FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


CERN's LHC





Dennise
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 Smile
teko
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!
killianvillian
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.
Xanatos
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.
killianvillian
Quote:
Oh and that black hole metaphor failed. Miserably.


please explain. i will learn.
Bikerman
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.
Xanatos
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.
kvrss
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.
Xrave
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.
Bikerman
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 Smile
kvrss
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
Xanatos
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.
steve1200
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!
kvrss
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...
Tuvitor
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.
ajassat
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.
Xanatos
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.
Bikerman
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..
Xanatos
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.
Bikerman
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?
vineeth
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...
Xanatos
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.
yagnyavalkya
large hardon collider is back in action!
yagnyavalkya
Just what do you all think will be the fall out of the large hardon collider experiment will the physicists actually find the nature of the particle called the boson are the supposedly elusive particle called the anti matter or the positron
Will there be answers to the most fundamental questions regarding the origins of the universe
yagnyavalkya
Will they really find the dark matter in CERN
will there really be a micro black hole
yagnyavalkya
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Will they really find the dark matter in CERN
will there really be a micro black hole

Looks like there is some break through and look s like we will know what is this dark matter
yagnyavalkya
when exactly will the experiment at CERN give us some findings that can be good
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
when exactly will the experiment at CERN give us some findings that can be good
It might already have done so. It takes time to pour over the results of particular 'smashes' and researchers will be analysing results for decades.
yagnyavalkya
Power problems in CERN again
Bikerman
Haven't seen anything in the normal sources....have you a link?
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:
Haven't seen anything in the normal sources....have you a link?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10197967.stm
It says "Hadron Collider hit by power cut"
Bikerman
Seems like a non-story to me...
"It was all up and running again over the weekend."
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:
Seems like a non-story to me...
"It was all up and running again over the weekend."

Thankfully yes great work by the team at CERN
rewrite
Perhaps it is has to do with that quantum theory? Look here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece

Apparently the Higgs is incompatible with our world! But that's not what I think. I think the Higgs is simply too heavy, as many other physicists say. And what with string theory, if there really are Sparticles, then a Higgs must have a counterpart heavier than Higgs.
Bikerman
rewrite wrote:
Perhaps it is has to do with that quantum theory? Look here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6879293.ece

Apparently the Higgs is incompatible with our world! But that's not what I think. I think the Higgs is simply too heavy, as many other physicists say. And what with string theory, if there really are Sparticles, then a Higgs must have a counterpart heavier than Higgs.

Err...do you actually know what you are talking about here? You are mixing supersymmetry, standard model and string theory in a way which is playing hell with my noggin.
New work from Foster and Richards on electroweak measurements seems to hint that the Higgs, if it is there, will be in the 95-100GeV range - well reachable at the LHC.
Benson et al still favour the 180+GeV range which is not so easy, but should still be possible to spot via b-quark decay.

As for the new 'cosmic censorship' proposal by Nielson - I think he is doing very bad science. He assumes that there is something out of the ordinary and then proposes a type of cosmic censorship hypothesis to account for it. I don't actually see anything out of the ordinary and therefore don't need the censor model...
The LHC is new cutting edge kit - it has had 1 major breakdown. That, I would say, is about par for something of this complexity - perhaps even over par.
rewrite
trudat.

But isn't Supersymmetry also a part of Superstring theory? And doesn't string theory say everything (including a huge Higgs) is made of tiny vibrating strings? Well that's why I mixed it up... sorta.

if it is the GeV range, how come the Tevatron couldn't find it? I think the Tevatron's highest energy record was 1.2 TeV? It all confuses me.
Bikerman
There are several SUSY models (SUSY=Super-symmetry).
One has fermions and bosons as SUSY partners - basically the SUSY partner has a different spin. So fermions (spin 1/2) are paired with bosons (integer spin).
Now, you ask about super partners being even bigger than Higgs?
Yep - the first models (Minimum SUSY Standard Model - MSSM) had super-partners with between 100GeV and 1TeV mass. Actually that isn't a problem - or at least not as serious as the problem that the standard model has. In the standard model the Higgs is as massive as you can get. Each time a Higgs boson interacts in a quantum manner, the mass is renormalised and you hit a brick wall - this is called the 'hierarchy problem'. The standard model tells us that it cannot work if the Higgs is really big because you reach a fuindamental energy limit. (That, incidentally, is one of the reasons for new SUSY theories - the fermion/boson interaction means the mass of the Higgs is not squared up and it works OK).

The downside is that SUSY introduces a whole raft of new particles at very high energies (mass).
SUSY can stand alone without Superstrng theory - it can work in 4 dimensions. Superstring theory needs 10+1 to work (as far as we can tell). Super-string theory is a symmetry theory so it needs SUSY, but SUSY doesn't need it.

Back to the Higgs - it has no spin and therefore no SUSY partner (it is its own SUSY partner AND its own antiparticle as well). If the Higgs is less that 1TeV then the standard model can explain it. If not then it cannot and would need junking - which would open up the field to all sorts of alternatives like string theory Loop Quantum Gravity, Non-string SUSY and so on...

Then it gets quite complex, because SUSY can't just have a single Higgs - it needs two Higgs doublets, leading to the existence of a quintet of scalar particles: two CP-even neutral Higgs bosons (h and H), a CP-odd neutral Higgs boson (A), and two charged Higgs particles (H±).
rewrite
I see. That's interesting, I didn't know SuperSymmetry could be independent from String Theory. So, what do you think: Do you think the standard model is wrong? It is definitely incomplete, but is it wrong?
Bikerman
rewrite wrote:
I see. That's interesting, I didn't know SuperSymmetry could be independent from String Theory. So, what do you think: Do you think the standard model is wrong? It is definitely incomplete, but is it wrong?

I'm not much of a quantum person - prefer the big stuff and GR. The standard model shouldn't be thrown away too quickly - it has proved remarkably accurate to date. Yes, I'm sure there is something wrong with every theory. I know that General Relativity is flawed in a big way, so I wouldn't be surprised if particle physics model was also off....that's how we go in science, build up the next theory then try to knock it down...
LittleBlackKitten
Even if we did get the Higgs, We'd all have a flash forward first. Very Happy
Related topics
Antimatter
The 4th (spatial) dimension
Superstring Theory
speed of light
New way to test time travel
dunyanin en buyuk deneyi
Time Travel: Is it Possible?
Is there two types of Gravity?
The Large Hadron Collider.
What is the universe expanding into?
If you look in every direction will you see the samething?
String Theory and Unification
Higgs boson
[Tecg] Querella contra el LHC
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.