LHC Question/observation

4

4thfold99

Temporal Novice
Hello.


I have a question in terms of the speculation on LHC. When we think of how many particles that aquired mass it took to form such things as planets, stars, star clusters, etc...
When we grasp measurements that scale such things as these...
I believe we realize in some relative terms how small a mountain is comparitively.
With our limited knowledge of black holes, and how they work/expand/diminish, how can we know that a "small black hole" would not be formed larger quickly either on it's own accord, or because of some favourable available catalyst (IE; anti-matter vs matter reactions, etc).

I rather doubt in natural conditions, a black hole, at least a natural one, would seldom (most likely never) originate directly ON a planetary body.

Quote;
"Sometimes the core survives the explosion. If the surviving core is between 1.5 - 3 solar masses it contracts to become a tiny, very dense Neutron Star. If the core is much greater than 3 solar masses, the core contracts to become a Black Hole"
/End quote.

So I'm taking for granted the explosion is a center driven force of energy, therefore the creation of the said large black hole should be natural to be birthed at the center of what it is feeding on immediately (360 degrees).
So this could be something that a naturally occurring ecosystem didn't account for?
That usually in my observation creates an erratic result.
(IE; cancer)

As well if this experiment creates a tiny "black hole" would it not as well create a scalable equivlant to that of a Neutron Star?
What would that be? a higgs boson?
(They do seem to be opposites, one deconstructs mass, the other creates - (does anyone know how to control what it creates? lol)).

Something that is granted mass before it's natural birth cycle? Interesting.
So in an ironic way this may be the answer to;
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?".
 
Something that is granted mass before it's natural birth cycle? Interesting.
So in an ironic way this may be the answer to;
"What came first, the chicken or the egg?".
Click to expand...

Lol, The Dinosaur...

Jusassic chicken

A Californian team has managed to get the beaks of chicken embryos to grow tooth buds, something their ancestors lost the ability to do 60 million years ago.

and:
this is from
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
Most Black Holes Might Come in Only Small and Large
August 20, 2008

Black holes are sometimes huge cosmic beasts, billions of times the mass of our sun, and sometimes petite
 
Quote;
"Black holes are sometimes huge cosmic beasts, billions of times the mass of our sun, and sometimes petite "

It's a plausible theory. Though still a theory. I rather doubt we are masters of black holes, much less mild amateurs towards the context of what we're playing with. It's alot more than controlling a say, tornado, and I doubt we're too far along there. The science is way beyond what forces of nature are even between the two to say the least.
Is that the whole passion for this experiment, to show us what "we do not know" ?
I just hope whatever things we learn, they are so "100%" containable, even though we get giddy with excitement for the "unknowns"; rather disturbing but interesting nonetheless lol.

Agree or disagree?
 
Just on Time: was:LHC Question/observation

Consider this:

The Secret to CERN, Time Travel, Time Portals and Personal Time Machines is this:
-every of them rotate in some way...

Quoted: Dr. Bruce DePalma circa 1977 in this TimeWorld



"The fact that Newton’s Laws do not distinguish between the spinning and the non-rotating object represents the state of mechanical knowledge at the time. But because Newton did not distinguish between rotation and non-rotation, Einstein did not distinguish between the so-called inert and 'gravitational mass.' The fact that rotation affects the mechanical properties of objects places Newton’s Laws as a special case and invalidates a geometrical [Einsteinian] interpretation of space.

"… in a strict sense, the precise application of Newton’s laws [based on these experiments] … have to be restricted to non-rotating mechanical objects in field-free space. In a gravitational field, the possibility of extraction of greater energy by a new mechanical dimension [rotation] opens up the possibility [against both Newton and Einstein] of an anti-gravitational interaction [emphasis added] ….”

-- "Gravity & The Spinning Ball Experiment"
Bruce DePalma

Simularity Institute, March 17, 1977

Then if "it" spining "we need" in this Time world a New Math, cause "our" current Math is Useless!!! is just a particular and restricted case...

see Examples Here on TTI:
The Secret of...

Maybe in one year we got a Mature new Science...look for the discoveries of Dr. Michio Kaiku

Then:
Discuss, Please...
 
"On the timescale of 50-100 years... you might conceivably be able to alter the DNA of a chicken, say, to reconstruct something that looks more like a dinosaur,"

Thats the day I stop eating chicken. lol

My friend at work today said she saw on the news that they are going to start radiating spinache.

Is that safe to radiate food?


I have the hunch that we will learn alot once the LHC starts its many experiments.
The only thing is I guess it will take along time to go through all of the collected data.
 
4thfold99,

As well if this experiment creates a tiny "black hole" would it not as well create a scalable equivlant to that of a Neutron Star?
Click to expand...

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. But taking a couple of charged atomic particles and fusing them to form a black hole isn't like a neutron star. Hadrons, particles that are composed of quarks - neutrons and protons for example, are already denser than a neutron star. Their angular momenta are already greater than that of a neutron star. In other words, normal matter is already a bit denser than neutronium at the atomic level because protons and neutrons are as dense as matter can get without forming a black hole. But we don't see our arms, legs, fingers or toes popping out of existence ala a Tipler Cylinder because they happen to be made from matter denser than neutronium that has angular momenta greater than a neutron star.

If two protons form a micro black hole we still won't see any direct effects in the macro world. The EM field of the ultra tiny BH would be ~10^42 times greater than the gravitational field. Quantum physics completely ignores gravitation at the subatomic level because it has virtually zero effect at that scale. Gravitation is simply dwarfed out of existence because of the magnitude of the electric field. If you took two 1g balls of protonium and placed them a kilometer apart in a vacuum space devoid of any other EM field the gravitational field between them would be almost zero. But the electrical repulsion would be so great that they would fly apart at near the speed of light.

Gravitation only becomes apparent when a significant number of particles are in close proximity to each other - and that only occurs when the mix of p+ and e- is approximately equal. Otherwise the like charges repel and the particles don't come into close proximity.

But the real issue is that in really far out theory requiring some really far out conditions to come together all at once the LHC could conceivably form a strangelet - a form of matter made up of strange quarks. If a large strangelet is formed it is in theory a stable form of matter than in theory converts normal matter into strange matter. Thus the Doomsday Scenario.

The problem is that two hadrons only have six quarks between them. And that's not sufficient to form a large strangelet - if strange quarks can be made at all outside the core of very large neutron stars where the core temp is on the order of 10^13 kelvin. Add to this that the strangelets have to be uniformly negatively charged to attract other normal matter atoms (protons). Otherwise, if they are positively charged, they simply repel other matter.
 
ha! The Dino-Chicks

My friend at work today said she saw on the news that they are going to start radiating spinache.

Is that safe to radiate food?
Click to expand...

Not good for Health

Quoted:
Despite FDA studies showing that irradiated food was killing lab animals, the organization approved the use of radiation for food processing. Like microwaves, gamma radiation of foods results in the formation of radiolytic products, or radiotoxins, such as formaldehyde and benzene, known to cause cancer. Not all products that are irradiated require the "radura" insignia. So here is another excellent reason to eat organic foods that have not been irradiated.

from:
Radiating your food...

I have the hunch that we will learn alot once the LHC starts its many experiments.
The only thing is I guess it will take along time to go through all of the collected data.
Click to expand...

Right, the change is near circa September 10... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Their angular momenta are already greater than that of a neutron star.
Click to expand...

Quoting myself here:

Just a clarification. Obviously a two hadron mass BH doesn't have a net angular momentum of an entire star. What I meant was that the angular momentum of a hadron is greater per unit of mass than the net angular momentum of a star. In the neutron star the sum of the individual particles' angular momenta tend to cancel leaving only the (spin) angular velocity of the original star as a whole. Divide the net angular momentum of the neutron star by the number of particles in the star and the quotient is less than the angular momentum of an individual hadron.

I know that the above sounds counter-intuitive because the star is made from individual particles and each particle has a huge angular momentum. But remember that the vector of the particle's angular momenta are "pointing" all over the map - in every direction. If you sum the vectors of every particle's angular momentum the resulting vector is going to be vanishingly tiny compared to the momentum of the entire star that results from it's rotation. Though the individual particles' momenta are huge, as noted, they cancel each other out over the volume of the entire star.
 
Has anyone ever thought that maybe some...hmmm say 13 billion years ago some hadron collider went off in another parallel universe causing the birth of our own? I know, its a wild stoner theory, but it sounds like what they want to do is..."create a universe" am I wrong? I know they just want to recreate stuff on a small, scale, look for particles they've never seen before, but do they know if all it could take is one of these particles to ....

Ill stop there.
 
it sounds like what they want to do is..."create a universe" am I wrong? I know they just want to recreate stuff on a small, scale, look for particles they've never seen before, but do they know if all it could take is one of these particles to ....

Ill stop there.
Click to expand...

Oh go ahead and say it...

"...gobble up the universe like a blueberry cobbler."

You're absolutely correct. If you go onto CERN at the LHC homepage that's all they talk about - making a new universe and watching it expand in the lab from it's cosmic egg size to several cubic light years in volume. That's the alpha and the omega of the entire project, I kid you not.

In fact, if you look closely at those pages the real underlying purpose becomes quite clear: to destroy the universe by purposely creating and unleashing a mega-strangelet on Day 1.
 
So really in some ways the two fears are somewhat comparable in their functions at least as it relates to human survival. I call that "pseudoscience" in some ways for personal interpetation, but I realize that once a theory is proven wrong it's even less than such. It makes me wonder if the LHC is the competition of egos waited to be proven "right", if such is the case and if there is more than one theory of possible "certainties" towards speculations - then I hope the more optimistic have it "proven" correctly.
I especially liked the theory in the beginning of the movie "21". A small event changing the odds of outcome was an interesting proposal for thought. One could almost equate it to the (photon) double slit experiment on the quantum lvl of life (though I suppose that would rule in "all possibility" - as it is one, it is both, it is neither). To myself, it always seems the outside the box geared thinking individuals either seem 'crazy' or 'genius'.
Not sure if there's always such a huge 'differential' between the two.
At any rate, I hope the geniuses down there have the right idea.
 
It makes me wonder if the LHC is the competition of egos waited to be proven "right"
Click to expand...

4thfold99,

I'm hoping that you're not referencing my most recent post here. I was kidding Concussion with that response. CERN isn't trying to blow up the planet.


Do egos get involved with scientists? Sure it does. It happens in every profession. But are egos the primary motivating force behind their endeavors? Not at all. They're honestly trying to expand our knowledge of how the world works.

CERN's LHC is a test bed for theoretical physics. With respect to the Higgs particle they're attempting to discover what it is that mediates the force that we call mass. Mass is the quality of matter that, in one respect, resists acceleration. Based on the totality of what we know about quantum physics there is always a particle of some sort that mediates (transports) the physical forces of nature. We logically accept the fact that a mass isn't going to move without some force being applied because of our everyday experience. What we don't really know is why matter so resists acceleration. That actually defies absolute logic and requires experimental verification. It's believed in theory that the Higgs Particle is responsible for the resistence. Thus some of the experiments planned for the LHC are designed to answer the question, "What is mass?"

If they can verify that the Higgs Particle exists and its properties are as theorized then we have a basis for not only understanding the subject, but manipulating it.
 
Perhaps a redundant question but what if the "Higgs" particle doesn't respond well to some of the variables we'll be introducing it into? (IE; our atmosphere).
Or furthermore on the "tiny black hole" subject, how do we know that our atmospheric gases wouldn't be a growth accelerator for them?

Just remember that it took scientists to create alot, but it as well took Gene Roddenbury to think of alot for them lol. Correct me if I'm wrong but I've even recently read some scientific articles on CNN about furtherments in "cloaking" technology. Hrm, who coined that term?

I'd hate to see the outcome of the book if this machine was so - in a 6th degree of subconscious seperation kind of way (
). I mean, what do most books with a particle smasher the size of a small subway have for the "twist" in the plot?

And no I will not get into Tesla, or the philadelphia experiment (strange how those sailors recount seeing their friends molecules joined with such things as metal etc).

I'll just be curious on september 10th when they go to fire it up, if they'll accidentally wait until the hour that september 11th is dawning along some time zone. That would give a crazy story, even if it only belongs in a book; what a "strangelet" that would create...
 
Perhaps a redundant question but what if the "Higgs" particle doesn't respond well to some of the variables we'll be introducing it into? (IE; our atmosphere).
Click to expand...

4thfold99,

The real test of a scientific theory is generality of application. If you have a theory that requires you to only apply it to specific rather than general circumstances then you have an ad hoc theory - and it's probably wrong. We humans divide the universe into things like rocks, stars, planets and atmosphere in a rather arbitrary manner. The descriptions fit our instant needs but they really are all the same thing: "stuff" made from atomic elements. To the best of our current knowledge, backed by 400 years of experimental verification, no mater what form the matter takes its all governed by the same laws of physics. We just haven't discovered the fully integrated laws underlying the processes.

If the theory applies to one situation then it should apply to all situations. That would include the interior of a star and the atmosphere of planet Earth.

A large part of the undiscovered integration of the laws involves the failure of both absolute determinisism and absolute simultaniety. During the Golgen Age of Physics, 1905 to about 1930, we extended Newton's classical laws of physics to include both Einstein's two great relativistic theories and Heisenberg's theory of quantum physics. Both sets of physical law clearly state that there is an absolute limit as to what we can know at any given time about a system under consideration.

The limit as to how quickly infomation can be transmitted is contained in Special Relativity. The speed of light is fixed and the same in every frame of reference irrespective of the relative velocity between competing frames of reference. The failure of absolute simultaniety at a distance is also contained in Special Relativity. There is an inherent uncertainty, according to Special Relativity, as to just when two or more events occured if they are seperated in spacetime. The order in which they occured is not uncertain, however.

Heisenberg introduced yet another uncertainty in his postulates of quantum physics. There are certain qualities involved in an event that are, when compared to each other, non-commutative. Velocity and position are two such qualities. One can't simultaneously measure to an arbitrary degree of precision both the position and velocity of an object.

I'm not sure where you were going with the "six degrees of seperation" but it does involve our past conversations here.

Six degrees of seperation involves how a system evolves over time. In our conversations I've spoken to the situation where a time traveler comes into a scenario.

The would-be time travelers who haunt our board generally state that they are unobtrusive observers. They don't want to change anything. The problem is that just being here causes change. I've posed the scenario where "Tom", a member of the forum, is destined to marry "Sue" and they are thereafter destined to have some children. HOwever, on the evening that Tom is supposed to "bump" into Sue - their first meeting that results in love ever after - Tom instead spends a few extra minutes reading the erstwhile unobtrusive time traveler's posts. In so doing he's just a few seconds late in doing whatever it was that caused him to meet Sue. They never meet, they never marry and they don't have children. Instead they each meet someone else, marry and have entirely different sets of children. That also means that the people that they ended up marrying never marry and have children with the people that they would have in the Tom-Meets-Sue Scenario. This situation cascades through the population. After six degrees of seperation, in this case six generations of human development, the people and history of the planet is entirely different than what it would have been in the Tom-Meets-Sue Scenario...

and all the time traveler did was make anonymous posts on a TT forum. S/he never had any direct contact with anyone and didn't take any overt action to change history.

That's the effect of Six Degrees of Seperation.
 
on a side note...

The scary thing here is that axiom's of the fourth dimension are literally worthless. If key to our understaning of the 3rd is the ruling factor of the fourth (3rd gravity, 4th time) - what is the ruling factor of the fifth that would affect existence substaintially within the fourth from the fifth?
Our limited comprehension of time I believe shows our ignorance of possibility. Duality allows for the creation of things, it also allows for the destruction of things. Relating as well perhaps to "the Monty Hall problem" of "desired" result.
Here's a question;

If we could see the first two protons to collide that are travelling at 99.9% the speed of light; would the outcome change drastically if we observed too closely ? (change from particle to wave or vice versa - *See Estermann and Otto Stern 1929).

Or would just discussing it here have any bearing? (the pebble causing a large "ripple" eventually throughout the pond).

Anyone have a guess at the odds of such a thing?
 
oh and for Recall;

Quote;

"Lol, The Dinosaur...

Jusassic chicken

A Californian team has managed to get the beaks of chicken embryos to grow tooth buds, something their ancestors lost the ability to do 60 million years ago. "

----------------------------------------

So Recall, with such admission to that theory; you are saying you admit to being a monkey's uncle? (I couldn't resist :oops: )
(...and yes, I realize the context in which I used the word "admission" - call it a personal metaphor if nothing else - please no grammatical corrections, there is personal meaning intended /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif ).
 
What we don't really know is why matter so resists acceleration.
Click to expand...

Its an old theory but I like the ather. The fact that all matter rest upon a subatomic/energy frame that glues the universe together. When matter moves this subatomic/energy frame resist matter moving but once matter is moving this subatomic/energy frame closes behind the matter pushing it forward. When matter is converted to energy then it becomes part of this frame thus conserving all the energy in the universe. It is an old theory. One that would need much more explaining and proof than I am showing here. I would like to think that what LHC might find is that the universe is not only complex but elegant in its design. I hope to read about their discoveries but also I kinda of wonder if some of what they will find will be classified.
 
So Recall, with such admission to that theory; you are saying you admit to being a monkey's uncle? (I couldn't resist )
(...and yes, I realize the context in which I used the word "admission" - call it a personal metaphor if nothing else - please no grammatical corrections, there is personal meaning intended ).
Click to expand...

Wrong target LOL
is jus t the case of genetic manipulation...nothing more! :oops:
 
Hypothetical just for fun


If one were to imagine a world complete as it is now, however without any humans at all...how would one go about making something that most closely resembles what we know as human; using only what creatures are already here?

Pig and monkey is my answer. Anyone else venture one for fun?
 
Back
Top