Atom smasher will help reveal 'the beginning'

Mar 31, 2010 By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS and SETH BORENSTEIN , Associated Press Writers
In this March 22, 2007 file photo, the magnet core of the world's largest superconducting solenoid magnet (CMS, Compact Muon Solenoid) is shown in Geneva, Switzerland. The world's largest atom smasher set a record for high-energy collisions on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 by crashing proton beams into each other at three times more force than ever before. In a milestone in the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider's ambitious bid to reveal details about theoretical particles and microforces, scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN, collided the beams and took measurements at a combined energy level of 7 trillion electron volts. (AP Photo/Keystone, Martial Trezzini)

The world's largest atom smasher threw together minuscule particles racing at unheard of speeds in conditions simulating those just after the Big Bang - a success that kick-started a megabillion-dollar experiment that could one day explain how the universe began.

Scientists cheered Tuesday's historic crash of two proton beams, which produced three times more energy than researchers had created before and marked a milestone for the $10 billion Large Hadron Collider.

"This is a huge step toward unraveling Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 1 - what happened in the beginning," physicist Michio Kaku told The Associated Press.

"This is a Genesis machine. It'll help to recreate the most glorious event in the history of the universe."

Tuesday's smashup transforms the 15-year-old collider from an engineering project in test phase to the world's largest ongoing experiment, experts say. The crash that occurred on a subatomic scale is more about shaping our understanding of how the universe was created than immediate improvements to technology in our daily lives.

The power produced will ramp up even more in the future as scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or , watch for elusive particles that have been more theorized than seen on Earth.

The consequences of finding those mysterious particles could "affect our conception of who we are in the universe," said Kaku, co-founder of string field theory and author of the book "Physics of the Impossible."

Physicists, usually prone to caution and nuance, tripped over themselves in superlatives praising the importance of the and the significance of its generating regular science experiments.

"This is the Jurassic Park for particle physicists," said Phil Schewe, a spokesman for the American Institute of Physics. He called the collider a time machine. "Some of the particles they are making now or are about to make haven't been around for 14 billion years."

The first step in simulating the moments after the Big Bang nearly 14 billion years ago was to produce a tiny bang. The most potent force on the tiny atomic level that man has ever created came Tuesday.

Two beams of protons were sent hurtling in opposite directions toward each other in a 17-mile (27-kilometer) tunnel below the Swiss-French border - the coldest place in the universe at slightly above absolute zero. CERN used powerful superconducting magnets to force the two beams to cross; two of the protons collided, producing 7 trillion electron volts.

It's bizarrely both a record high and a small amount of energy.

It's a record on the atom-by-atom basis that physicists use to measure pure energy, Schewe said. By comparison, burning wood or any other chemical reaction on an atom scale produces one electron volt. Splitting a single uranium atom in a nuclear reaction produces 1 million electron volts. This produces - on an atom-by-atom scale - 7 million times more power than a single atom in a nuclear reaction, Schewe said.

The reason this is safe has to do with the amount of particles in the collider. Tuesday's success involved just two protons making energy, instead of pounds of uranium, Schewe said.

Kaku, a professor at City College of New York, described the amount of energy produced as less than the total energy made by two mosquitoes crashing.

The successful collision was viewed by scientists watching monitors, who cheered the results.

"That's it! They've had a collision," said Oliver Buchmueller of Imperial College in London.

Across the world at the California Institute of Technology in Los Angeles, researchers and students watched reports from Switzerland.

"It marks the beginning of a new era of exploration in a new range of energy," said physics professor Harvey Newman.

"Experiments are collecting their first physics data - historic moment here!" a scientist tweeted on CERN's official Twitter account.

"Nature does it all the time with cosmic rays (and with higher energy), but this is the first time this is done in Laboratory!" said another tweet.

Now the beams will become stronger, more densely packed with hundreds of billions of protons, and run daily for two years to give scientists many more chances to find elusive particles. Even then, the particles are so tiny that relatively few protons will collide at each point where the beams cross in front of cathedral-sized detectors.

The data generated is expected to reveal even more about the unanswered questions of particle physics, such as the existence of antimatter and the search for the Higgs boson, a hypothetical particle - often called the God particle - that scientists theorize gives mass to other particles and thus to other objects and creatures in the universe.

The collider also may help scientists see dark matter, the strange stuff that makes up more of the universe than normal matter but has not been seen on Earth.

Those particles are the missing piece from a "jigsaw puzzle with thousands of pieces" that explain the physics of the universe, Kaku said. It could help in the elusive theory that explains everything.

"In the past, every time we unraveled a force (of physics) it changed human history," Kaku said. "Now we're talking about all forces."

He compared it to events such as the Industrial Revolution, the electric and the nuclear age. Such events followed breakthroughs made by Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein.

It won't happen immediately, maybe centuries down the line, but it could answer questions about the Big Bang, alternate universes and whether time travel is possible, Kaku said.

"It would change people's philosophy," he said.

The atmosphere at CERN was tense considering the collider's launch with great fanfare on Sept. 10, 2008. Nine days after its inauguration, the project was sidetracked when a badly soldered electrical splice overheated, causing extensive damage to the massive magnets and other parts of the collider some 300 feet (100 meters) below the ground.

It cost $40 million to repair and improve the machine. Since its restart in November 2009, the collider has performed almost flawlessly and given scientists valuable data. It quickly eclipsed the next largest accelerator - the Tevatron at Fermilab near Chicago.

Future experiments will follow over the objections of some who fear they could eventually imperil Earth by creating micro black holes - subatomic versions of collapsed stars whose gravity is so strong they can suck in planets and other stars.

CERN and many scientists dismiss any threat to Earth or people, saying that any such holes would be so weak that they would vanish almost instantly. In the universe, where black holes collide, this is nothing, Kaku said.

"From Nature's point of view, she laughs and says 'this is a peashooter'," Kaku said.

Bivek Sharma, a professor at the University of California at San Diego, said the images of the first crashed beams were beautiful.

"It's taken us 25 years to build," he said. "This is what it's for. Finally the baby is delivered. Now it has to grow."

Explore further: Cooling with molecules

4 /5 (14 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Geneva atom smasher set for record collisions

Mar 29, 2010

(AP) -- The world's largest atom smasher is ready to start a new era of science by colliding beams of protons to learn more about the makeup of the universe and its smallest particles.

Particle collider: Black hole or crucial machine?

Aug 07, 2009

(AP) -- When launched to great fanfare nearly a year ago, some feared the Large Hadron Collider would create a black hole that would suck in the world. It turns out the Hadron may be the black hole.

Large Hadron Collider sends beams in 2 directions

Nov 23, 2009

(AP) -- The world's largest atom smasher made another leap forward Monday by circulating beams of protons in opposite directions at the same time in the $10 billion machine after more than a year of repairs, ...

Restored machine to explore mysteries of Big Bang

Nov 21, 2009

(AP) -- Scientists are preparing the world's largest atom smasher to explore the depths of matter after successfully restarting the $10 billion machine following more than a year of repairs.

Geneva atom smasher seeks dark matter discoveries

Mar 08, 2010

(AP) -- The world's largest atom smasher could generate its first scientific breakthrough later this year when operators hope to make discoveries into the elusive nature of dark matter, the director of the ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

16 hours ago

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

User comments : 53

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

croghan27
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2010
"He compared it to events such as the Industrial Revolution, the electric and the nuclear age. Such events followed breakthroughs made by Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein.

It won't happen immediately, maybe centuries down the line, but it could answer questions about the Big Bang, alternate universes and whether time travel is possible, Kaku said.

"It would change people's philosophy," he said."

Oh Lord ... you can see that all the heat from the collider has gone into this overheated prose.
newsreader
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2010
I agree, there is too much hype right now about the LHC. Its going to be a MAJOR disappointment to the general public. A year from now when no new discoveries have been announced people will start asking why we spent all this money on nothing.
superhuman
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2010
"Some of the particles they are making now or are about to make haven't been around for 14 billion years."

Nonsense. There are natural processes whose energy scale dwarfs LHC: supernovas, black holes, active galactic nuclei, quasars. They are easily capable of producing any particle LHC can come up with.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 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?
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.
Or campaigning...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.
Or campaigning...

Because campaigning belongs in the realm of science, along with elections and consensus.....

Slotin
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2010
Nope, it's all just about propaganda

It would change people's philosophy
Which change Mr. Kaku means? Isn't LHC supposed just to verify forty years old string theory?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2010
Nope, it's all just about propaganda

It would change people's philosophy
Which change Mr. Kaku means? Isn't LHC supposed just to verify forty years old string theory?

Oh how sad it must be to lose that sense of elegance in thought and marvel at the beauty of creation.

When you find no love in your work then you have traveled the wrong path for far too long. Perhaps you should discourage yourself from more thought on AWT.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.

Reminds me of the classical definition of functional insanity.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 02, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.
Or campaigning...

Because campaigning belongs in the realm of science, along with elections and consensus.....
What, and scientists never campaign to get their ideas accepted and/or funded? What university did say you attend(ed)?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.

Reminds me of the classical definition of functional insanity.
Says the one who can't even back up his own assertions...

http://www.physor...913.html
seneca
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2010
Frankly, I cannot understand, why so many physicists are so sure about LHC safety. Isn't the main purpose of LHC just to validate theories, which predict violation of existing laws, on which assumption of LHC safety is based?

For example Lisa Randall believes, LHC would prove existence of extra-dimensions, which would lead to stable microscopic black holes, which are constituting dark matter.

http://cerncourie...rn/34938

The same extra-dimensions are expected to stabilize black holes, formed during LHC collisions, as recent computer simulation revealed.

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

Therefore the stance of LHC proponents regarding LHC safety has no logics. If they're believing, their theories would apply during LHC collisions, they should admit, stable black holes may be formed in it. If they cannot admit it, then they're openly lying about their own expectations.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2010
I don't know what makes a user repeat his comment over and over again. A non-zero expectation value? Reminds me of shaman rituals.
Or campaigning...
Because campaigning belongs in the realm of science, along with elections and consensus.....
What, and scientists never campaign to get their ideas accepted and/or funded?
And what is to gain by "campaigning" here on PhysOrg? Acceptance or funds?
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2010
seneca:
For example Lisa Randall believes, LHC would prove existence of extra-dimensions, which would lead to stable microscopic black holes, which are constituting dark matter.
http://cerncourie...rn/34938
Excerpt from the article:
but Randall remains sceptical. "I don’t really think we will find black holes at the LHC," she says
seneca:
The same extra-dimensions are expected to stabilize black holes, formed during LHC collisions, as recent computer simulation revealed.
http://news.scien...-01.html
Excerpt from the article:
"I would be extremely surprised if there were a positive detection of black-hole formation at the accelerator," Choptuik says. Physicists say that such black hole would harmlessly decay into ordinary particles.
physis78
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 03, 2010
Frankly, I cannot understand, why so many physicists are so sure about LHC safety. Isn't the main purpose of LHC just to validate theories, which predict violation of existing laws, on which assumption of LHC safety is based?


Whatever pops out of LHC will not be new. It has been going on forever in cosmic rays. The new thing of LHC is to put detectors around these processes so we can observe them.
physis78
1 / 5 (1) Apr 03, 2010
Frankly, I cannot understand, why so many physicists are so sure about LHC safety. Isn't the main purpose of LHC just to validate theories, which predict violation of existing laws, on which assumption of LHC safety is based?


Whatever pops out of LHC will not be new. It has been going on forever in cosmic rays. The new thing of LHC is to put detectors around these processes so we can observe them.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 03, 2010
Frankly, I cannot understand, why so many physicists are so sure about LHC safety. Isn't the main purpose of LHC just to validate theories, which predict violation of existing laws, on which assumption of LHC safety is based?


Whatever pops out of LHC will not be new. It has been going on forever in cosmic rays. The new thing of LHC is to put detectors around these processes so we can observe them.
What will be new is that these particles will have relatively low momentum in regards to the earth. Could this in itself be dangerous? Possibly.

One might consider the observed normal matter suppression of dark matter in galactic halos, where its momentum relative to the galaxy is low. If dark matter particles (mini black holes?) are created, it's reasonable to presume they may be dangerous to our sun, and possibly our planet.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 03, 2010
@frajo: Excerpt from the article:..
Yep, this is exactly, what disappoints me there: physicists pretend, they don't believe their own theories not to threat their verification. Is this normal stance in science?
georgert
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2010
@ubavontuba
Although the concerns expressed about planet gobbling black holes, strangelets and shears in space/time generated by the LHC have been adressed and rebutted to a fare-thee-well, it's also worth noting that the exact same concerns were voiced prior to the commissioning of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), located in New York in 2000. I anticipate the same wailing and nail biting to occur when the proposed International Linear Collider comes online sometime in the next decade.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 04, 2010
@georgert
@ubavontuba
Although the concerns expressed about planet gobbling black holes, strangelets and shears in space/time generated by the LHC have been adressed and rebutted to a fare-thee-well, it's also worth noting that the exact same concerns were voiced prior to the commissioning of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC), located in New York in 2000. I anticipate the same wailing and nail biting to occur when the proposed International Linear Collider comes online sometime in the next decade.
Oh brother. That's like saying lighting this fire wasn't dangerous, so let's see what happens when we ignite this thermonuclear device...

No one anticipated micro black holes in the previous systems. We're entering a whole new paradigm with the LHC.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2010
Yep, this is exactly, what disappoints me there:
Who cares what is disappointing for you?
You have shown two links which contradict your opinion without mentioning that they contradict your opinion. You tried to make readers believe what is not true. You are cheating.
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Apr 04, 2010
No one anticipated micro black holes in the previous systems. We're entering a whole new paradigm with the LHC.
A new buzz word, "black hole", is not a new paradigm.
In fact, the paradigm "The End Of The World Is Near" is at least 1000 years old, when a lot of uneducated Christians expected the end of the world for the year 1000. It's a psychological phenomenon based on a pathological overestimation of one's own importance.
seneca
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 04, 2010
You have shown two links which contradict your opinion without mentioning that they contradict your opinion....You are cheating.
The theory of Lisi Randall or computations of Mr. Choptuik agree very well with my opinion. And these findings are objective facts, against which any subjective opinion is irrelevant. I don't require Randall's or Choptuik opinions anymore, if I have their computations.

The fact, both they're too recreant to admit, it doubts safety of LHC experiments too for the sake of their scientific carrier was another point of my post. I didn't covered it before readers in any way...;-)

To make things even more clear, I really don't require physics be lead only by true heros. But scientists should always tell true like politicians, who are payed from taxis and mandatory fees. Or we are facing misconduct - or maybe something even worse.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2010
Anyway, everyone can see, how deeply the interpretation of theories remains spitted into "scientific part" and "public part", which simply predict exactly the opposite. The same situation occurs at the event horizon of rotating black hole described by Kerr metric, where space-time remains splitted into two event horizons.

Scientific community has many signs of boson condensate inside of black hole. For example, they tend to suppress one stream of information from inside of their community in analogy to jet suppression during LHC collisions, during which black holes are formed. In this way, the results of LHC experiments can be modeled & explained by using of scientific community itself. It's a true demo of 1:N duality.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 04, 2010
Whatever pops out of LHC will not be new. It has been going on forever in cosmic rays.
Cosmic rays never occur in form of dense collimated jets of protons, counteracting with zero momentum toward Earth. They're always formed by isolated protons.

I can give you a single example:

Try to pile bullets by using of riffle. By using of individual shots you'll never achieve formation of larger pile of bullets, because the same shots, which will merge bullets together will disintegrate them, too. From the same reason cosmic rays are harmless to Earth with respect to black hole formation, no matter how extreme energy they can have.
daywalk3r
3.5 / 5 (16) Apr 05, 2010
But scientists should always tell true like politicians
Now, this one really made my day.. You should have been a comedian, serriously! That line is like cut from a stand-up act ;-)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
No one anticipated micro black holes in the previous systems. We're entering a whole new paradigm with the LHC.
A new buzz word, "black hole", is not a new paradigm.
In fact, the paradigm "The End Of The World Is Near" is at least 1000 years old, when a lot of uneducated Christians expected the end of the world for the year 1000. It's a psychological phenomenon based on a pathological overestimation of one's own importance.
So you don't think finding a whole new set of physics phenomena, not predicted with the currently verified theories, would constitute a new paradigm in physics? Really?

Fine. Let's call it: "The New Gee Whiz Physics"
frajo
3 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2010
So you don't think finding a whole new set of physics phenomena, not predicted with the currently verified theories, would constitute a new paradigm in physics?
No. The word "paradigm" has a different meaning than that implied by you. It's not a heap of new facts but rather a new aspect from which to look at old facts. Perhaps it helps to learn the Greek meaning of "paradigma": It's "example".
Cheerio
not rated yet Apr 05, 2010
So you don't think finding a whole new set of physics phenomena, not predicted with the currently verified theories, would constitute a new paradigm in physics?
No. The word "paradigm" has a different meaning than that implied by you. It's not a heap of new facts but rather a new aspect from which to look at old facts. Perhaps it helps to learn the Greek meaning of "paradigma": It's "example".


Semantics. You understood what was meant by the original statement, yes? This is detracting from the discussion at hand.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2010
Semantics.
Yes. When a user uses a word in a central position without understanding its meaning it's time for semantics.
You understood what was meant by the original statement, yes?
I don't understand what you mean by "original statement". I understand that there are a lot of nonsensical statements by that certain user.
This is detracting from the discussion at hand.
You should direct your criticism at user ubavontuba who is permanently and in a repeating manner distracting the discussion from physics to the psychology and sociology of historical hysteries.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 05, 2010
Try to pile bullets by using of riffle. By using of individual shots you'll never achieve formation of larger pile of bullets, because the same shots, which will merge bullets together will disintegrate them, too.

Spoken like someone who has no experience with rifles or bullets and used to exemplify a layman's understanding of particle physics.

How apropos.
Slotin
1 / 5 (2) Apr 05, 2010
Spoken like someone, who has nothing to say against such simple & transparent analogy.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2010
Spoken like someone, who has nothing to say against such simple & transparent analogy.
The analogy for an analogy is a crutch. It won't get you far.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2010
Spoken like someone, who has nothing to say against such simple & transparent analogy.

I've never seen someone disintegrate a bullet with another bullet. Seeing as that's jsut about impossible it sheds light on the thought processes you employ elsewhere. Nonsense is always akin to nonsense, so as you assert, your analogy holds water, in as much as a bucket with a hole in it can.
seneca
2 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
I've never seen someone disintegrate a bullet with another bullet.

It's a though experiment. Nobody did see Schrodinger's cat in the box together with bomb. And so? You just demonstrating lack of ability to think in abstract way.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
It's a though experiment. Nobody did see Schrodinger's cat in the box together with bomb. And so? You just demonstrating lack of ability to think in abstract way.

A thought experiment requires thought, not just randomly creating impossible circumstances that fit a preconceived notion.

And it was poison on a quantum trigger. The experiment had nothing to do with the cat and everything to do with quantum uncertainty. Understanding what you're talking about is crucial to trying to establish a point of argument.
seneca
1 / 5 (4) Apr 05, 2010
Briefly speaking, by random shotting of isolated protons (cosmic rays) into pile of another protons (the Earth) you can never achieve cluster of more compact protons ("black hole"). You will disintegrate the pile instead. Therefore cosmic rays are safe to Earth in arbitrary energy density. The higher energy they would have, the faster this energy will be dispersed, instead.

But dense collimated counter-acting proton jets of LHC are quite different situation, which occurs nowhere in the nature. They have zero momentum toward Earth and their total kinetic energy is a much higher, then the energy of any cosmic ray particle.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 05, 2010
But dense collimated counter-acting proton jets of LHC are quite different situation, which occurs nowhere in the nature.

The law of large numbers proves your stance as incorrect. Basic probability also shows that you MUST be incorrect.
seneca
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 05, 2010
The law of large numbers proves your stance as incorrect. Basic probability also shows that you MUST be incorrect.
Nope, they're both showing, I'm perfectly right. Even inverse square and power law demonstrates it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2010
No. The word "paradigm" has a different meaning than that implied by you. It's not a heap of new facts but rather a new aspect from which to look at old facts. Perhaps it helps to learn the Greek meaning of "paradigma": It's "example".
I was using it in this sense:

Paradigm: 1. One that serves as a pattern or model.

AND:

3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

http://www.thefre...paradigm
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2010
The law of large numbers proves your stance as incorrect. Basic probability also shows that you MUST be incorrect.
Nope, they're both showing, I'm perfectly right. Even inverse square and power law demonstrates it.

So you have no idea what the law of large numbers is or what probability theory entails. Great...

Here's a quick primer. When dealing with potential infinites and the chance of a local occurance over a near infinite timespan you divide the potential for occurance.

The probability coupled with how expansive time-space is means that your hypothetical had to have happened previously, especially in the early Universe where these collisions had to have occured more often, (more matter, less volume).

Second, you keep insisting on a zero inertial reference frame, which is also completely false as gravity is present, as well as electromagnetic insulation.

You're nothing more than a troll with a large vocabulary and no basic understanding.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2010
The probability coupled with how expansive time-space is means that your hypothetical had to have happened previously, especially in the early Universe where these collisions had to have occured more often, (more matter, less volume).

This can't be proven either way, as any affected matter is too far away to observe directly. However, it is coincidentally interesting that large swaths of "dark matter" are observed where ordinary matter is apparently suppressed.

Second, you keep insisting on a zero inertial reference frame, which is also completely false as gravity is present, as well as electromagnetic insulation.
I think he's referring to the LHC's collisions low, or zero momentum relative to the earth, as opposed to the high relative momentum of cosmic ray collisions. Even the LSAG papers admit this significant difference.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Apr 06, 2010
This can't be proven either way, as any affected matter is too far away to observe directly. However, it is coincidentally interesting that large swaths of "dark matter" are observed where ordinary matter is apparently suppressed.

And it doesn't need to be experimentally proven as the probability of occurence is higher than the potential probability of occurance during experiment. ie: you don't understand the concepts of probability theory and the law of large numbers.

I think he's referring to the LHC's collisions low, or zero momentum relative to the earth, as opposed to the high relative momentum of cosmic ray collisions. Even the LSAG papers admit this significant difference.

Which is entirely impossible by your logic and common occurance in mine. So choose, can it never happen (because a zero inertia frame is impossible) or is it possible and has already occured (because of the LoLN and PT)?

Take your pick, either way your stance is incorrect.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
And it doesn't need to be experimentally proven as the probability of occurence is higher than the potential probability of occurance during experiment. ie: you don't understand the concepts of probability theory and the law of large numbers.
It seems you didn't understand. I'm saying that observationally, it looks like it has happened.
Which is entirely impossible by your logic and common occurance in mine. So choose, can it never happen (because a zero inertia frame is impossible) or is it possible and has already occured (because of the LoLN and PT)?

Take your pick, either way your stance is incorrect.
It looks like you either didn't pick up on the fact that I'm a different poster, or you're saying the LSAG committee report is incorrect. Which is it?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
It looks like you either didn't pick up on the fact that I'm a different poster,
No I didn't, and your statement is questionable. The writing styles are almost exact.
or you're saying the LSAG committee report is incorrect. Which is it?
The LSAG report says the you are wrong. Read it and perhaps you'll understand.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Apr 07, 2010
From the LSAG report:
The continued existences of the Earth and other astronomical bodies such as
the Sun mean that any magnetic monopoles produced by high-energy cosmic
rays must be harmless. Likewise, if any monopoles are produced at the LHC,
they will be harmless.

There is, however, one significant difference between cosmic-ray collisions
with a body at rest and collisions at the LHC, namely that any massive new
particles produced by the LHC collisions will tend to have low velocities,
whereas cosmic-ray collisions would produce them with high velocities. This
point has been considered in detail [2] since the 2003 report by the LHC Safety
Study Group [1]. As we now discuss, the original conclusion that LHC
collisions present no dangers is validated and strengthened by this more
recent work.


Read the paper, this is all found on the first few pages.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2010
or you're saying the LSAG committee report is incorrect. Which is it?
The LSAG report says the you are wrong. Read it and perhaps you'll understand.
Oh brother. Do you even realize you just said I'm wrong when I said what the LSAG report says? Does that make them wrong too, or are they magically rights whilst I'm wrong for saying the same things?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2010
From the LSAG report:
There is, however, one significant difference between cosmic-ray collisions with a body at rest and collisions at the LHC, namely that any massive new particles produced by the LHC collisions will tend to have low velocities, whereas cosmic-ray collisions would produce them with high velocities. This
point has been considered in detail [2] since the 2003 report by the LHC Safety Study Group [1]. As we now discuss, the original conclusion that LHC
collisions present no dangers is validated and strengthened by this more recent work.


Read the paper, this is all found on the first few pages.

Ah, pointing out their great lie. Good. You do know they tried to justify the 2003 report with a ridiculous and statistically insignificant scenario involving neutron star-white dwarf binaries, right? They should be ashamed! So should you!
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2010
Ah, pointing out their great lie. Good. You do know they tried to justify the 2003 report with a ridiculous and statistically insignificant scenario involving neutron star-white dwarf binaries, right? They should be ashamed! So should you!

You obviously didn't read the paper. It's a whole 15 pages long, read it.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2010
This report is just huge joke of CERN propaganda...

http://lsag.web.c...port.pdf

For example, we can read there:

"..However, there are some theoretical speculations that, when viewed at very small distances, space may reveal extra dimensions. In some such theories, it is possible that the gravitational force between pairs of particles might become strong at the energy of the LHC."

Well, and that's all. Problem of extradimensions is considered - and solved.
seneca
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2010
Or at another place we can read:

"Most black holes produced at the LHC or in cosmic-ray collisions would have an electric charge, since they would originate from the collisions of charged quarks. ..A direct consequence of this is that charged and stable black holes produced by the interactions of cosmic rays with the Earth or the Sun would be slowed down and ultimately stopped by their electromagnetic interactions inside these bodies, in spite of their initial high velocities. The complete lack of any macroscopic effect caused by stable black holes, which would have accumulated in the billions during the lifetime of the Earth and the Sun if the LHC could produce them, means that either they are not produced."

In another words, because black holes aren't at the center or Earth, it means, LHC cannot produce them. Nevertheless, the production of black holes at LHC is still expected by speed of one hole per second.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2010
Ah, pointing out their great lie. Good. You do know they tried to justify the 2003 report with a ridiculous and statistically insignificant scenario involving neutron star-white dwarf binaries, right? They should be ashamed! So should you!

You obviously didn't read the paper. It's a whole 15 pages long, read it.
I read all three versions, multiple times. Since you apparently only know of one, it seems obvious it is you who hasn't read them.