If you are interested in CERN's new Large Hadron Collier (LHC) in Europe, here are a couple good links:
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html
http://cdsmedia.cern.ch/img/CERN-Brochure-2008-001-Eng.pdf
Enjoy 
great thanks for the links worth checking out. Although I see now it didn´t last long the experiments and its out of order now for many months. Ah well at least the end of the world now might be postponed for a while!
The LHC could have done more than we think. There are scientists in my head who think that it actually was a major factor in the economic downturn that arguably `just` begun.
I am human, therefore prone to mistaken interpretation. However, this trait is characteristic of us as a whole. No matter how sophisticated our technology gets, we always push it until it breaks. But this is a good thing.
And bad. The economy needed a boost. The internet is no longer fueling a bubble of expanding money flow, and the global warming is no longer so shocking that it is scaring us into changing. Unfortunately i think this is more because gas prices are low again in the US.
BUT.
The LHC was coming along, to potentially lead us in a new scientific direction. I would like to argue that it was a sort of superbillion dollar coin toss. Heads we win, tails we lose. Of all the liquid flowing through that thing, unfortunately it had to spill into the unsealed cavities, and along with it our hopes of a new scientific frontier.
BUT AGAIN. Maybe it did create a black hole. One that instead of sucking out all of the light that gets near it, it sucked out all the darkness obscuring the fact that we are a world running on a money supply that doesnt exist.
I hope when the dust settles, the grass is green again.
| killianvillian wrote: |
The LHC could have done more than we think. There are scientists in my head who think that it actually was a major factor in the economic downturn that arguably `just` begun.
I am human, therefore prone to mistaken interpretation. However, this trait is characteristic of us as a whole. No matter how sophisticated our technology gets, we always push it until it breaks. But this is a good thing.
And bad. The economy needed a boost. The internet is no longer fueling a bubble of expanding money flow, and the global warming is no longer so shocking that it is scaring us into changing. Unfortunately i think this is more because gas prices are low again in the US.
BUT.
The LHC was coming along, to potentially lead us in a new scientific direction. I would like to argue that it was a sort of superbillion dollar coin toss. Heads we win, tails we lose. Of all the liquid flowing through that thing, unfortunately it had to spill into the unsealed cavities, and along with it our hopes of a new scientific frontier.
BUT AGAIN. Maybe it did create a black hole. One that instead of sucking out all of the light that gets near it, it sucked out all the darkness obscuring the fact that we are a world running on a money supply that doesnt exist.
I hope when the dust settles, the grass is green again. |
Umm.. the LHC hasn't really even started yet.
Oh and that black hole metaphor failed. Miserably. | Quote: |
| Oh and that black hole metaphor failed. Miserably. |
please explain. i will learn.Well,
a) Consider that the LHC certainly did not contribute to the current economic situation. The cost was miniscule, compared to other publically funded programmes. In fact you will find that projects like the LHC act as financial stimulii rather than economic 'drags'. You currently see (in the US and in Europe) proposals for major public spending on various projects in order to 'kick start' the economy and drag it out of recession.
b) The LHC is really a heads we win, tails we win scenario. Worst case scenario is that it will fail to detect the Higgs boson. Well, such a negative result would be very informative. It would, at the very least, tell us that the Higgs does not occur in the sort of energies that the LHC can generate. It might even tell us that the whole notion of the Higgs Field is wrong and that we need to look elsewhere for a theory of 'mass'. 'Negative' results are always useful in science - sometimes they are more useful than 'positive' results, since science works by trying to refute a hypothesis.
| killianvillian wrote: |
| Quote: | | Oh and that black hole metaphor failed. Miserably. |
please explain. i will learn. |
if you don't see it.... then I can't help you.the lhc just simulates, what happens every day in the atmosphere od the earth.
if a mini black hole could destroy the earth, it woudld have happened many times before lhc.
Not really. to create a singularity on earth... is really difficult, although lightning might have the power, I doubt that it could compress a singularity out of thin air, which is rather thin.
| Xrave wrote: |
| Not really. to create a singularity on earth... is really difficult, although lightning might have the power, I doubt that it could compress a singularity out of thin air, which is rather thin. |
LOL...I think a few years reading some physics books might help.
Hint - compare the density of a supermassive black hole....less than water | Xrave wrote: |
| Not really. to create a singularity on earth... is really difficult, although lightning might have the power, I doubt that it could compress a singularity out of thin air, which is rather thin. |
imagine a interstellar particle crashing into an other molecule.
it is pretty fast, so the energy might be near the lhc-conditions | kvrss wrote: |
imagine a interstellar particle crashing into an other molecule.
it is pretty fast, so the energy might be near the lhc-conditions |
Actually high energy particles smashing into others in space create far far far far(emphasis on the far) greater energies than the LHC could ever hope to achieve.a friend of mine works at the CERN. It's a little bit offtopic but i wanted to post it ^^
I discussed with him about nuclear energy and radio activity. I had no chance in discussing with him about nuclear power plants. His arguments are pretty good, but i had to surrender.
Greets
Steph
p.s. I really like your links!
| Xanatos wrote: |
| kvrss wrote: | imagine a interstellar particle crashing into an other molecule.
it is pretty fast, so the energy might be near the lhc-conditions |
Actually high energy particles smashing into others in space create far far far far(emphasis on the far) greater energies than the LHC could ever hope to achieve. |
well, thats exactly what i wanted to say.
when even this events have not "eaten" the earth yet, LHC won't eather...I'm looking forward to what the LHC will find, but I fear that the machine is simply so complicated that it has too many points of failure, meaning that it will spend more time under repairs than it will be actually discovering something. If they can make it work, all the better for them. I honestly don't think it could create Armageddon, or black holes, or anything of the sort. I hope they can make it work, and I hope that it will lead us to an even greater understanding of the physical world.
If the machine works and produces results which prove the existence of Hawking radiation, then Stephen will surely win the Nobel Prize. Of course, one of the biggest questions the LHC should answer is where our universe came from? Does the Higgs 'God' particle account for dark matter in the universe (or even the Higgs field).
Considering the delays CERN have already experienced it will take some time before Scientists can analyse the data. Science (particularly theoretical), requires a great deal of patience. The machine will take time to produce results - the data is difficult to analyse too.
| ajassat wrote: |
| If the machine works and produces results which prove the existence of Hawking radiation, then Stephen will surely win the Nobel Prize |
As far as my limited understanding tells me...
Hawking radiation has to do with the spontaneous creation and destruction of a virtual and real particle. Normally this happens in empty space and the particles are destroyed instantaneously and so energy and matter is conserved, however when it occurs at the event horizon of a black hole the virtual particle gets pulled in and the real particle escapes which is the perceived radiation from the black hole. I'm not sure how the LHC is supposed to be able to prove this theory. | Xanatos wrote: |
| ajassat wrote: | | If the machine works and produces results which prove the existence of Hawking radiation, then Stephen will surely win the Nobel Prize |
As far as my limited understanding tells me...
Hawking radiation has to do with the spontaneous creation and destruction of a virtual and real particle. Normally this happens in empty space and the particles are destroyed instantaneously and so energy and matter is conserved, however when it occurs at the event horizon of a black hole the virtual particle gets pulled in and the real particle escapes which is the perceived radiation from the black hole. I'm not sure how the LHC is supposed to be able to prove this theory. |
Well, if micro-black holes are indeed created (and that is a whole other story, involving multiple dimensions, I think) then Hawking radiation predicts they would almost instantaneously evaporate in a 'puff' of energy. If this can be detected then it would offer the strongest possible support of Hawking radiation and, therefore, a certain Nobel.. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Xanatos wrote: | | ajassat wrote: | | If the machine works and produces results which prove the existence of Hawking radiation, then Stephen will surely win the Nobel Prize |
As far as my limited understanding tells me...
Hawking radiation has to do with the spontaneous creation and destruction of a virtual and real particle. Normally this happens in empty space and the particles are destroyed instantaneously and so energy and matter is conserved, however when it occurs at the event horizon of a black hole the virtual particle gets pulled in and the real particle escapes which is the perceived radiation from the black hole. I'm not sure how the LHC is supposed to be able to prove this theory. |
Well, if micro-black holes are indeed created (and that is a whole other story, involving multiple dimensions, I think) then Hawking radiation predicts they would almost instantaneously evaporate in a 'puff' of energy. If this can be detected then it would offer the strongest possible support of Hawking radiation and, therefore, a certain Nobel.. |
Well yeah, but as you pointed out in your post here, it shouldn't be creating mini black holes. So unfortunately for Hawking no Nobel Prize... Yet.True(ish).
Hawking puts the possibility at less that 1%.
The thing is, if superstring theory is correct then gravity should get much stronger as you get closer to the planck length. This is because superstring theory posits that the reason that gravity is so weak (compared to the other forces) is that it is 'spread' through the 6 extra dimensions of the 'calabi-yau' manifold at (or around) the Planck scale. Now, if this is indeed the case then it is possible that the LHC could indeed create micro black-holes.
Far from being scary this would be a rather wonderful result - it would give Hawking a Nobel for sure and it would also provide the first empirical evidence for superstring theory.
Now, do I think it will happen? Nope - I'm not at all convinced by SS theory, but there again I don't have the maths ability to appreciate the full beauty of the theory, so what do I know?
LHC is a big question. We all learned from religion that God made the universe. Science told us that no one made this world out of nothing and everything came into existence following a big bang. Now, science want to prove what is being thought around the globe for long times... The big bang theory and the mysteries of existence.
The world needs such an experiment and watch closely for shocking revelations about the mysteries of existence and what God is and what is not...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| 'm not at all convinced by SS theory, but there again I don't have the maths ability to appreciate the full beauty of the theory |
No one really does I think hehe...
| vineeth wrote: |
| Science told us that no one made this world out of nothing and everything came into existence following a big bang |
It did not all come from nothing. That is not in any way what the theory states. Matter that already existed expanded. This is what the theory states.
