Huh, okay. Just making sure you weren't trying to twist my words.

Even though you were supporting what I was saying. Guess that's not really twisting.

 

I still loved how it got shut down when some bread (from a flying bird?) fell into the ventilation shaft.

I wonder if they hired a few locals to sit around the edge of the compound and handed them a few shotguns to circumvent any addition problems?

 

A physicist friend of mine speculates that if something happens fast enough, anything is possible......maybe even the passing of a million years in the blink of an eye.

The LHC is not about creating particles.....it's sole purpose is to smash them together at close to the speed of light......to try to see what happens.

It is not without risk.

 

Risk of what, exactly? The mathematics that governs wormholes/black holes etc is very clear. The simple act of colliding particles to investigate what's produced is entirely without risk, man. There can be no cataclysm, because - well - there's simply not enough energy being produced to start one. Yes, we might think that the energy being utilised sounds astronomical, but in terms of the universe, it's paltry - barely even noticeable.

 

I don't see how the maths concerning worm holes or even black holes can be clear....... Isn't it all rather theoretical? I mean, has anyone ever been in one?

The laws of probabilty dictate that two snooker balls must one day merge instead of cannoning off each other, which may seem unlikely, but scientists cannot dispute it. They simply have to believe it on faith in probability alone.

As I said.....anything is possible if it happens fast enough.

The risk involved with the LHC is as unknown as the outcome......and that in itself is the risk.

 

That should be chocolate and honey actually....

but all the bees have disappeared into a fantastically huge beehive at the end of the universe!

 

Theoretical is not synonymous with 'unclear'. The mathematics stipulates very clearly how much energy would be needed, and the LHC simply does not get anywhere near it.

When a probability would take longer than the lifetime of the universe to realise, it becomes something of a philosophical question, don't you think?

I really, really want some proof or evidence for this. For anything truly interesting to happen, you'd have to be travelling faster than light. You cannot accelerate beyond light speed, so... that's not happening.

That's an entirely circular statement, and is without meaning. The risk is not knowing the risk is not knowing the risk is not knowing the risk is not knowing...? Bollocks.

 

But it might do when particles start smashing together

No, I don't. It could happen tomorrow.....there's nothing to stipulate it would happen after the universe had died.....How could it anyway.

And you say I talk bollocks?

There is no proof or evidence......either way. And...I said a physicist friend of mine 'speculates'......so, go find your own proof.....either way.

For the record, I can only simply hope that nothing really bad will happen, but when science fucks around with stuff that it may totally lose control of........with possible catastrophic results......I'd say there is too much risk involved.

It would be ironic indeed if, in seeking to understand what happened at the beginning of time science ended up causing the end of it.

 

I don't think so - not unless you're suddenly getting a vast amount of energy from... nowhere. You can't create energy like that. It's simply not possible.

Arguably, it could, yes. But it almost certainly won't. And as for how it could happen after the universe had ended... well, I did say it was a philosophical question, didn't I?

Well... yup. xD

This 'anything is possibly' thing is just... meaningless. You say 'if it happens fast enough'. You do know that not-even-lightspeed is not 'fast enough' for any interesting relativistic effects to be produced, yeah? It's because of the exponential factor of the mass/energy equation - you need to get mind-bogglingly close to actual lightspeed before you even get mass-gain.

One: it cannot 'lose control' of a beam of photons. The very worst that can happen is that one of the magnets doesn't work as it should, the photons rattle around inside the tube doing precisely bugger all, and eventually escape as gamma waves. Which might scramble a mobile phone or two if someone's unlucky, but that's as bad as it can get. These are photons, for crying out loud. The same things that annihilate themselves on your retina, thousands of times every second.

Not only that, but there are no "possible catastrophic consequences". The worst that happens is that they don't find what they were looking for. I don't know if I can put this any more plainly: there is not enough energy involved or obtainable in this reaction to cause any unforeseen consequences.

Well, yes, it would. That, however, is also completely.fucking.impossible.

 

So....colliding particles at 99.9% the speed of light creates no energy.

Is that correct?

What happened to basic physics since I last looked then?

Does not each action have an equal and opposite reaction?

Maybe.....maybe not, there's always the day after.

I'm not sure philosophical is the correct adjective there.

Let's get this straight....my physicist friend speculated that if something happens or is made to happen fast enough....then anything becomes possible......especially the unknown......obviously.......for the simple reason that the requisite speeds have not yet been manageable.

But.....99.9% is the speed that gold particles are smashed together at in the USA's particle accelerator......I doubt the LHC will run much slower once it's fully fired up.

From what I can gather, the fear is that any one, or any number of the microscopic black hole created by the LHC could escape the earth's gravity. Guess we'll just have to wait and see eh?

Where's Two: ?

 

Actually, it doesn't.

What happens is: the energy you give the particles to get them to 99.9% of lightspeed is turned to mass when you collide them and a large number of fleeting and momentary particles are formed. The energy turns to mass, as predicted by general relativity.

Not only that, but Newton's laws of motion do not apply on a quantum, sub-atomic scale. Sorry. If only they did. It's a long-standing dichotomy between Newtonian and Quantum physics. 'Basic physics', as you put it, isn't relevant.

This process is nothing like splitting an atom to release energy, which seems to me to be what you're thinking of. This process is like giving a huge amount of energy to a particle to see what types of matter is becomes. Ergo: no danger of a huge release of energy, because it's all mass.

It has been pointed out by any number of scientists that this fear is entirely unfounded.

 

ok.

Yes...I know.....but it wasn't exactly pissed up dossers on a park bench who pointed out the possibilty either...but I do accept they maybe just wanted to raise their profile.

Oh.....and it's protons being smashed together....not photons. ok?

 

Was it? Or was it actually people like the Daily Mail, who are notorious for inflating things? We'll never know. What I do know is the most renowned people like Hawking et all were trying desperately to reassure people who'd been misguided by some self-gratifying idiot or other.

Yeah, I realised that - which is why I didn't specify the particle type in my last post!

Stupid error. Apologies.

 

Tell me more you furry goddess.

Just gonna rescue the models not the scinetists, oh and liberate some of their cash and all the nazi gold they are hiding.

 

This mentions a couple of names.......

How much time will the world be given to review their safety study when completed?

CERNs web site states that we have not been destroyed by effects of cosmic rays and micro black holes will evaporate.

However, cosmic rays travel too fast to be captured by Earths gravity, while collider particles smash head on and can be captured by Earths gravity. Einsteins relativity theory predicts that micro black holes will not decay but instead only grow, and Hawking Radiation is an unproven and disputed theory that contradicts relativity.

The LHC Safety Assessment Group has been trying for months to prove safety without success. However science may still be a few years away from being able to prove safety or not.

Professor Dr. Otto E. Roessler, Theorist Dr. Raj Baldev and others are warning of a very real possible danger to the planet from the Large Hadron Collider.

If this experiment is so safe, why arent CERN scientists allowed to express any personal fears they might have about this Collider?

Alleged in the legal action: Chief Scientific Officer, Mr. Engelen passed an internal memorandum to workers at CERN, asking them, regardless of personal opinion, to affirm in all interviews that there were no risks involved in the experiments, changing the previous assertion of minimal risk. (Statisticians generally consider minimal risk as 1-10%).

Which would be more wise, conduct a full and independent adversarial safety study first, or just turn it on now and see what happens?

http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2213027/doomsday-lawsuit-against



And this is quite amusing too.....

From The Times

November 5, 2009


LHC: Black holes and bunkum

Nature sabotaging the LHC? Black holes devouring the planet? The CERN project has provoked some fearful reactions

Mark Henderson, Science Editor

As CERN prepared to switch on the Large Hadron Collider last year, the prospect of pushing back the frontiers of physics was not the only reason for fevered anticipation. There was also the small matter of the end of the world.
The powerful particle smasher, it was claimed, could potentially create a black hole that would devour the planet. Though the notion was always fanciful, it led to a lawsuit seeking to shut the LHC down, and right up until “Big Bang Day” CERN scientists had to field tearful phone calls pleading with them not to push the button.
These fears have melted away, only to be topped by a still stranger concern that makes black hole oblivion look like the height of reason. The latest claim is that, as the New York Times put it, the LHC is being “sabotaged by its own future”.
The idea, proposed by Holger Nielsen of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen and Masao Ninomiya, of Kyoto University, is that the Higgs boson — the “God particle” that the collider is trying to discover — is in some sense abhorrent to nature. So grave would be the consequences of its creation that the cosmos (or God, as some would have it) is conspiring to thwart the LHC. That could explain the magnet accident, and perhaps also the cancellation of an American collider that would likewise have hunted the Higgs.
Nielsen and Ninomiya, who are reasonably mainstream physicists, have used clever maths to show that while this scenario is very unlikely, it isn’t impossible. They suggest that a card game be used to decide whether to restart the LHC. Only one card among hundreds of millions would stop the project, but if it were drawn, the collider should never be switched on.
CERN has rejected this, with good reason. For Nielsen and Ninomiya fit squarely in the tradition of physicists playing around with equations to prove that very weird things are not forbidden by nature. That doesn’t mean, of course, that they will happen — indeed, we should usually proceed as if they will not.
The whole idea rests on what the pair, in their own papers, describe as “not completely convincing” assumptions. The hypothesis is also difficult to reconcile with the fact that cosmic rays, which constantly bombard Earth, can create collisions similar to those of the LHC. Ultimately the idea is not meant to be taken that seriously: it’s a thought experiment, almost a physics in-joke.
Physicists are divided as to whether the Nielsen-Ninomiya hypothesis is intellectually justified. Sean Carroll, of Caltech, California, thinks the idea “crazy, but not crackpot, which is a distinction worth drawing”. Tomasso Dorigo, of the Italian Institute of Nuclear Physics, has a less charitable view: “It’s very sad to see some valuable minds writing such a pile of unmitigated bullshit.”

 

NO NO NO! they did not build it to "smash things and see what happens." It is quite well know in the physics community that by smashing 2 particles together, they interact and spit off other particles. Yes, randomly smashing particles together becaues they can will happen, but that is ABSOLUTLY NOT the sole reason for building it. I dont know much about trying to set up the universe in its earliest stage, but i do know that one thing the LHC is going to be used for is to search for the Higgs boson.

 

Well tell them not to bother I just found it in my garden shed.

 

Sorry.....but....YES YES YES.

The machine is solely designed to enable protons to smash together at near to the speed of light. It's basically a huge and very expensive piece of apparatus.

The purpose of smashing protons together is to see if the Higgs is created, if indeed it does even exist.....or, in other words, to see what happens.

 

My point was less about the smashing and more about the creating. science knows what happens when 2 protons collide, and its not that exciting in terms of the quantum world. But the particles that are created from the collision are useful. More smashing yields more creation. for the most part, science knows what should happen, all elementary particles have been created before, its just that one last step for the Higgs that they arent sure about.

The LHC is not about smashing hoping to see something interesting, its about creating the particles that are needed to study everything else

 

Look, I myself am no physicist but even a rudimentary amount of understanding leads me to the conclusion that what WAS created from the big bang is the universe we have today.

The purpose of this experiment is to understand HOW it happened...that's why it's also called the God particle.

Higgs bosun is a theory....not a fact, so they at Cern are looking to recreate a model of the moments just after the big bang took place to see if the theory is correct.

Nothing else will be created....apart from lots of tiny black holes.