OllyK

No, they have very specific definitions in science. If your discussing science, use the correct terms, then people won't be confused about what you mean. If you have the science background you claim, you should be well aware of this and to intentionally misuse the terms in this context is IMO dishonest.

You asked me what the critical mass was for a nuclear device. I was asking which fissle material, i.e. Uranium or Plutonium, and which Isotope, as they all have different critical masses.

Obviously it wasn't. I get the impression that you think there is some close resemblance between the big bang and what's going on in the LHC. You claim not, but your words say otherwise, see below where you do it yet again.

We're not going close to the big bang scenario. It's like saying 1 mg of Plutonium is a viable nuclear device, it just isn't even on the same scale. It's estimated there are 4x10 ^ 79 Hydrogen atoms in the universe, that 4 with 79 zeros after it. The LHC is smashing together a volume of protons smaller than a grain of sand.

OK, let's try something here. Can you define "absolute proof" and then give me a real world example of something that meets that definition?

You've heard the saying "size isn't everything", size isn't really what was the issue with the big bang, it was the amount of matter in that small space, all the matter that is currently in our universe. If you're worried about the size of things then I'd be more worried about 2 cars having a crash as they are a damn site bigger and contain more mass than involved in the LHC.

No, they fire bunches of protons. Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it's still tiny amounts

FlightMan

Jesus will you two give it a rest.

On the 10th, we'll find out who was right. If it's Olly you can gloat, if it's Les, well you'd better be quick on the keyboard fella!

RB5_245

This thing has an emergency stop on it. If it all goes to crap the computer will dump the beam into iirc a 6meter granite stopper. Granted that's a huge amount of force for such a minute number of particles but hardy world destroying. I also recall that is for the large particle collisions, not the ones that are in discussion here.

These colliders are nothing new, every time they build a bigger one new advances are made, historically there has been very few instances where the entire universe has been destroyed. None to my memory, for sure.

phil_wrx

iTrader: (2)

says the full test aint till 21st october anyways

EddScott

All sounds a bit Black Mesa to me.

And look what happened there!

phil_wrx

iTrader: (2)

they sold millions of copies of a game

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Les, when you used to fly the Vulcans, what was the payload, flowers for the ladies ?

EddScott

LOL

The program is on BBC4 at 2.50am. If one of the scientists looks like Gordon Freeman I'd say it was time to panic

EDIT - PANIC

phil_wrx

iTrader: (2)

he has a beard and glasses, dont they all look like that

EddScott

LOL I guess. But the chap presenting the program is a Prof and he looks like someone from an indy rock band.

Actually he was wasn't he?

2nd ninja edit - D-Ream it was. Well he did say things can only get better.

bigvern

iTrader: (1)

Just my luck this is all going to happen when I've got a day off!

Leslie

Dont spoil the fun, we are getting a bit closer to an understanding perhap's!

No JCK4O, it was a bucket of sunshine as you well know of course, quite a big one too. I have been known to bring an orchid or two back from far flung places for Mrs Leslie though I am very glad I never had to carry that bucket to the appointed place! Especially since it would have been the end of my crew.

Thank you for the explanations Olly. You did say that is was going to be one proton hitting another one though so I was wondering how good a shot they were at it! So it will be a lot of protons, wonder how many will actually connect.

I can't be bothered with all the semantics, it wont prove anything.

Let me say that it is an interesting experiment if they can achieve the necessary speed required. If they do, then I still feel that no one knows enough about the possible consequences. Yes people say that we have to take risks to gain knowledge, but it is a matter of degree and if they are going to go ahead with this one then they should at least have a very good idea what might happen and whether it is really right to risk possible great destruction as a result. I also wonder how useful the knowledge if gained can be to the world as a whole. How can one use the Higgs Boson?

I know of course that the mass involved is low, but what if the result was such that it could create some kind of a chain reaction from the surrounding items of hardware etc. We know that the energy from a nuclear blast is created by the change in molecular state, could such a thing not happen in this case with a suitable trigger?

As I said, if they manage to do it as they anticipate, I can only hope that there is not an attendant event and no I am not in the business of gloating anyway. I shall be every bit as pleased as they will be if it all goes according to their wishes.

Les

Alg

Can someone tell me (in Layman's terms) exactly what they're hoping to achieve?
What are they trying to prove or disprove and what benefit will it bring?

Or is it just an expensive ***** waving competition?

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

They are looking for a big advance in particle physics, currently there are big gaps and many asumptions in the field, there are a few competing theories but the main thing they are after explaining is how a particle gets its mass, also stuff about Dark Matter and how the universe was created by simulating the conditions at the time it was created.

Basically like the Genome project they are reverse engineering creation, this is what upsets the religous people, I think it needs to be done, otherwise we are just creatures on a big rock, we have mad a lot of progress, but this is the next step, I suspect that they may make a breakthrough and answer their current question but end up with a whole new set of questions.

Alg

Thanks J4CKO.
I understand a bit more now.
I like the idea they'll possibly end up with a new set of questions. I don't like the idea they'll possibly have to engineer more scary experiments but I guess knowledge is all.

OllyK

What do you mean by "change in molecular state"? I'm familar with changes in physical state and I'm familiar with electrons state change, but molecular state change is a new one on me.

The energy from a nuclear blast comes from the atoms disintegrating and releasing the energy that was holding them together.

I'm still interested to hear you response to

zip106

Well, I read in The Times yesterday about this.

The boffins who are trying to get it stopped reckon the black holes would eat the earth up from inside out - we know this already, yes?
They say it will take 4 years of devastation for the holes to eat us.
This co-incides with the 'other' cranks out there who say the world will end in 2012....

WOOoooooooOOOOOoooo.......

Leslie

Well as I understand it, when you have a fissile element it will continue to change its state at a rate depending how highly fissile it is and as it does so it changes to a different element, this is known as transmutation, ie what the old alchemists were trying to do. This of course is what happens in a fission bomb using U235 or plutonium239 or a combination of those but very much more quickly as soon as you engineer the fissile material to exceed its mass into a suitably supercritical mass. This change releases a vast amount of energy which is where the destruction originates. The elements used transmute which is where the atomic and thence molecular change occurs.

If you want to join the big boys, then you can use a fission bomb as a trigger to set off fusion in a suitable hydrogen isotope, such as Deuterium which will transmute to Helium and in doing so will release considerably greater amounts of energy during that atomic and thus molecular change of state.

A particle accelerator is capable of changing atomic states as well and is also referred to as a transmutation machine.

This small superdense lump of matter which was subject to the big bang must have done a hell of lot of transmuting to form the whole universe and all its constituents by the way! Were they fissile elements in the first place do you think?

All the above is why I am not happy about the possible effects of the experiments which they propose at Cerne. Who knows whether those protons so close to the speed of light can provoke transmutations out of anybody's control?

I await your usual piece by piece attack on what I have said. You give us the impression that you must know far more about particle physics than I do and I am always ready to learn.

I see no point in labouring on about the differing styles of "proof". The term "absolute proof" is self evident and needs no explanation, unless you want to clarify your question. it seems to me that something is either proved or it is not, how can you have a halfway house?

Les

Odds on

This 'end of the world' thing - Is it a ticket event, or will I get to see it from here? I don't want to miss out on this.

TIA

Coffin Dodger

Thought PSLewis was the nuclear scientist or is he using your login

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

I think it was a much bigger risk when they tested the first nuclear device. They knew very little compared to current knowledge. They knew that they were aiming to set of a change reaction, but did not really know where that chain ended....

Still, 4 years seems an awfully long time for a black hole to eat a planet. If it does all go wrong, at least I won't have to worry about getting fat, growing old, or saving for a pension

Oh, and Gordon can really shove his green taxes where the sun don't shine

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Just imagine how those four years would play out... we'd find out quite quickly that a black hole was starting to eat the Earth, and there would be absolutely nothing at all we could do about it. There's a sci-fi book right there...

Can't see it happening myself, though. A conventional nuke requires a mass of the order of a few kg, and the LHC is dealing with micrograms - if that - surrounded by a vacuum. Even a nuke going off underground at the LHC wouldn't exactly be OMG-the-world-is-coming-to-an-end bad.

Leslie, how do you feel about conventional nuclear reactors, or the prototype fusion reactor experiments taking place elsewhere - both of which involve much greater masses? Do they give you the same cause for concern?

Holy Ghost

here's an interesting read ...

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy the Earth?

Scoobychick

iTrader: (1)

You can have mine, £500 or I put it on Ebay. Better be quick though as I need to get it in the post..

Odds on

Nice one.

Do you reckon there'll be any sort of after show party?

fitzscoob

Ah crap, first date planned for Wednesday night since becoming single.

Mind you depending on how it goes, getting sucked into the black hole might be my best option.

OllyK

Stop, just there. Before you mentioned "molecular state", below you mention "atomic state" and above you just mention "state". Can you please give me your definition of each of those terms (or confirm you actually mean the same thing in all 3 cases and give 1 definition) and can you do so without using the term you're trying to define?

I think what you're trying to describe is the break down of a fissle element in to other elements, particles and radiation. But that isn't a "state change" in any sense of the word I'm familar with. I will grant you my background is Chemistry and not Physics however.

In the beginning there weren't complex elements that disintegrated, it was sub atomic particles, much like they are trying to find in the LHC that "condensed" (for want of a better word) in to Hydrogen. The Hydrogen formed dense pockets and gravity took over bringing it together. As it compressed, it heated and eventually a fusion reaction started and the Hydrogen atoms are fused in Helium. As the star burns all its Hydrogen it can sometimes start to fuse Helium etc. This is the opposite of the nuclear fission atomic breakdown you were describing above.


Transmutation applies to change of 1 atom in to another. The LHC isn't using atoms, so it doesn't apply.


I know far more about Chemistry than Physics, but there are areas of overlap.

The question arose from you suggestion that things are "only a theory" or scientists haven't proved X. I'm trying to find out what you're definition of "proved" or "proof" is, it's different in Maths from other sciences for example.

I'm then trying then, to establish whether anything actually meets your definition of "proved".

I'm happy to give you my definition(s), but I'd be interested to hear yours.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I think the name is the problem, it sounds powerful, sinister and scientific, if they had called it the "Big Freindly Particle Bumper" or "Atom Splat-em" the public would be so worried.

I like the idea of the black holes gradually eating the world, I can just imagine my dad reading the paper going "Wolverhampton's gone"

STi-Frenchie

Well I'll be the first to go as I'm sitting right on top of the ****** and I might just be the first to post from the other side of the black hole on ScoobyNet!

Do black holes have an other side?

Odds on

I fooking hope so. This house cost me a fortune. I doubt the bank will accept the 'I can't pay, the planet it was on has disappeared' argument.