which caused a delay of more than a year. However, now it is working so well that millions of collisions between protons from the two different beams have been induced. Each head-on collision between a pair of protons creates new , which fly away from each other like flinders of an explosion.

The pixel detector developed by the Paul Scherrer Institute PSI is located just a few centimetres away from the collision site, and registers the particles' flight direction from this ring-side seat. Three layers of pixel detectors are positioned around the beam containing the colliding protons, like the layers of a vast Russian doll; the innermost of the three detectors is located just 4cm from the proton collision site. It has to operate with great precision to deliver three-dimensional images of the particles' flight paths. In just a few hours, researchers from the participating Institutes were able to collect enough data to take an initial recording. This confirmed the predictions made in advance by computer simulation, and led to the first scientific article based on this experiment, which was accepted for publication in record time. At last, scientists can be absolutely certain that their detector is working as required.

Crazy project

The development of this pixel detector alone has involved 15 years of work by dozens of scientists - from other Institutions as well as PSI. For example, the lightweight carbon fibre mechanics was supplied by the University of Zurich. ETH Zurich made vital contributions to the design of the overall electronic system. Key components, such as the connection technology, sensor and readout chip, were developed at PSI where the detector was also assembled. In the beginning the project seemed completely crazy said Project Manager Roland Horisberger. An accurate, powerful detector was required which exceeded the specifications of the technologies available at that time This meant that every aspect had to be developed from scratch; there was nothing but an ambitious vision, and nobody knew if this could become a reality. By now, however, it has long since proved its viability. Detectors based on the technology developed for this project have already been in use for some years at the Swiss Light Source, SLS, one of PSI's large-scale facilities. In the meanwhile the concept of pixel detectors stepped out of the institute. The Dectris company, a PSI spinoff, manufactures and sells these detectors extremely successfully world-wide. They are still without competitor in this market.

Gigantic equipment in the search for miniscule particles

What is the reason for the enormous effort? The developed by PSI's scientists is placed in the centre of the 22-metre long CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid) detector at CERN. It weighs 12,500 Tonnes and is one of the largest measuring instruments ever built. CMS is one of four experiments at the enormous LHC () accelerator at CERN, which physicists hope to use to discover more about the solution to the great mysteries of matter. For example, scientists hope that they will be able to use these particle collisions to prove the existence of the legendary Higgs particle, the last missing (but fundamental) component in the standard model of elementary particle physics. Once they find this particle, they will be able to explain how elementary particles achieve their mass.

Detecting proton collisions at unprecedented levels of energy
Roland Horisberger, Pixel Detector Project Manager, during installation of the detector at CERN. (Photo: H.R.Bramaz)

Particle physicists also want to find out whether so-called super-symmetrical (SUSY) particles exist. These could be used to explain the dark matter in space, which continues to puzzle physicists. One theory, which is still speculative, suggests that it might be made up of super-symmetrical particles - but nobody has seen them, yet. Nevertheless, if they do exist, their would decay into a large number of subatomic particles called B mesons. The easiest way to recognise these particles, is by their habit of flying a few millimetres away from the point at which they are produced, before they themselves decay into lighter elementary particles. If these decay locations could be measured accurately, it help to out the few spectacular results from the billions upon billions of particle collisions taking place in the CMS. Finding and investigating B mesons represents one of the main activities of the PSI's particle physicists.

Tracking down new laws of nature

Roland Horisberger explains: If the particle energy crosses a critical, still unknown threshold, we may discover new laws of nature. Even those physical laws that we find very familiar today are only valid up to a certain point. The measurements quoted in the publication were obtained at 0.9 to 2.36 teraelectron volts (TeV). This alone is a world record. However, the aim of the physicists is to achieve collisions at 14TeV. These would represent conditions as present shortly after the Big Bang. By that stage at the latest, the Higgs or super-symmetrical particles should have appeared - if they exist at all.

Detecting proton collisions at unprecedented levels of energy
Scientists during the installation of the BPIX detector in the centre of the vast CMS detector. (Photo: H.R.Bramaz)

The Barrel Pixel Detector (BPIX)

The BPIX registers the position of elementary particles and also processes the data taken. This involves a separate microcomputer implemented directly above each of the individual 60 million pixels. A small indium ball of just 18 thousandths of a millimetre provides the contact between the pixel and this microcomputer. The pixel chips thus act as sensitive digital cameras to record particles or radiation which are controlled by highly-complex computer programmes.

Not only was the detector largely developed PSI, it was also calibrated here. The scientists need to adjust each of the 60 million pixels separately to register the flight path of elementary particles to an accuracy of half the diameter of a hair. About 40 million proton collisions take place every second whose data are buffered on those microcomputers. Of these, only approximately 100 000 potentially interesting results can be read out and processed further. Somewhere amongst those100 000 per second, the physicists hope to detect a few of those particles that have so far have been only predicted theoretically.

Explore further: Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

Provided by Paul Scherrer Institute

4.5 /5 (13 votes)

Related Stories

Better track leads to new particles

Dec 07, 2006

In particle accelerators new particles often arise as a result of collisions between elementary particles. However the track left by these particles is often difficult to trace. Dutch researcher Thijs Cornelissen ...

Michigan integral to world's largest physics experiment

Sep 05, 2008

After 20 years of construction, a machine that could either verify or nullify the prevailing theory of particle physics is about to begin its mission. CERN's epic Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project currently involves 25 ...

The hunt for the Higgs steps up a gear

Aug 28, 2008

The hunt for the Higgs boson, the most highly sought-after particle in physics, received a boost this month with the release of two new results from the Tevatron particle collider at the US Department of Energy's ...

A front-row seat at this summer's physics extravaganza

Jul 02, 2008

Nearly 20 years in the making, the largest particle accelerator in the world will start running in Switzerland this summer, offering scientists a glimpse of particles that have never been seen before.

CMS celebrates the lowering of its final detector element

Jan 22, 2008

In the early hours of the morning the final element of the Compact Muon Solenoid (CMS) detector began the descent into its underground experimental cavern in preparation for the start-up of CERN’s Large Hadron Collider ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the forbidden side of molecules

13 hours ago

Researchers at the University of Basel in Switzerland have succeeded in observing the "forbidden" infrared spectrum of a charged molecule for the first time. These extremely weak spectra offer perspectives ...

How Paramecium protozoa claw their way to the top

Sep 19, 2014

The ability to swim upwards – towards the sun and food supplies – is vital for many aquatic microorganisms. Exactly how they are able to differentiate between above and below in often murky waters is ...

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (19) Mar 03, 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 (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 just what do they think stable, neutral black holes, which remain on Earth, might do next?
OckhamsRazor
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2010
This black hole nonsense has been totally blown out of proportion. This machine couldn't possibly generate one large or powerful enough to do any visible damage and probably wouldn't last longer than milliseconds.

Now, no more from you doomsayers! This is good, wholesome science and the rest of us are eager to see more results of these experiments.
georgert
5 / 5 (10) Mar 04, 2010
ubavontuba:
When the steam engine promised to carry passengers at the unprecedented speed of 60 mph, there were those who said that the human body would be demolished by the incredible speed. You LHC paranoics are of the same lineage as those prophets of doom.
Heavymetal
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2010
And the first result is in! They've discovered the new month of Dezember! Seriously, I'm eager to see more results too.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2010
Seriously, I'm eager to see more results too.
It takes some time to do the data mining.
Every result is one step to further cognition. If everything is according to known theories then these theories are established in the realm of higher energies. And if there is something new which known theories can't account for then we'll be excited.
In any case it makes sense to do the experiments.
abhishekbt
3 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2010
@Heavymetal:
Seriously, they need to employ some good readers. There are plenty of mistakes in the article above.

Anyone listening PHYSORG?
broglia
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 04, 2010
..this machine couldn't possibly generate one large or powerful enough to do any visible damage and probably wouldn't last longer than milliseconds..
Why you're using the word "possibly"? It possibly may not sound quite convincing for some laymans.

Anyway, the stance with respect to possibility of stable black hole formation illustrates increasing trollism of mainstream science proponents, because just from mainstream theories follows this possibility.

Standard model:
http://www.iop.or...2/12/S52
String theory:
http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
Computer simulation:
http://news.scien...tml?etoc
The above article demonstrates too, nobody attempted to compute the risk before.
If various CERN study claim the LHC risks are unfounded, it simply means, their authors are openly lying to publicity:
http://www.scienc...0342.htm
The only question is, why they're doing so?
broglia
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2010
..In any case it makes sense to do the experiments..
Why? Should it help to world economy? Could it used as a weapon against enemies of EU? If CERN physicists hoping so much, they will not get something, which their theories predict, why not to invest into cold fusion research, for example?

If such experiments have sense, why not to visit Jupiter planet, for example? It would be useful in the same way, but definitely more safe for the rest of terrestrial life.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2010
Why? Should it help to world economy? Could it used as a weapon against enemies of EU? If CERN physicists hoping so much, they will not get something, which their theories predict, why not to invest into cold fusion research, for example?

It would do wonders for the world economy. Do you have any idea how many new technologies and scientific principles came out of the first particle accelerators? Our modern world is built on the science of our prior endeavors. Just because you're comfortable with what you assume you know doesn't mean the rest of us are. If our curiosity leads to peril, then by your estimates it will be a quick and painless peril.
broglia
1 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2010
..do you have any idea how many new technologies and scientific principles came out of the first particle accelerators?
No, try to surprise me... Resources are limited, scientific research must be prioritied anyway. Travel to Jupiter would bring new technologies too and it's still less dangerous. Research of cold fusion is potentially a much more profitable and it could bring new technologies too. Whereas particle accelerators use usefull only for scientists itself.
vantomic
5 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2010
"Whereas particle accelerators use usefull only for scientists itself"

I can't believe your kind of ignorance is allowed to exist. Did you actually go and learn about physics and particle accelerators before you made your brilliant comment? Looking into the unknown is the fuel which inspires and allows for the advancement of science and engineering. I can't believe I actually have to tell someone this. We don't need to surprise you broglia, go do a damn search you inept moron. This is science at it's cutting edge, try to look past right now and see how the future scientists will use this data or discoveries to make the next technological leaps.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2010
..do you have any idea how many new technologies and scientific principles came out of the first particle accelerators?
No, try to surprise me... Resources are limited, scientific research must be prioritied anyway. Travel to Jupiter would bring new technologies too and it's still less dangerous. Research of cold fusion is potentially a much more profitable and it could bring new technologies too. Whereas particle accelerators use usefull only for scientists itself.

The integrated circuit for one. Which is the basis of our entire modern society. Seriously, you aren't that daft are you?

And by the way, Cold Fusion doesn't work. If you want cold fusion to work perhaps you'll discover ultraconduction IN A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR.
baudrunner
4.3 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2010
Travel to Jupiter is less dangerous than a 14TeV particle accelerator? Does Broglia know that even our sun does not have enough mass to create a black hole were it to implode? Mass is energy, Broglia, and 14TeV represents the energy of motion of about 14 flying mosquitos. Anybody on this site who fears the LHC is definitely on the wrong page!
physpuppy
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2010
baudrunner, next thing you know someone will be posting about how deadly 14 flying mosquitos are in order to prove that the LHC is dangerous. :-)

seneca
2.5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2010
A Critical Review of Safety Papers Concerning Black Holes at the LHC

http://www.risk-e...fety.pdf

Isn't it funny, the only one simulation of LHC collisions done till now predicts formation of stable black hole? Where is the claimed scientific evidence of LHC safety, after then?

http://news.scien...-01.html
http://atlas.ch/p...ole.html
http://www.redorb...mulator/
eachus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2010
And by the way, Cold Fusion doesn't work.

Sigh! This is a very naïve statement. I was involved in some of the "cold fusion" research. It was a very wild ride. But it is important to separate what Pons and Fleishmann discovered from fusion.

1) There is some anomalous source of heat.
2) Whatever it is it isn't traditional fusion.
3) It also isn't fractofusion, warm fusion, sonic fusion, pico-fusion or self targeting. However, the first four were all discovered during the cold fusion research. For example, fractofusion is fusion caused by cracks in the metal accelerating deuterium atoms. It often results in self targeting, which separates a deuterium nucleus into a proton and a neutron.

What is "cold fusion?" My guess is that some of the deuterons form a Bose-Einstein condensate in the palladium, and the BEC gains energy from collisions with...something. Neutrinos? Axions? WIMPs? Dark matter?

It is very hard to get to the point you get results.
eachus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2010
There was a lot of good work done researching cold fusion, and it is important not to mix the Sunday supplement science with the real results. The work Stephen Jones did on muon-induced (warm) fusion might actually result in a power plant someday. The trick is to get enough energy from the fusions to produce more muons. Jones, et. al. got past scientific breakeven (more energy from fusion than represented by the muons used), but not enough to overcome the inefficiencies in a real muon source. A more efficient way to create muons would make it commercially viable.

Sonic fusion was also one of those side discoveries during the cold fusion research. Turns out that popping bubbles can create the conditions for fusion! Again, not a practical source of power--the best lab versions create one bubble in the center of a container of heavy water about 50,000 times a second. But you do get neutrons and the occasional gamma ray.
broglia
5 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2010
..and the BEC gains energy from collisions with...something..
BEC clusters may obtain energy from collisions with itself, it they're large and massive enough. Kenzius splitted water clusters (~ 1,2 eV) with 13 MHz radiowaves, i.e. 5.10E-8 eV. The energetic barrier is simmilar there like for activation energy of cold fusion (10 E+8 eV) initiated by electrolysis of palladium (~ 1 V).

http://www.rustum...rvations of polarized MRI vol 12 is 1.pdf
broglia
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2010
..there is some anomalous source of heat...
This is only, what interests me as an investor. We aren't required to understand superconductivity or cold fusion for being able to use it. After all, high temperature superconductors are developed at empirical basis from their very beginning during last twenty years. Even if we would have successful theory of HT superconductivity, we may not be able to prepare superconductors in optimal way, because this is quite different problem. The same barrier of empirical research may exist in cold fusion research.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2010
What is "cold fusion?" My guess is that some of the deuterons form a Bose-Einstein condensate in the palladium, and the BEC gains energy from collisions with...something. Neutrinos? Axions? WIMPs? Dark matter?

BECs are at or near absolute zero. There is no energy to be had at that level however BECs show ultraconduction due to the fact that all particles share wave forms and effectively become a super particle/wave.

As for cold fusion, the Arata experiments were more what I was referring to. As for other methods of fusion, I'm well aware of them, none of them are cold fusion.

Cold fusion itself cannot ever work. The math does not support it without incredible external energy inputs at an ultracold state akin to creating a BEC via Laser trap.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2010
Cold fusion itself cannot ever work. If you want cold fusion to work perhaps you'll discover ultraconduction IN A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR. The math does not support it without incredible external energy inputs at an ultracold state akin to creating a BEC via Laser trap.
Well, skeptic proposing his own crackpot mechanism - the worst possible combination...;-)
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (2) Mar 05, 2010
Well, skeptic proposing his own crackpot mechanism - the worst possible combination...;-)

Nice merging of two completely disparate quotes, Alizee.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2010
georgert:
ubavontuba:
When the steam engine promised to carry passengers at the unprecedented speed of 60 mph, there were those who said that the human body would be demolished by the incredible speed. You LHC paranoics are of the same lineage as those prophets of doom.

Actually, anyone (like me) with an understanding of a few basic principals of gas dynamics, would have known this is false.

Similarly, anyone with a basic understanding of thermodynamics and entropy, knew atom bombs wouldn't ignite the atmosphere.

This is an entirely different concern, based largely on CERN's own inability to get the fundamental physics right in their own risk assessments!
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2010
It would do wonders for the world economy. Do you have any idea how many new technologies and scientific principles came out of the first particle accelerators? Our modern world is built on the science of our prior endeavors. Just because you're comfortable with what you assume you know doesn't mean the rest of us are.
This is a bogus arguement. Nothing of commercial value is expected from these collisions. The commercial value comes from the development of the colliders themselves. Why not just research and develop the useful technologies to begin with? It'd be more efficient and you'd end up with a lot of cool gadgets that actually perform useful tasks.
If our curiosity leads to peril, then by your estimates it will be a quick and painless peril.
Personally, I'd rather live.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2010
This is a bogus arguement. Nothing of commercial value is expected from these collisions. The commercial value comes from the development of the colliders themselves. Why not just research and develop the useful technologies to begin with? It'd be more efficient and you'd end up with a lot of cool gadgets that actually perform useful tasks.
See my comments above. It was our interest in particle physics that gave rise to nanoengineering and small scale construction.

The device you're typing on is a product of the first particle accelerator experiments, not their construction.
gwrede
1 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2010
The first LHC operation in Dezember 2009 has now resulted in a first particle physics publications of the CMS experiment. This is after a remarkable short time (...)
Either Physorg or Scherrer has somebody on its payroll who doesn't carry their weight.

But to be fair, my sentence above doesn't make grammatical sense either -- thanks to suffragette bigotism that has clenched hegemony in the Northern Hemisphere, especially in nations where Caucasians are the majority.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2010
..first particle physics publications of the CMS experiment. This is after a remarkable short time ..
The 1000+ authors of these publications just illustrates the crowds of dissertations, desperately waiting for restart of LHC for having something to publish. Their scientific value is insignificant: LHC is just a salary machine for high energy physics industry.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2010
See my comments above. It was our interest in particle physics that gave rise to nanoengineering and small scale construction.

The device you're typing on is a product of the first particle accelerator experiments, not their construction.
Again, a bogus argument that's inapposite to scale. That's like saying metal working was invented in campfires, so a nuclear holocaust is just as likely to be useful.

Besides, my computer is mostly comprised of integrated circuits and related components (including the display). They are descended from transistors which were primarily pioneered from independent research at Bell Labs. They are not a product of particle accelerator collisions.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2010
Again, a bogus argument that's inapposite to scale. That's like saying metal working was invented in campfires, so a nuclear holocaust is just as likely to be useful.
In human society money attract money in avalanche-like mechanism like gravity. The collider experiments are already separated from needs of society like sort of black hole. So far (i.e. after seventy years of research!) we have no practical usage for single particle prepared in colliders. The relative advance of collider technology is a product of arm race during cold war times and now the problem is, this technology is more powerfull and advanced, then the ability of scientists to predict its possibilities in sufficiently reliable way. In addition it attracts huge amount of money of private companies thus serving as a giant salary generator for all people involved. These people doesn't know, what they're doing, because they refute to understand it in similar way, like Germans before WWW II, who voted for Hitler.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2010
See my comments above. It was our interest in particle physics that gave rise to nanoengineering and small scale construction.

The device you're typing on is a product of the first particle accelerator experiments, not their construction.
Again, a bogus argument that's inapposite to scale. That's like saying metal working was invented in campfires, so a nuclear holocaust is just as likely to be useful.

Besides, my computer is mostly comprised of integrated circuits and related components (including the display). They are descended from transistors which were primarily pioneered from independent research at Bell Labs. They are not a product of particle accelerator collisions.

And without particle accelerators you would not be engaging in this conversation via this medium. The tranmission technology needed would be undiscovered.

Iron tech is directly related to our ability to utilize fire. You cannot remove a discovery without subsequent loss of dicovery.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2010
The transmission technology needed would be undiscovered.
Do you mean it seriously?
http://www.useit....ory.html
jaditod
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2010
Haiti one month ago, 5 days ago Chile, 48 hours ago Taiwan it has been registered earthquakes in ARGENTINA , ECUADOR AND PERU , COINCIDENCE OR NON LHC RESTART THEIR COLLSION ACTIVITY IN JANUARY, ARE THESE UNUSUAL ACTIVITY RELATED WITH LHC..? World Academic Authorities, Governors citizens of the world, the relatives of more than 200 thousand earthquakes victims Should be Interrogate LHC STAFF researchers about the real related possibility between these facts . I AM SURE that Themselves Could NOT Discard This Possibility. we are allowing THAT crazy scientists destroy OUR planet . WHAT are WE DOING TO avoid it . NOTHING
daywalk3r
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2010
Haiti one month ago, 5 days ago Chile, 48 hours ago Taiwan it has been registered earthquakes in ARGENTINA , ECUADOR AND PERU , COINCIDENCE OR NON LHC RESTART THEIR COLLSION ACTIVITY IN JANUARY, ARE THESE UNUSUAL ACTIVITY RELATED WITH LHC..? World Academic Authorities, Governors citizens of the world, the relatives of more than 200 thousand earthquakes victims Should be Interrogate LHC STAFF researchers about the real related possibility between these facts . I AM SURE that Themselves Could NOT Discard This Possibility. we are allowing THAT crazy scientists destroy OUR planet.
WHAT are WE DOING TO avoid it?
What about we start with getting you a shiny new jacket with nice loooong sleeves, color white? :) And a few nice men, also in white, who show you how to put it on properly? ;o)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2010
And without particle accelerators you would not be engaging in this conversation via this medium. The tranmission technology needed would be undiscovered.
Oh brother. You really think computer geeks wouldn't push the technology without CERN? Really? I guess you've never paid a visit to Silicone Valley then. There, there are thousands of computer engineers, all vying for the opportunity to present "The Next Big Thing." Besides, didn't you know that Al Gore invented the internet, not CERN? :)

Iron tech is directly related to our ability to utilize fire. You cannot remove a discovery without subsequent loss of dicovery.
But we don't need to subsequently discover what happens in a nuclear conflagration now, do we?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (1) Mar 08, 2010
Oh brother. You really think computer geeks wouldn't push the technology without CERN?

You really are an idiot aren't you?

There would be no such thing as a computer.

Particle accelerators were designed and built starting in the 20's. LONG before computers. The internet was developed in order to communicate results from particle accelerator tests as an open research medium for government and non-government defense contractors.

Ignorance has manifest yet again on physorg.
Parsec
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2010
Does anyone in the above posts that are afraid of black holes being formed at LHC actually know what they are? How they are formed? If black holes could be stable at a billion times any amount of energy produced by LHC there would be trillions of them flying through each of us, and the the earth every microsecond. The fact that we exist, that the universe around us is reasonably stable means that this simply cannot be.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Mar 08, 2010
The fact that we exist, that the universe around us is reasonably stable means that this simply cannot be.

Or that a micro/nano black holes does not react as a supermassive blackhole does and is even less of a threat than their considerations and ignorance tells them it is.
seneca
1.7 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2010
If black holes could be stable at a billion times any amount of energy produced by LHC there would be trillions of them flying through each of us, and the the earth every microsecond. The fact that we exist, that the universe around us is reasonably stable means that this simply cannot be.
I don't know - try to ask Lisa Randall, how she wants to support her theory by observational evidence. You should say her, she is troll who is wasting money of taxpayers..

http://en.wikiped...ack_hole
http://www.space....day.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2010
Try to ask Lisa Randall, how she wants to support her theory by observational evidence. You should say her, she is troll who is wasting money of taxpayers..
I think "check" would be the proper word there instead of "support". Of course it makes your recommendation look quite silly now, but.. :)

All she is actually doing, is trying to come up with some ideas that could possibly correspond with reality, or at least represent a better approximation, than what we are getting now from current models and theories.

You can look at theoretical physicists as players who all participate in the same "puzzle game". Each of them got a copy of the original "puzzle pieces" set and it's only up to them, what they build from it..

Some prefer to build nice looking pictures. Some go more into the extremes. Some just put the pieces randomly (chaos). And some prefer to picture various creatures like ghosts, devils, or even evil little (black) goblins..
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2010
^^
The point of my previous post being, that there is only 1 correct solution to that puzzle. And by increasing the number of players participating in the game, we effectively increase the chance of discovering the right one. Lisa just being one of those players.

I believe you got you own set of puzzle going on. Therefor I advise you to rather work on it and not whack on other people's sets, before finishing your very own :-P
broglia
2 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
Lisa is just being one of those players
For example some others predicting strangelets, some other tiny boson stars, etc.. But my question rather is, whether some selfpreservation mechanism in science exist? Is there some level of warning, which could stop LHC experiments at the moment, when even proponents of disaster scenarios (like Randall or Witten) are supporting LHC experiments openly?

What annoys and scares me is the undeniability of these experiments and the investments into building of more and more powerfull accelerators at the moment, when it enables to some group of people earn another money. My feeling is, like we would be sucked into black hole already.
frajo
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
proponents of disaster scenarios (like Randall or Witten)
You are wrong. They don't "propose" disaster scenarios. They don't even predict disaster scenarios.
My feeling is, like we would be sucked into black hole already.
Not you. Your impressive superficiality will never let you pass the event horizon.
seneca
1.5 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2010
They don't "propose" disaster scenarios
But if LHC won't produce stable black holes, then the whole theory of Mrs. Randall is simply plain wrong.

I know quite well, she's visiting CERN while saying, no stable micro-black hole will be ever observed - but what the hell this lady is looking for there, after then?

http://cerncourie...rn/34938
JayK
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2010
@seneca: Don't worry about it, just get your sign and go protest the CERN site. You obviously don't have the mental capacity and/or background to understand Lisa Randall or her theories.
seneca
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2010
It's not so difficult to understand it. She cannot act differently, if she REALLY WANTS to prove her theory experimentally without open fight with instinctive fear of layman publicity. The stance of her is highly predictable in this context.
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
@seneca: What stance, that people like you are a bunch of wanna-be physicists that have a minimum of capability but a lot of conspiracy theory? You seem to have made a lot of assumptions about these people that you actually have no proof of, but you continue with your insane conjectures in the hope of swaying intelligent people to your cause. Your faint grasp of the physics does not allow you to criticize scientists that do understand the premises at CERN or of Lisa Randall's work.
seneca
2 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
OK, just try to propose your own optimal strategy: you have theory of stable black holes and chance to test it on LHC collider. What would you do?
JayK
3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
@seneca: You didn't read the article you posted about Lisa Randall, did you? Just like before, you're operating off of false assumptions that have nothing to do with reality.

Good job, I like how you remain consistent in your misrepresentation of CERN research.
seneca
2 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
I've read most of Lisa's articles. OK, just try to propose your own optimal strategy: you have theory of stable black holes and chance to test it on LHC collider. What would you do?

As you can see, it's quite simple question. Consistency isn't problem, when you have robust theory. Don't make the world more complex, then it really is.
JayK
3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
@seneca: Black hole creation/formation/stability isn't her only theory(ies), it isn't the only thing she lives for, and it isn't the basis for her experiments. You're misrepresenting everything in order to try to scare people.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
I've read most of Lisa's articles. OK, just try to propose your own optimal strategy: you have theory of stable black holes and chance to test it on LHC collider. What would you do?

I'd test it and be proved wrong as the corrolary math to support the single hypothesis you've read doesn't exist. Ms. Randall has 14 different event hypotheses that's she's looking for more evidence on. You appear to have only read one of them. Cherry picking belongs in the orchard, not the field [of physics].
frajo
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
I've read most of Lisa's articles.
Yes, you obviously have read a lot. But reading does not imply understanding.
She cannot act differently, if she REALLY WANTS to prove her theory experimentally
You've been told several times here on PhysOrg that science is not about proving theories but about testing and eventually falsifying theories. You've read it, but you obviously didn't understand.
seneca
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
..Ms. Randall has 14 different event hypotheses that's she's looking for more evidence on..

Why not fifteen? You see, just the model of micro-black holes is the interesting one for wikipedists. We are all attracted to danger, it seems...;-)

http://en.wikiped...ack_hole

Is there some more attractive one, which I'm not aware of?
JayK
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
@seneca: So you have a degree in wikipedia? Do you have the follow on degree in Google, or is that one too high level and you don't have the prerequisites?

Just because you're curious about it doesn't give you the right to misrepresent a scientist's experiments and stances. I believe that the term for that would be "lying".
daywalk3r
4.1 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2010
You see, just the model of micro-black holes is the interesting one for wikipedists. We are all attracted to danger, it seems...;-)
Yes, fiction is often more attractive than reality. At least for the wast majority.. Sad but true :)
seneca
4 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2010
JayK
2.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
So when someone accuses you of lying and misrepresenting science, you use the Chewbacca defense?

http://en.wikiped..._defense

Just post a bunch of stuff that you probably didn't read, that talks about the theoretical production of micro-black holes that won't persist more than a few microseconds, at best, and act like somehow you're justified in fear mongering?

Otto West: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2010
Try to propose evidence, which would convince you to stop LHC experiments. You know, I don't waste my time with fanatists, who are deaf to every argument. Just show me the way...
JayK
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
You haven't made any arguments. You're linking to scientific papers that theorize that micro black holes have a low probability of being produced at the LHC and that those that can be produced will be of such low mass and size that they will decompose within a few microseconds, but will be detectable through the creation and absences of certain kinds of energy. It is obvious that you don't have the kind of basic credentials, nor the intelligence, to understand the papers you link to.

You're a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
http://en.wikiped...r_effect
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
If so, why to misinterpret all these scientific simulations and publications?

Let's break it down.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1780 - Paper unpublished, references solitons, completely irrelevant to LHC collisions. Supportive of the atmospheric postulate against your argument.

http://arxiv.org/.../0106295- Completely contrary to your argument, supports Hawking radiation postulate (unpublished)

http://adsabs.har......6193B - same as above (unpublished)

http://www.iop.or...2/12/S52 - same article as the above (still unpublished)

http://www.risk-e...fety.pdf - forum post by a rank amateur, probably yourself.

So now that you're done de-balling your own argument, are you finished?
seneca
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2010
Try to propose evidence, which would convince you to stop LHC experiments. You know, I don't waste my time with fanatics, who are deaf to every argument.

For example, 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution - they simply ignore every scientific evidence of it and it has no meaning to explain them the opposite. How can I know, you don't belong into such group?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
60% of Americans don't believe in evolution - they simply ignore every scientific evidence of it and it has no meaning to explain them the opposite. How can I know, you don't belong into such group?


Simple, I'm not American.

Or for that matter, Christian.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2010
I still don't see any evidence, which would convince you to stop LHC experiments in advance...;-) People like you are predestined to die, because they're ignoring all warnings.

Isn't it easy to reveal fanatic people, huh? They're simply not prepared for unbiased discussion.
JayK
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
I'll actually make an appeal to authority, something you don't have, and require that someone credible back up the actual dangers of theoretical black holes actually gaining any sort of mass.

This is where you post a bunch of other links to people YOU think are credible, seneca, and then the rest of the people here downrate your post and tear the references apart, or show where they've already been debunked. We can continue to go through the same loop, or you can just admit that you're off your medications and that this fear mongering is just a cry for attention.
seneca
1.6 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2010
OK, it's evident, you're prepared to run LHC experiments, until some disaster really happens there. You didn't provide us any other option.

Well, this is a strategy, too. Albeit not quite scientific one - we aren't paying scientists for blind experiments. And this is definitely not a valid introductory point for any discussion about LHC risk.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
I'll actually make an appeal to authority, something you don't have, and require that someone credible back up the actual dangers of theoretical black holes actually gaining any sort of mass.


Ok, lets say a nanoBH is formed in the vaccuum chamber of the LHC, and the electromagnetic safeguards fail, and the vaccuum fails, and we're completely unable to reestablish the protective measures.

We'll only have 482,378 years before we might have to deal with it according to non-CERN particle physicists. What seneca is failing to recall from his obviously large body of knowledge is that using the inverse square law and the energy to mass conversion calculations a nano BH would take about 4,382,000 seconds to consume a whole hydrogen atom. Assuming the point of origin of that atom and the BH are within 5 meters of each other at null relative speed.

Now within that period of time that same subatomic black hole would have evaporated thousands of times.
JayK
1 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
@Skeptic: But you're admitting it "could" happen?

Now I'm confused, does that make you one of seneca's fanatics, or something else? Have you ever dated Lisa Randall or has she paid you in Girl Scout cookies for your opinion?
seneca
2 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2010
The worse, CERN is full of the people like you: a blind, ignorant people. For example, even AFTER TWENTY YEARS of LHC preparation and billions dollars investments we still have NO SINGLE computer simulation of particle collision - the very first one was done before few days by two physicists - and it's indeed negative with respect to LHC safety. Remember - it's the most expensive experiment in human history and it still has no background in simulation! It's simply unbelievable, until we realize, every computer simulation would stop the future experiments with no mercy from the safety reasons. This is the only reason, why such simulation was never done.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1780

Just tell me the single one reason, why we should trust such reckless, irresponsible and voluntaristic people? We can simply wait for another five years WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY PROBLEM, until more advanced simulations will be done, which would map the scope of possible risks more thoroughly. That's it.
seneca
2 / 5 (2) Mar 09, 2010
..a nano BH would take about 4,382,000 seconds to consume a whole hydrogen atom. Assuming the point of origin of that atom and the BH are within 5 meters of each other at null relative speed..
Only if it would stay at absolute rest. During motion it would cross the path of many hydrogen atoms in a seconds - after all, like every neutron. What will happen next?

Well, first hydrogen atom swallowed by this black hole would create magnetic field, which would attract another atoms in close proximity into black hole by avalanche-like mechanism. A dragging of matter into sink of wildly rotating space-time would literally occur there.

We known, all active black holes in universe are magnetars (so called blasars) just because of the accretion of matter. The presence of magnetic field manifests itself by occurrence of polar jets.

http://www.newsci...5574.600
daywalk3r
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2010
Well, first hydrogen atom swallowed by this black hole would create magnetic field, which would attract another atoms in close proximity into black hole by avalanche-like mechanism.
Nope. At that point it will allready have a nice shell of orbiting electrons, which in essence creates a repulsive barrier around it - just like an atom and the shell around its nucleus. That's one of the very reasons matter comprising of atoms is stable and the nuclei just doesn't collapse on themselves.

Your turn now..
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (1) Mar 09, 2010
@Skeptic: But you're admitting it "could" happen?
No, I said, let's say it could. In reality there is no way for me to say it absolutely will NOT happen, as I don't have enough information, however, with the information I have I can put the probability below 1/1,000,000.

Now I'm confused, does that make you one of seneca's fanatics, or something else? Have you ever dated Lisa Randall

I've met her, and I'd be happy to support her stance for a little personal time with her. She's absolutely lovely.
We known, all active black holes in universe are magnetars (so called blasars) just because of the accretion of matter. The presence of magnetic field manifests itself by occurrence of polar jets.

So wrong, in just about every way.
JayK
3 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2010
Skeptic why are you forgetting all about the Aether? It is the all encompassing theory of everything, right?
broglia
3 / 5 (1) Mar 10, 2010
..at that point it will allready have a nice shell of orbiting electrons...
In such energy density no electron shells will be present here - atoms will be completelly ionized.
broglia
1.8 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2010
...it is the all encompassing theory of everything, right?
Singular emergence is universal concept, but currently isn't usable for computing of details at all - it rather fills the causual space between existing theories. The weakness of aether model begins, where the other theories start. And it still doesn't explain, what we are swimming in. Inside of ocean of probabilities? Probabilities of what?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Mar 14, 2010
Skeptic_Heretic:
Oh brother. You really think computer geeks wouldn't push the technology without CERN?
You really are an idiot aren't you?
No, but It seems you are.
There would be no such thing as a computer.
The invention of computers had nothing to do with particle accelerators. Jeesh, do a little research before you spout off, why don't you?
Particle accelerators were designed and built starting in the 20's. LONG before computers. The internet was developed in order to communicate results from particle accelerator tests as an open research medium for government and non-government defense contractors.
The original concept of networking computers had nothing to do with CERN or colliders. The internet is a natural and logical evolution of computer networking. See:
http://en.wikiped...Internet
Ignorance has manifest yet again on physorg.
It certainly has. You should be ashamed.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2010
Does anyone in the above posts that are afraid of black holes being formed at LHC actually know what they are? How they are formed? If black holes could be stable at a billion times any amount of energy produced by LHC there would be trillions of them flying through each of us, and the the earth every microsecond. The fact that we exist, that the universe around us is reasonably stable means that this simply cannot be.
This is not true. Let's consider dark matter: What do we know about it? We've found vast regions of dark matter concentrations surrounding galaxies where no apparent "normal" star can survive. We've even detected whole "dark galaxies" where no stars can form, even though we detect enough hydrogen to form billions of stars. Why is that? What is it about dark matter that suppresses ordinary matter? Strangely, the idea that dark matter might largely be comprised of stable micro black holes seems to fit pretty well with our observations. Should we worry?