End of the World on Sept. 10th
#181
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what on earth was the point in asking me what kind of fissile material they would use in a nuclear weapon? What are they so busy producing in their centrifuges in the Middle East then?
The point I was making is perfectly clear and there is no point in going over it again.
I really hope that my fears are groundless and that no further serious effects stem from the experiment on Wednesday. I shall be the first to admit that my worries were wrong and be delighted that they were. But I still feel that going so close to the Big Bang scenario could produce problems that are not envisaged by those carrying out the experiment.
You have to admit from my posts that I am prepared to accept that the Big Bang may have happened even though it has not been totally proved.
If it did, the energy generated in order to start off our Universe from such a small piece of superdense material as we are told is of a size which is impossible to encompass. That is why I have worries about this action on Wednesday.
Incidentally, are they going to fire off one proton and aim to hit another with it?
Les
Les
But it's still tiny amounts
Under nominal operating conditions (2,808 bunches per beam, 1.15×1011 protons per bunch), the beam pipes contain 1.0×10-9 grams of hydrogen, which, in standard conditions for temperature and pressure, would fill the volume of one grain of fine sand.
#182
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
#183
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.
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.
#188
Scooby Regular
#189
#190
Scooby Regular
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.
Actually he was wasn't he?
2nd ninja edit - D-Ream it was. Well he did say things can only get better.
#192
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
Last edited by Leslie; 07 September 2008 at 11:12 AM.
#193
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Newmarket
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
What are they trying to prove or disprove and what benefit will it bring?
Or is it just an expensive ***** waving competition?
Last edited by Alg; 07 September 2008 at 11:21 AM. Reason: .
#194
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.
#195
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Newmarket
Posts: 819
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
#196
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
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?
#197
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.......
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.......
#198
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
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
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
Last edited by Leslie; 08 September 2008 at 02:16 PM.
#200
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bring back infractions!
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thought PSLewis was the nuclear scientist or is he using your login
#201
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Muppetising life
Posts: 15,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
#202
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swilling coffee at my lab bench
Posts: 9,096
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
#203
#205
#206
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.
Mind you depending on how it goes, getting sucked into the black hole might be my best option.
#207
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Les
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.
#208
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"
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"
#209
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: French side of the border at Geneva, Switzerland
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Do black holes have an other side?
#210