The Large Hadron Collider

Darby, I think you may be looking for an excuse to shoot down the Cern Watch. However, it seems if this "low level physicist" is into cryogenics and magnets, his expertise in computers may not be expertise at all, hence the exageration/assumption that Cern has the most powerful computers on earth.
In regards to a stable singularity.... well, i don;t think we are there yet. Even with CERN, I don't think we can stabilize a singularity. Problem, that I think the upper scientists are worried about, is if they have a way to break up the sigularity after it is created.

Cern will run for hours, maybe days, and accumulate atomic particles in the ring. The particle beam will build, slowly, and eventually get to an energy level where the upper sci's think they can release that energy and make a singularity. While this beam is building up, huge amounts of power (as much as CERN can provide are being put into it. The steering magnetics keep many particles inline, and the ones that fall out of the line go into beam dumps. Beam dumps are link heat sinks on a computer chip are able to capture 100,000's of BTU' s. All this continuous energy, building up over time will do one of two things, if it is sucessful.

1. a singularity will be created for nano second and then collapse onto itself.
2. a singularity will be created and A) the containment field provided will be sufficient to stabilize it as long power is enough (it won't be), or B) the containment field will be swallowed by the singularity.

Now also keep in mind that a singularity is a beam in itself and behaves much like a pulsar. This means that a vector force of gravity will pierce the earth from cern all the way through to the south pacific ocean somewheres off the southeast coast of the Chatham Islands.
 
1. a singularity will be created for nano second and then collapse onto itself.
Click to expand...

What is this supposed to mean? It's a singularity (and I assume that you mean a gravitational singularity). The matter has already collapsed into a mass of zero size...a point of zero dimension.

2. a singularity will be created and A) the containment field provided will be sufficient to stabilize it as long power is enough (it won't be), or B) the containment field will be swallowed by the singularity.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by a stable singularity? Do you mean that it won't evaporate via Hawking Radiation? Or that a black hole with such a tiny mass and such a huge angular momentum and electrical charge isn't an extreme maximal Kerr-Newman black hole (KNBH)? The containment field would have nothing at all to do with the evaporation.

How does a mass of a couple of neucleons "swollow" the containment field? The gravitational field of the singularity would be almost precisely the same between neighboring particles as it was before the neucleons collided to form the black hole singularity.

Even if the hole became a permanent object in the universe it would take millions of years for it to gain any significant mass. The average seperation of neighboring neuclei in lead is similar to the average seperation of stars. After it attracts and absorbs a couple of electrons through the EM force the hole will be electrically neutral swimming in a virtual vacuum. It would be a very long time before it absorbed another particle because that particle would have to have a very small momentum and have a trajectory that would cause it to virtually collide with the hole because gravitation would not play a part in the process until it ran into the event horizon.

And then there's an almost insurrmountable problem that can't be hand waved away - the approaching particle would be so huge compared to the event horizon that only an infinitesimal fraction of the particle would actually cross the event horizon.

CERN wants this puppy to evaporate. If it doesn't evaporate there's no possible method by which it could be detected. They want to detect the particle shower that is emitted from the evaporation. The precise make-up of that shower would be their confirmation.

It certainly won't be detected by its gravitational field because it will have none to speak of. It will still reside firmly in the quantum world of subatomic particles where gravitation is completely ignored because both the strong force and the EM force dwarf gravitation into nonexistence for all practicle purposes.
 
Hi Darby,

I think we are talking about the same thing in #1, above, but we look at/understand it differently. When you say "evaporate" you are referring to the sub-atominic particle spray that is created only after the singularity collapses unto itself. This collapse is one of the characteristics a black hole has (overcoming the strong nuclear force). At least that is the way I perceive it.

In regards to #2, either you or me is dead wrong. Time, (hehe) will tell. My understanding of the machine and physics that will be tested at CERN is that when the ring has accumulated a big enough charge, the beam will be shot into a target building (I say building, because thats how big it is). The Target Bldg. is the volumetric equivalent of a concrete football field that is 50' tall. This is what contains the radiation. Inside the target bldg. (tell me if I'm boring you and you already know this stuff) there will be some sort of target, surrounded at every conceivable angle with instrumentation. The target is mostlikely a heavy metal, and when the beam hits it, it will evaporate the target, no annihilate it. By doing so, a singularity will be created (maybe). An analogy would be thunder and lightning. A whole fucktonne of electricity is shot into air. The air molecules seperate so fast, that they create a vacuum. When the air rushes to fill the vacuum, the air slaps itself and creates the thunder. Now air is not very dense. heavy metals are.

So, the way I see it, the orange men (the good particle physicists are always orange in skin tone, if you've ever noticed) are going to try to stabilize this singularity so that they can study it and measure it, and eventually do all sorts of cool stuff with. Vacuum, plasma, Bose=Einstien condensates, rotating magnetic fields, I don;t know what they are planning on using, but unless it was a white-hole, it will not work, and I haven't really wasted any time thinking about it because it is not my experiment, but I had to guess, I'd say rotating magnetics in a vacuum. At this point though, I think it is possible that the singularity that they might create would have enough critical mass to overcome the weak nuclear force (gravity) and start pulling matter into the exterior of the containment field apparatus. If the singularity energy is self sustaining, then would be no stopping it. And being that we are talking about the 4th dimension here, I don;t think a singularity black hole cares what time it is or how much continuous energy is flowing through it over periods of observed time. From a black holes point of view its energy state is static.
 
When you say "evaporate" you are referring to the sub-atominic particle spray that is created only after the singularity collapses unto itself. This collapse is one of the characteristics a black hole has (overcoming the strong nuclear force). At least that is the way I perceive it.
Click to expand...

The gravitational collapse is what forms the black hole. Thereafter there is nothing more to collapse. But gravitation is still gravitation. Even in a black hole it is by far the weakest force present. Both the EM and strong forces are over 40 magnitudes of order stronger than gravitation (that means > 10^40 times stronger).

But in a black hole the strong force is no longer present. That leaves the EM force if the hole has a net charge. When a body collapses to form a black hole the electrical force and angular momentum are conserved. If the body happens to be a star then the net charge of the hole is almost neutral. The star was presumably spinning therefore there will be a net angular momentum left over. In a stellar black hole this isn't much of a problem. The individual subatomic particles have angular momentum but the vectors of their spin are all over the map...they tend to cancel out each other. That only leaves the total rotational spin vector of the star which is "negligible" relative to the unlikely case where the spin vectors of every particle in the star were of the same orientation. But when you take a couple of neucleons- protons and/or neutrons - this is a problem. Individual subatomic particles have huge angular momenta. Accelerating them in a magnetic field polarizes the spin vector so that they are the same - their angular momenta are additive rather than cancelling as in the case of the star that have a kazillion atoms making up its mass. Collide them together and the sum of the angular momentum and electric charge ends up being greater than the total mass of the black hole. With almost no mass, thus almost no gravity, the hole will blow apart. That's an extreme maximal black hole. Containment fields won't help. They are by definition unstable. And this scenario doesn't even touch upon Hawking Radiation evaporation which is a totally seperate quantum issue.

And as I said above, the drill isn't one of stabilizing a micro mass black hole. Even if they could do that there is no possible way to detect such a hole. It would be just another "particle" with a mass of a few neucleons swimming in a gas made up of even larger mass atoms and molecules. A simple water molecule, H2O, would have a gravitational field ~8 to 9 tmes greater than a two nucleon black hole if you measured it at a reasonable distance from the event horizon of the BH (reasonable meaning, for instance, a distance of a few proton diameters...~10^-15 cm) .

Gravity isn't magic and black holes don't have any special properties outside the event horizon. At a distance of 1 Angstrom (10^-10 meters) from the event horizon of the black hole the gravitational effect of our micro black hole is completely attenuated by by the fields of everything around it. It is in effect zero.

And there's another issue concerning a black hole of this mass vs. stability. If you take the entire planet Earth and form of black hole the diameter of the event horizon will be ~9 mm. That's about the diameter of your pinky finger.

Given that you can imagine just how small the event horizon will be for a black hole made from a few neucleons. It will be incredibly smaller than Planck's Length...1.6*10^-35 m. As far as quantum physicists can tell, and they have a boat load of evidence, nothing can exist that is smaller than that fundamental unit of length. There is no stability that can be attained. It will evaporate - or blow apart.
 
These physicis need input regarding John Titor...

Quoted:

-He is a real character. Saw some info about him on the net.
I got a comment asking If I am him or know him. can't confirm or deny the rumors. hehehe-

and:
The Dream:

-just woke up from the weirdest dream ever. I had this dream I worked for the US military on this secret project. I flew on a contract plane to a undisclosed location. It was way above top secret for anything known. I was told. I was shown this device which looked like a white bathroom scale with a thick cord coming out of the side. the room had white walls and an orangeish carpet. I was then in a line with three people each person ran toward this device and dove over it as if trying to fly. Each person that jumped over it disappeared for a minute and reappeared with their original momentum to land on the carpet away fro the device. I was told it was some sort of trans dimensional technology. It was my turn I ran jumped and felt my self suspended in another world but in this world I was there but not really there.and still suspended in midair. I got scared realizing that I could end up stuck in this space warp for all eternity I said some sort of prayer and immediately fell out and landed on y face. Woke up. This was really bizarre. Could this be related to CERN research?-

end quoted...

From:

http://www.cernwatch.com/

BTW Is There a Prozac shortage...




Darby?

:oops:
 
BTW Is There a Prozac shortage...
Click to expand...

Better save the Prozac and lithium for the doomer-gloomers.
 
this is part of the list...@

CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) the REAL PURPOSE

Quote

-snip-

<font color="red">
P. Prove John Titor correct.

Q. Teleport us to the Galactic Center

R. Fill the earth with many holes, it will look like swiss cheese.

S. Old news, it's already been done

T. What's the big deal, I have a large collider in use to strain spaghetti with in my kitchen.

U. Doorways/dimensions for Demons a.k.a aliens.
[/COLOR]

end quoted from:
Link to GLP /ttiforum/images/graemlins/devil.gif
 
Re: The LHC on the Moon -Bransonian Style-

<font color="blue">
Quoted:
The most amazing thing is that Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler believes that creating the LHC on the moon would only cost 2-3 times as much. He may have reasons to explain why his calculations - which he is adamant are exact - show such a low cost.

But if this is true, and works, we cannot underestimate the current achievement of Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler. He may well get a Nobel Prize for this. If not, and the cost is lets say 50 times higher - would you still not do it to save our Universe? Of course you would ;-) If it can't be done because Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler is wrong - well, let's at LEAST try it! What is the price to reduce risk here?

Additionally, if the LHC has to be redone on the moon, this would extremely beneficial for World economy. It would completely remove the current recession crisis I believe. There would be a massive government and private sector investment and benefit in this.

Please all members and future members, give me your opinions because I cannot understand this.

-end quoted

Video:
Link to youtube

PLEASE somebody translate this interview here from German to English and post back here if you are really interested in truth - even CERN club members can apply ;-) - it explains his theories and well all give us a fantastic bases to elaborate on this subject:
http://www.golem.de/0802/57477.html

admin

http://www.notepad.ch

-end quoted
[/COLOR]
From:
http://www.notepad.ch/blogs/

:oops:
 
Re: The LHC on the Moon -Bransonian Style-

Quoted:
The most amazing thing is that Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler believes that creating the LHC on the moon would only cost 2-3 times as much. He may have reasons to explain why his calculations - which he is adamant are exact - show such a low cost.

But if this is true, and works, we cannot underestimate the current achievement of Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler. He may well get a Nobel Prize for this. If not, and the cost is lets say 50 times higher - would you still not do it to save our Universe? Of course you would ;-) If it can't be done because Dr. Prof. Otto E. Rössler is wrong - well, let's at LEAST try it! What is the price to reduce risk here?
Click to expand...

This is quite hilarious, and easily debunked. The cost to transfer all the LHC equipment to orbit (much less to the surface of the moon) is the primary "delta cost difference" from the current LHC here on good old earth. Figure 1 in the paper at the following URL shows trends for what it costs to launch a payload just into a Geo Synchronous Orbit (GSO):

http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/white_papers/FutronLaunchCostWP.pdf

For argument's sake, let's say the trend extends to today and the cost per pound to GSO is about $10,000 per pound. Now typically, the cost to go beyond earth and actually land on another planet is MORE than double the cost to GSO... but let's give the "Dr. Prof." the benefit of the doubt... so $20,000/pound to get LHC equipment to the moon.

How much does all the LHC equipment weigh???? Do the math. There is no WAY it is only 2-3x the cost to do it here. If it was we would only be spending a couple hundred dollars every time we launched a Space Shuttle! :eek:

RMT
 
this is part of the list...@

CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) the REAL PURPOSE

Quote

-snip-


P. Prove John Titor correct.

Q. Teleport us to the Galactic Center

R. Fill the earth with many holes, it will look like swiss cheese.

S. Old news, it's already been done

T. What's the big deal, I have a large collider in use to strain spaghetti with in my kitchen.

U. Doorways/dimensions for Demons a.k.a aliens.
Click to expand...

P. NO--it makes no difference if titor was right or wrong. He did state "2% divergence" right?
Q. NO--The collider does not have the technical capability to 'spin wrap' the entire Earth. It only will 'spin wrap' its own surroundings.
R. NO-- Read Q. above.
S. YES OLD NEWS!
T. NO-- The Spaghetti Strainer is a strainer... nothing more.
U. MAYBE....
 
Lol that "m" was a typo sorry:)

OK, I know that the LHC isn't going to work. Secretly, however, the particle physicists also know this, which is why they're designing the International Linear Collider (ILC) which will replace the LHC. However, I'm wondering what's the point of spending all this money when even if they are blatantly not going to send objects back in time. I mean, even if they COULD bring objects to this time from the future, they couldn't send objects further back in time than the "present" though. Maybe they could if they had my research though...

OK so this is my prediction. There is going to be a great tragedy befall the LHC in the next several months, completely destroying it and rendering it worthless. A young girl, instead, will do some research and the LHC will be forgotten about as she's done the research. You see if my prediction's correct. Also, I would just like to say that the Conservatives will win the general elections in the UK in 2010 which Labour WILL put off for as long as possible.
 
Back
Top