Large Hadron Collider

[Deep Dish]

Thing LHC will do is divide the ignorant sheeple, one side will believe LHC is good, the other side will believe LHC is bad, and both sides will argue with each other and throw rocks at each other.

What's the real truth?

Apusislaya, your writing style and nonsensical thinking strikes eerily similiar to A-Unit. Come to think of it, you also share a letter of the alphabet. Now, A-Unit and I were nemeses--that's the plural version of nemesis--and the animosity was for good reason. Since I think you're him, I will treat you the same.

Your post is non-sense.

It bears no resemblence to reality and you provide no substantiation for your line of reasoning. The LHC will bring about nothing good? How? Knowledge is power and everything in your life, literally everything, is thanks to the power of science. To wit, the LHC is the greatest advancement in science and holds real promise of unlocking many mysteries of the universe. Are you so dim-witted that you don't want improved answers to the Big Questions? How did we get here? How will the universe die? Are we the only universe? And yes, the LHC holds promise to provide practical advancements in technologies. Lest I remind that much of the marvels of our modern world are thanks to space shuttle missions; studying what happens in zero gravity may not seem much, but in all actuality is tremendously important. Conversely, the same holds true for studying particles which we can't see and can barely detect.

No, the LHC is not a distraction. You are the problem.

 

[apusislaya]

Since I think you're him, I will treat you the same.

Start a war with the Jakes. Now it's Deep Dish VS apusislaya. We also have LHC good VS LHC bad.


Nah, keep me out of it. I rather practice love towards myself and lead the way and learn how to live life to the fullest.


Is that all there is to life? Spew out an opinion and gain popularity, put someone down, agree with the masses, manipulate people to achieve a personal goal. Where is your own identity mother****er?

 

[LoneSilver]

If this brings us closer to how we came into existance it will be cool to see the outcomes this experiment brings or other finding that might appear as well.

More power to science..

LoneSilver

 

[Deep Dish]

I rather practice love towards myself and lead the way and learn how to live life to the fullest.

Okay, but what relevance does "living life to your fullest" bear to the subject at hand? Why enter this discussion, at all? It should also bear mentioning that living life to the fullest ought to entail thinking to the fullest, and being dismissive of something to the magnitude of importance as the LHC is rather non-thinking, I would think. Also, saying the LHC is "neither good or bad," as you did, is not quite the saying same as "LHC good vs. LHC bad." There is a huge difference. You effectively said the LHC serves no good.

Most people are totally unappreciative of science. It's as if they don't care about science except when it directly applies to their practical life, through medicine and technological gadgets. People will attend churches and engage in coffee shop chats how science is flawed, full of errors, praise ignorance with "You don't know what you don't know!," but then afterwards visit the doctor or Best Buy. It's disheartening.

Einstein certainly didn't come up with his theories by memorizing and spewing information out. He did bad in school!

As a minor point, Einstein did develop his major theories while attending school. Although he did have a lowsy track record during grade school, he did come to attend ETH Zurich when he was 21 and studied under the physicist Alfred Kleiner. Five years later he was awarded a PhD. It was during these five years during schooling during which he developed his prominent theories.

 

[DJDamage]

read up on this instead of becoming a dumb sheep.

Just by the fact that I claim I might be ignorant of the subject matter does not mean I am not aware that I might be ignorant of the subject matter and looking to expend my knowledge on the subject matter and calling me a dumb sheep is baseless.

In actuality most people here have a basic concept of what this collider is suppose to do but are not expert of the subject matter, otherwise they would be part of the project. The fact is that everything is a theory of what might happen as opposed to what is supposed to happen. As a matter of fact every year scientists discover some type of a star or a black hole that defies and baffle their own theories of how things are suppose to work in the universe.

To complelty dismiss concerns as ignorance is no difference when the atom bomb was created. Nobody really knew that full impact on the bomb until it was dropped on Japan and not during the test runs. Results are sometimes different then actual test runs.

 

[SmoothTalker]

Deep Dish, good point about Einstein. I've always been annoyed when people hold him us as proof that education isn't important.

Not only did he have a phd but he was increadibly bright, ie mastering calculus on his own before age 10 or something like that. The people holding him up as an example often haven't even seen calculus by the time they're 20.

And Desert fox, that's exactly my point.

Nothing is faster than c.

So the high energy cosmic rays causing those collisions all the time naturally that they tell us prove its safe are travelling very fast, close to c.

BUT, the things they hit are barely moving. What's the absolute velocity of Earth or the moon? Well impossible to say because you need a frame of reference which doesn't exist in the universe (no ether), but however fast we're moving, it is MUCH MUCH less than c, as in less than .01 percent I'd guess.

So please explain to me how a collision if a cosmic ray going at 0.99 c with an object moving in the opposite direction at 0.001 c (that would be the Earth or moon or whatever you want it to hit) is the same energy as two particles travelling DIRECTLY AT each other both going at 0.99 c?

This is the same idea as a car collision. What's worse, a car going 50 mph hitting a parked car, or a car going 50 mph colliding head on with another car going 50 mph in the opposite direction. I'm sure you can agree these would be vastly different events. In fact the head on collision at 50 mph is almost certain death.

 

[SmoothTalker]

See this is exactly the pathetic thing. People jump on the bandwagon about how safe it is just because that's the position of educated people, preaching to the ignorant terrified masses.


No **** it hasn't destroyed the earth, nobody that knew anything about this thing was worried about Wednesday. Sending particles around a loop ONLY in one direction with NO collision had no possibility of doing anything at all except showing the equipment worked.

 

[Teflon_Mcgee]

Deep Dish, good point about Einstein. I've always been annoyed when people hold him us as proof that education isn't important.

Not only did he have a phd but he was increadibly bright, ie mastering calculus on his own before age 10 or something like that. The people holding him up as an example often haven't even seen calculus by the time they're 20.

And Desert fox, that's exactly my point.

Nothing is faster than c.

So the high energy cosmic rays causing those collisions all the time naturally that they tell us prove its safe are travelling very fast, close to c.

BUT, the things they hit are barely moving. What's the absolute velocity of Earth or the moon? Well impossible to say because you need a frame of reference which doesn't exist in the universe (no ether), but however fast we're moving, it is MUCH MUCH less than c, as in less than .01 percent I'd guess.

So please explain to me how a collision if a cosmic ray going at 0.99 c with an object moving in the opposite direction at 0.001 c (that would be the Earth or moon or whatever you want it to hit) is the same energy as two particles travelling DIRECTLY AT each other both going at 0.99 c?

This is the same idea as a car collision. What's worse, a car going 50 mph hitting a parked car, or a car going 50 mph colliding head on with another car going 50 mph in the opposite direction. I'm sure you can agree these would be vastly different events. In fact the head on collision at 50 mph is almost certain death.

As a student of Newtonian physics, I see exactly what you are saying.
However, there is a flaw to your logic that you even allude to.

There is no absolute velocity.

To the observer at the collider, the position of one particle relative to the other would seem to appear as V1 + V2. But what about from the observer on the particle?

I'll leave it up to those more versed in relativity and modern physics. I'm curious of this too.

 

[Ingeniarius]

As a student of Newtonian physics, I see exactly what you are saying.
However, there is a flaw to your logic that you even allude to.

There is no absolute velocity.

To the observer at the collider, the position of one particle relative to the other would seem to appear as V1 + V2. But what about from the observer on the particle?

I'll leave it up to those more versed in relativity and modern physics. I'm curious of this too.

As a student of newtonian physics, you should expand your knowledge base to the basics of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the mathematical concepts are not hard to grasp.
Note that Einstein has 2 theories of relativity: the special one and the general one. The special one applies to a large part of your question, because to simplify matters, it would be easier to look at an inertial system.
Also for low-speed mechanics, the concepts have been around since Coriolis and every eng. student learns them in the first 2 years, usually the second.

It is partly correct to say there is no absolute velocity, because the threshold of c =3*10^8 m/s cannot be breached. Einstein had a Gedankenexperiment (I think it had some funny name such as the light-clock or the like) to demonstrate the derivation of his formulas using this law. Hope this gives you some food for thought

 

[SmoothTalker]

I did learn about his thought experiments and have done the basic math of it before, and understand all the concepts such as time dilation, mass increase, length contraction, etc.

However while I realize there are probably relativistic effects involved in this, I don't remember enough of the material to figure out what the impact on the energy would be of two particles colliding at almost c in opposite directions.

For obvious reasons we can't plug in 1.98 c into the equations to find energy since those equations fail for velocity >= c.

If you still remember this material, (and you probably went more in depth than I did), please explain how it applies to this situation.

 

[guitarak]

This is an exiciting time for discovery, the world isn't going to end, the only things in danger are some of our existing notions of how the world functions

 

[SmoothTalker]

...


You all talked like experts. Come on, can anybody answer my question as two how a head on collision of two particles traveling at almost the speed of light is the same as the naturally occuring ones where only one particle has significant velocity and the other is almost stationary.

I think this is an important difference, and none of you experts seem to be able or willing to answer it.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Oh for ƒuck's sake, who're we bullsh!tting? The only reason anyone (see, superstitious religious nuts) has a problem with the experiment is because one of the particles they're looking for is the Higgs particle - otherwise known as the "god particle" - which could, possibly, explain why things have matter. In addition, it would simulate conditions present after the Big Bang - which would presuppose that there WAS a Big Bang - an idea the churchies can't accept.

That said, I wont pretend to have any knowledge of physics beyond what a college class taught me, however, it's fantastic to live in a time where scientific postulations like this can be tested and proved or disproved. Galileo and Newton had to deal with the same flat earthers in their day too.

 

[TheHumanist]

Oh for ƒuck's sake, who're we bullsh!tting? The only reason anyone (see, superstitious religious nuts) has a problem with the experiment is because one of the particles they're looking for is the Higgs particle - otherwise known as the "god particle" - which could, possibly, explain why things have matter. In addition, it would simulate conditions present after the Big Bang - which would presuppose that there WAS a Big Bang - an idea the churchies can't accept.

That said, I wont pretend to have any knowledge of physics beyond what a college class taught me, however, it's fantastic to live in a time where scientific postulations like this can be tested and proved or disproved. Galileo and Newton had to deal with the same flat earthers in their day too.

Yeah, but I think most of the opposition is afraid the world will get destoryed rather than a thread to religion. At this moment, all the objections is based a pretty valid fear that if I don't keep in mind that sun already bombards us with the same stuff all the time, I would be nervous that if the theories was completely wrong, there could be a worse case scenario.

 

[Ingeniarius]

...


You all talked like experts. Come on, can anybody answer my question as two how a head on collision of two particles traveling at almost the speed of light is the same as the naturally occuring ones where only one particle has significant velocity and the other is almost stationary.

I think this is an important difference, and none of you experts seem to be able or willing to answer it.

It is not the same. Relativistic mechanics are not 3 dimensional, as seen in the basic vector of mechanics which gives the position of an object. It is (sorry the board does not have math equations functions, so all you who know vectors think this in vertical order and in cartesian coordinates):

r{classic} = r(x,y,z)
r{relativistic} = r(t,x,y,z). Newton's axiom states

F=dp/dt with p=m*v with v=dx/dt, and this does not seem to work quite as simply in space-time, since mass increases with speed according to the theory for one. There are other reasons too. Deep Dish did a post on what a scientific theory is, and it means it is a workable model which allows for accurate predictions, so please don't say it's "just theory". For further reading, check out the special relativity article on wikipedia.
Since all collisions are governed by the conservation of momentum, this classic law does not seem to apply in this form here also, as Momentum = Mass * Velocity. It is not the same and not easily explained to somebody who does not speak math (I do not mean to be offensive by saying this, but it appears that Nature speaks math).

Summary: Forces, Momentum, Mass and Energy are not the same in space-time as in "normal" space and time, so collisions are not governed by the laws in classic form.

BTW, most of the classic formulas are approximatons or linearisations of the relativistic formulas for low speeds (v<<c), so actually we are living in space-time, it is just not easy to get measurable data. Satellites have to account for time dilatation, and some airplanes too.

I will post up some books which have this information (relativistic conservation of momentum and collisions) as soon as I can get to it, which will be maybe tomorrow. Note that physics is by no means my major nor my profession, but I have quite a bit of this kind of stuff in school and it was presented and tested in its basics. So if I make a mistake, don't hang me but try to correct it with me

 

[Deep Dish]

You all talked like experts. Come on, can anybody answer my question as two how a head on collision of two particles traveling at almost the speed of light is the same as the naturally occuring ones where only one particle has significant velocity and the other is almost stationary. I think this is an important difference, and none of your experts seem to be able or willing to answer it.

Not able? Not willing?

http://www.physorg.com/news94983246.html

When a single cosmic ray collides with a nucleus in the atmosphere, several secondary particles are produced. Many of them are “hadrons” – particles composed of quarks (examples are protons, neutrons, pions, and kaons). Depending on the ray's initial energy, many of the secondary hadrons are energetic enough to produce an exotic massive particle when they interact with other atmospheric nuclei.

The researchers first determined the total flux of hadrons – the cosmic rays, considered “primary” hadrons, and the secondary hadrons. In this case, the flux is a measure of the number of hadrons passing through a square kilometer of atmosphere in one year, at any atmospheric depth. Hadrons with energies of 104 GeV (10,000 billion electron volts) have a flux of about a trillion per square kilometer per year (most of these are absorbed by the atmosphere). On the other hand, hadrons with energies around 1011 GeV correspond to a flux of less than one hadron per square kilometer per year. These high-energy rays produce collisions that are 30 times as energetic than the ones to be produced at the world's largest particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, in Switzerland.

To answer your question, when two particles collide the rule is to add their energies together. If you have two cars collide at 60 MPH, the energy will be equivalent to a car going 120 MPH. (At least, as it applies to Newtonian physics, so please somebody correct me if I'm wrong in applying it here.) The point is there are collisions happening in nature many times greater than the LHC can ever aspire, even if you were to double their energies.

 

[Deep Dish]

Shoot, can't edit my post. Just pay attention to the cited article.

 

[Ingeniarius]

Ok, I couldn't just wait, so I got out my old books and notes and quickly put together what equations govern collisions in relativistic mechanics. This is not complete and not at all scientific, but I think it helps to get the idea of this stuff works.

You will need to know some about how mass and energy correlate, but I thought that if you don't know that then this is useless to you anyway. Once again, no offense, but this stuff is rather complicated to understand, and I don't claim to have understood it all.

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq349/Ingeniarius/DSC01323.jpg

 

[SmoothTalker]

Alright I realize my post was a little provocative but there's no need to get rude guys.

I am not some religious nutjob worried about the god particle, in fact I am agnostic and would be interested in the results of this experiement.

Nor am I terrified and protesting with "the world is ending" signs.

I was simply pointing out a shortcoming in all of the explanations I had read upto this point, which ignored the fact that (As YOU yourself mention) normally when two particles collide head on, we add their velocities.

Therefore I was simply asking, whether the energy of the LHC collisions would be like for a particle travelling at ~ 2 c hitting a stationary particle (From adding the velocity of the opposing particles) or if not, why not.

Thank you Ingeniarius for at least making the effort to explain. I will admit that while I recognize much of what you posted, I'm too rusty to make full sense of it at the moment. But at least you tried instead of just saying "You're all just stupid wacko's and these smart people say we're safe so it MUST be true because they and I am smart and you are stupid."

 

[theunflushables]

My question is does anyone else sit around and get drunk with their mum and their brother and debate the metaphysical issures of the LHC? Or do I just come from a weird family? lol