• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Largest Particle Collider Conducts Successful Test

RangerXML said:
Actually the smaller a blackhole is the more potential for power it has. Basically the theory is that the more mass a backhole has the smaller it is because it has creates more gravity. I mean a blackhole is already the result of screwed up physics, something that the more powerful it becomes, the smaller it becomes. Super massive blackholes are actually really small at the center and have those nice disks of matter around them, clearing out space for light years around...like a galaxy. There are many different types of blackholes including the more common ones found around galaxies. These tend to be bigger, but with less wake of damage around them, there solar system maybe gone, but the don't draw in entire sectors of the galaxies.

Now creating a pin-sized blackhole is almost impossible, unless the drop a lot of energy and mass into that thing, they won't be doing that for a whole month. They are talking about a pin sized blackhole, which for its size does not contain a lot of mass, but builds mass by consuming any matter around. This, in our case would be the earth and anything on or in it. Again, the amount of mass and energy they would need to send through the LHC would be well, to be honest, more then what is on this earth, maybe Saturn or Jupiter have enough mass. To give you an example, the gravity of a blackhole greated with all the mass on eather, would A. have the same gravity as the earth and B. wouldn't be a blackhole for long because it wouldn't have the strength to sustain itself.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: We are talking about something created from the collision of 2 protons. The black hole does not have the mass needed to have substantial gravitational force. Also the black hole will be charged. And since everybody on this forum seems to have a degree in physics all of you will know that the electromagnetic force is much stronger than gravity. Think about how a small bar magnetic can hold a metal object suspended in the air against the entire force of gravity from earth.
Besides these black holes will evaporate unless something is seriously wrong with the theory. But of course the same theory that predicts the creation also predicts the evaporation into a shower of particles. Thus....

And yes I do have a degree in physics.
 
yevaud said:
LOL at the chinstrap on his hard hat. If I had to wear that at work, I'd go insane.
Agreed on the apparent loosening of the bolt....you NEVER use a torque wrench to loosen a bolt, though. Maybe those crazy swedes used left handed threads on all their bolting.

I stand by my comments on micro black holes, I posted in the other thread on this topic. Cosmic rays are indeed more energetic than the protons produced here, but the KEY difference is that when a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere, it does not immediately come to rest when hitting the relatively stationary atomic nucleii. Think of it like this, a billard ball hitting another billard ball..energy is transferred from the moving billard ball to the stationary...both continue to move, and the kinetic energy is shared between the two objects. In the same way, cosmic rays have multiple collisions as they pass through the atmosphere. The jagged strokes of lightning are caused by these rays ionizing a conductive pathway for the return stroke current to follow as they ricochet through dozens of collisions.
The point of the LHC is to have two particles collide 'head on' at approximately the same velocity (energy) and have all that kinetic energy converted to mass. Too much mass in too small a volume and you get a black hole. This type of collision DOES NOT occur in the upper atmosphere, and folks who let this console them need to consider why is it that billard balls don't break or chip when they hit each other? Try rolling two together in a head on fashion and see what happens (hint, wear eye protection).

I really hope Hawking is right about 'Hawking' radiation. And I applaud scientific experimentation, in all its forms- except forms that can potentially destroy the world.
Click to expand...

No offense but this post displays an obvious lack of knowledge pertaining to how collider experiments are performed and physics in general.
 
tacosareveryyummy said:
No offense but this post displays an obvious lack of knowledge pertaining to how collider experiments are performed and physics in general.
Click to expand...

Please explain where you think I've made any error, if you are able to talk on a technical level. Otherwise, I call BS on your physics degree, and you concede that you have no knowledge on this subject at all.
 
yevaud said:
LOL at the chinstrap on his hard hat. If I had to wear that at work, I'd go insane.
Agreed on the apparent loosening of the bolt....you NEVER use a torque wrench to loosen a bolt, though. Maybe those crazy swedes used left handed threads on all their bolting.

I stand by my comments on micro black holes, I posted in the other thread on this topic. Cosmic rays are indeed more energetic than the protons produced here, but the KEY difference is that when a cosmic ray hits the atmosphere, it does not immediately come to rest when hitting the relatively stationary atomic nucleii. Think of it like this, a billard ball hitting another billard ball..energy is transferred from the moving billard ball to the stationary...both continue to move, and the kinetic energy is shared between the two objects. In the same way, cosmic rays have multiple collisions as they pass through the atmosphere. The jagged strokes of lightning are caused by these rays ionizing a conductive pathway for the return stroke current to follow as they ricochet through dozens of collisions.
The point of the LHC is to have two particles collide 'head on' at approximately the same velocity (energy) and have all that kinetic energy converted to mass. Too much mass in too small a volume and you get a black hole. This type of collision DOES NOT occur in the upper atmosphere, and folks who let this console them need to consider why is it that billard balls don't break or chip when they hit each other? Try rolling two together in a head on fashion and see what happens (hint, wear eye protection).

I really hope Hawking is right about 'Hawking' radiation. And I applaud scientific experimentation, in all its forms- except forms that can potentially destroy the world.
Click to expand...

I like your explanations. I'm a layman, but I think I understand most of the basics.

So I was wondering.....

Its seems the smaller you go, the greater the force.
Large items = gravitation force (weak)
smaller items = EM force (strong force)

when you rip apart an atom... fission = atomic bomb = very big explosion

when you cause fusion.... = thermonuclear bomb = even bigger explosion

what happens when go down to the next level and rip a proton apart in to quarks.

I'm thinking thermonuclear explosion x100.
 
GOD, I hate the no edit of this subforum!!!

We've admitted we don't know what exactly holds quarks together to form protons, etc..

Doesn't it seems likely that ripping them apart will yield an explosion to anyone but me?
 
chrisf6969 said:
GOD, I hate the no edit of this subforum!!!

We've admitted we don't know what exactly holds quarks together to form protons, etc..

Doesn't it seems likely that ripping them apart will yield an explosion to anyone but me?
Click to expand...

hehehe nah, it doesn`t work like that, if u are really interested in that physics stuff i could recommend to you some book you can read, actually a lot of book that you´ll HAVE to read!! :D
 
chrisf6969 said:
I like your explanations. I'm a layman, but I think I understand most of the basics.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think some folks thought I was under the impression that subatomic particles acted like billard balls in every sense, which was certainly not my intention. I was just using that as an example.

The energy released in both fission and fusion reactions comes from the same basic mechanism, the conversion of mass into energy that Einstein described in his famous equation E=mc^2. Just a small amount of mass is converted to energy in even the largest hydrogen bombs. Colliders are all trying to do the exact opposite, convert energy into mass. They do this by accelerating charged particles to very high velocities, approaching the speed of light, in opposite directions. They the divert these two beams into detection chambers where they observe collisions. Glancing collisions create sprays of particles which have more or less been seen before and are well understood. It is the 'head on' collision that results in the most energy being turned into mass, and it is this collision that is the point of interest. There is no danger of a bomb type explosion from this type of interaction.
What concerns (some) of us is that this agreeably small amount of mass may possibly collapse into a singularity (black hole). If the admittedly incomplete understanding of physics by the physics community (as evidenced by the need to experiment in the first place) is correct, then the black hole will immediately "evaporate" into a spray of subatomic particles. I certainly hope that this is the case, and actually believe it most likely will be the case. But NO ONE is sure that this will be the case, and that scares the hell out of me.

If someone here is competent enough to explain how this black hole will interact with solar neutrinos and dark matter, and demonstrate this, not only will I be impressed, but I am sure they will receive this year's nobel prize in physics.
 
yevaud said:
But NO ONE is sure that this will be the case, and that scares the hell out of me.
Click to expand...
That's the odd thing about the "fear." At full power, the LHC will be colliding particles with energies of around 2 TeV. As report after report have pointed out, the Earth has been experiencing higher and much higher energy collisions in the atmosphere for billions of years. A gamma ray burst is several times to an order of magnitude higher energy still.

What amazes me out of this is how the universe could possibly still exist if there was even a small possibly of what the cranks are claiming. Supernovae would have created enough "killer" black holes to destroy everything in their wake if that was true. I'm going to go with "not." Sorry.
 
These black hole, magnetic monopoles, or stranglet arguments are foolish. The same sort of reaction occurs in the form of cosmic ray collisions in our upper atmosphere, and with far greater amounts of energy.
 
yevaud said:
Thanks, I think some folks thought I was under the impression that subatomic particles acted like billard balls in every sense, which was certainly not my intention. I was just using that as an example.

The energy released in both fission and fusion reactions comes from the same basic mechanism, the conversion of mass into energy that Einstein described in his famous equation E=mc^2. Just a small amount of mass is converted to energy in even the largest hydrogen bombs. Colliders are all trying to do the exact opposite, convert energy into mass. They do this by accelerating charged particles to very high velocities, approaching the speed of light, in opposite directions. They the divert these two beams into detection chambers where they observe collisions. Glancing collisions create sprays of particles which have more or less been seen before and are well understood. It is the 'head on' collision that results in the most energy being turned into mass, and it is this collision that is the point of interest. There is no danger of a bomb type explosion from this type of interaction.
What concerns (some) of us is that this agreeably small amount of mass may possibly collapse into a singularity (black hole). If the admittedly incomplete understanding of physics by the physics community (as evidenced by the need to experiment in the first place) is correct, then the black hole will immediately "evaporate" into a spray of subatomic particles. I certainly hope that this is the case, and actually believe it most likely will be the case. But NO ONE is sure that this will be the case, and that scares the hell out of me.

If someone here is competent enough to explain how this black hole will interact with solar neutrinos and dark matter, and demonstrate this, not only will I be impressed, but I am sure they will receive this year's nobel prize in physics.
Click to expand...


Well Put.
 
Guys, you are both entitled to your opinions, and I respect that. I am not comforted by the "we haven't seen it before, therefore it can't be possible" argument, but if you are, I don't have anything that will convince you otherwise.

FWIW, I believe that cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere may be creating microscopic black holes, and they have a velocity of roughly half the speed of light and pass through the earth in about the same direction as the incoming cosmic ray. Having such a high velocity, much higher than the earth's or even sun's escape velocity, they go off into space causing no real problem.

Now, the black holes created at the LHC will have MUCH lower velocities, especially those rare few that are generated by almost direct head on collisions. These are completely different from my perspective because even though they have very little mass and gravity of their own, they are not traveling at a high enough relative speed to escape the earth's or sun's gravitational pull. One created with close to zero speed relative to the earth, they would potentially fall toward the center of the earth, overshoot it, and oscillate back and forth, growing in size. I can even imagine one being created with a velocity vector that allows it to fall into the sun's gravity well. The result of that unlikely event would be even more dramatic, and immediate. All of this stems from the idea that maybe microscopic black holes can be stable, which is a theory that has not been disproved.
I personally don't believe that microscopic black holes can be stable- but I would not bet my life and everyone else's on that belief.
 
yevaud said:
Now, the black holes created at the LHC will have MUCH lower velocities, especially those rare few that are generated by almost direct head on collisions. These are completely different from my perspective because even though they have very little mass and gravity of their own, they are not traveling at a high enough relative speed to escape the earth's or sun's gravitational pull.
Click to expand...
Let us know when you have time away from your particle accelerator and are ready to publish.

There is absolutely no accepted framework to support what you believe, therefore it is an irrational fear.
 
I got out of physics when I realized there was little/no job opportunities out there for degreed physicist. Went the ME route instead and got a job- didn't want to spend years of my life forced to be a grad student teaching classes for professors who are obsessed with "getting published" and spend more time on that than what they are supposed to be doing.
To say that there is no accepted framework for what I believe is a strong statement, but I don't want to argue with you. What exactly do you disagree with me about? Remember, I am in the camp that thinks Hawking is probably right. I just don't KNOW he is right, because his theory has not been proven.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not some nut obsessed with the idea that the end of the world is coming. I think the odds are low, but I don't believe they're zero. If that doesn't cause fear in you, good for you. Some people like to hang glide, some people climb mountains, some skydive. More power to 'em, they're only risking THEIR lives. This is different, and I think it's irrational to proceed with this experimenting until other, more observational and less experimental testing has been completed.
 
leSLIe said:
what? you installed Windows ME ??
oh boy that´s why!!

:D
Click to expand...

LOL...I never bought windows ME or MEII for that matter...HA...replaced quite a few relatives' OS's with 2000 and XP who have been unfortunate enough to buy computers with that crap preinstalled.

by ME I meant Mechanical Engineer

I'm no expert in physics by any means, but I know enough about it to know the difference between theory and proof, and I'm not impressed with the current level of understanding of how the universe works, when 90% of the universe is reported to be some "dark matter/dark energy" that no one understands.
 
yevaud said:
LOL...I never bought windows ME or MEII for that matter...HA...replaced quite a few relatives' OS's with 2000 and XP who have been unfortunate enough to buy computers with that crap preinstalled.

by ME I meant Mechanical Engineer

I'm no expert in physics by any means, but I know enough about it to know the difference between theory and proof, and I'm not impressed with the current level of understanding of how the universe works, when 90% of the universe is reported to be some "dark matter/dark energy" that no one understands.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
yevaud said:
by ME I meant Mechanical Engineer

I'm no expert in physics by any means, but I know enough about it to know the difference between theory and proof, and I'm not impressed with the current level of understanding of how the universe works, when 90% of the universe is reported to be some "dark matter/dark energy" that no one understands.
Click to expand...

oh i´m also a ME ;)
well actually we don´t know squat about that, that´s why we have to experiment!!!!
 
Well, I have no objection to experimenting on the right scale. I have burnt myself and blown things up in the name of experimentation....but I haven't put other people in danger with my experiments.... it would take the fun out of it, if there was any chance anyone but myself would get hurt.
By the way, ME's rule ;)
 
yevaud said:
Well, I have no objection to experimenting on the right scale. I have burnt myself and blown things up in the name of experimentation....but I haven't put other people in danger with my experiments.... it would take the fun out of it, if there was any chance anyone but myself would get hurt.
By the way, ME's rule ;)
Click to expand...

indeed!!
MEs rule the world!! literally ;)
 
To make progress, we're gonna take the risk. Either we are alive and we learn something or we all poof.

 
pxc said:
Next: speeding up defrosting a turkey still frozen on Thanksgiving Day.
Click to expand...

obviouslytom said:
30 nanoseconds? TOO LONG :p
Click to expand...

Or giving those New Jersey man tans in 30 ns.

my.php
 
Boo no edit :(

Man = men and the link was suppose to be wrapped in the img tag instead of the url.
 
I was watching this video and I think the woman scientist (I'm assuming that's what she is) explained it the best: "We like to explain the things we don't understand". So there you have it, from the horses mouth, they don't understand what they are trying to learn.
 
mryerse said:
I was watching this video and I think the woman scientist (I'm assuming that's what she is) explained it the best: "We like to explain the things we don't understand". So there you have it, from the horses mouth, they don't understand what they are trying to learn.
Click to expand...

What's your point? There are many things we don't know and it's always arrogant to claim to know something without proving it. This forum reeks of it.

The LHC scientists at least have the balls to try and prove things they don't understand. There are thousands of scientists there at CERN and I'm sure there'll be SOMEONE there that'll raise a red flag and cry out in public if they think the remotest thing catastrophic would happen.
 
yesterday night, beam 2 was circulated for a while.
In the figures, one of the few clean events with 7 tracks from a collision.
this was sent to all the members of the Alice collaboration

here a few pics

beam2_58338chunk3_ev27_a.gif


beam2_58338chunk3_ev27_b.gif


beam2_58338chunk3_ev27_c.gif


beam2_58338chunk3_ev27_d.gif


beam2_58338chunk3_ev27_e.gif


beam2_58338chunk3_ev27_f.gif
 
TheBluePill said:
The experiment results from the LHC *might* result in learning how to manipulate gravity. With that knowledge, the human race would have a HUGE jump in capability and technology.

Think of the possibilities for Travel, Weapons Tech.. Etc.. Its amazing!
Click to expand...

Farnsworth: These are the dark matter engines I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.

Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.

Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.

Cubert: Also impossible.

[Scene: Ships Engine Room. Farnsworth admires the dark matter engines.]

Farnsworth: And what makes my engines truly remarkable is the afterburner which delivers 200% fuel efficiency.

Cubert: That's especially impossible.

Farnsworth: Not at all. It's very simple.

Cubert: Then explain it.

Farnsworth: Now that's impossible. It came to me in a dream and I forgot it in another dream.

Cubert: Your explanations are pure weapons-grade bolog-nium. It's all impossible.

Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being is a scientist is all about.

Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.
 
oh! with all the budget the have over at the CERN and they couldn´t afford some anti- aliasing!! for those pics!!! :p
 
Gott said:
Farnsworth: These are the dark matter engines I invented. They allow my starship to travel between galaxies in mere hours.

Cubert: That's impossible. You can't go faster than the speed of light.

Farnsworth: Of course not. That's why scientists increased the speed of light in 2208.

Cubert: Also impossible.

[Scene: Ships Engine Room. Farnsworth admires the dark matter engines.]

Farnsworth: And what makes my engines truly remarkable is the afterburner which delivers 200% fuel efficiency.

Cubert: That's especially impossible.

Farnsworth: Not at all. It's very simple.

Cubert: Then explain it.

Farnsworth: Now that's impossible. It came to me in a dream and I forgot it in another dream.

Cubert: Your explanations are pure weapons-grade bolog-nium. It's all impossible.

Farnsworth: Nothing is impossible. Not if you can imagine it. That's what being is a scientist is all about.

Cubert: No, that's what being a magical elf is all about.
Click to expand...

i applaud you sir, that was funny as hell
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top