Large Hadron Collider

Poonani Maker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
4,407
Reaction score
929

Quiksilver

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,853
Reaction score
55
unflushables, I can identify with that... My brother gets commissioned by NASA every now and then to work on some space robotics projects(mars rovers, etc) and we ended up having discussions about this sort of stuff.
-

I'm not heavily into physics, or even science for that matter, but I'm excited to know that this device can potentially ask and provide some answers to a provokative question:

"Why is Life?"
-

There are always going to be people who'd rather hide under their rock and live in a small world, and in general the scope of a persons life is only held back by their imagination.
 

Desert Fox

Master Don Juan
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
787
Reaction score
22
wow lots of science ppl on here rofl.

smooth sorry i couldn't respond earlier...10 post rule. but deep dish and other have got it covered. btw i work in chemistry not physics but all the stuff i know/knew about the lhc i read online/heard from other grad students so the stuff is out there if you wanna look.
 

Ingeniarius

Don Juan
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
sosuave
Ok here is an application of a relativistic collision of two protons. This is not the experiment to be done at CERN, but it was done in 1955 at BEVATRON at the University of California at Berkeley.

The idea is to collide two protons and create one anti-proton and another proton. The question was, how fast do they have to go to do that?

I put this together out of some notes at school, so some of it might not be as scientific as hoped (for example I didn't use vectors or any of that formalia). Enjoy!

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq349/Ingeniarius/DSC01324.jpg

http://i462.photobucket.com/albums/qq349/Ingeniarius/DSC01325.jpg
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
Poonani Maker said:
Black holes don't exist. Don't get sucked in by the main stream media.
Don't listen to quacking ducks. While we don't exactly "see" black holes, we do see holes in space where all data vanishes. Long before we found such holes, black holes were discovered in the deep recesses of established mathematics. Gamma ray bursts emanate from black holes and we directly observe gamma ray bursts.
 

Poonani Maker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
4,407
Reaction score
929

SmoothTalker

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
1,021
Reaction score
12
Location
Canada
Nice, I actually understood Ingeniarius's work there.. But you come up with a minimum energy of about 6 GeV. And Deep Dish's quoted article talks about natural collisions of energies upto 1100 GeV.

But according to wikipedia, "The LHC will also be used to collide lead (Pb) heavy ions with a collision energy of 1,150 TeV.", as in 1000 times greater energy. Even if this part is a typo before that it talks about collision energies in th 7+ TeV range, ie way above what the article mentioned.

How are those natural collisions 30 times more powerful then, when I'm seeing energies here an orders of magnitude greater?
 

Ingeniarius

Don Juan
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
sosuave
SmoothTalker said:
Nice, I actually understood Ingeniarius's work there.. But you come up with a minimum energy of about 6 GeV. And Deep Dish's quoted article talks about natural collisions of energies upto 1100 GeV.

But according to wikipedia, "The LHC will also be used to collide lead (Pb) heavy ions with a collision energy of 1,150 TeV.", as in 1000 times greater energy. Even if this part is a typo before that it talks about collision energies in th 7+ TeV range, ie way above what the article mentioned.

How are those natural collisions 30 times more powerful then, when I'm seeing energies here an orders of magnitude greater?
It's not the same experiment. The thing I posted was just an example of an old experiment in the 50's about high-speed collisions with protons to create anti-protons, and this is not what the LHC is set up to do. The calculation I posted also only gives the minimum kinetic energy of a proton to create an anti-proton, as we assumed that kinetic energy of all four particles shall be zero in the centroid system.

Pb-ions also have a lot more mass, as lead's atomic number is 82, meaning it has 82 protons.
It also has 125 neutrons, which weigh about as much as a proton.

The standard atomic weight of lead, meaning the average weight of an atom taking into effect the average weight of all naturally ocurring isotopes, is 207.2 g*mol^(-1).

As they use Pb-Ions, calculate the weight of the missing electrons to get the weight of the ions. The most common ion is, I think, Pb2+, used for example in batteries in combination with SO2-. I do not know what charge the ions used in that experiment carry, nor do I have detailed quantified information about the experiment. Sorry.

In summary, I would say it is safe to assume they just have bigger particles or protons going at higher speeds - I will try to read up on the matter.
 

Effington

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
4
From the local interviews I've listened to, it sounds like the whole, "could create black holes to destroy the world" was just a PR stunt to attract attention. News flash: It worked! If it weren't for that, I doubt anyone would care.

Other than that, it's great that science is advancing, but as a person not in the scientific community, I'm more interested in what they discovered. When they figure out what they've learned, then tell me their support...until then, I don't care.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
I read the summary of the CERN Safety Report for the LHC and one sentence stuck out:
Collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays.
It's good because it's concise and a simple explanation for us, but for purposes of this discussion, seeking out the technicalities, I dug deeper and read the actual report as it pertains to Smoothtalker's good question.
The LHC is designed to collide two counter-rotating beams of protons or heavy ions. Proton-proton collisions are foreseen at an energy of 7 TeV per beam. An equivalent energy in the centre of mass would be obtained in the collision of a cosmic-ray proton with a fixed target such as the Earth or some other astronomical body if its energy reaches or exceeds 10^8 GeV, i.e., 10^17 e. When the LHC attains its design collision rate, it will produce about a billion proton-proton collisions per second in each of the major detectors ATLAS and CMS. The effective amount of time each year that the LHC will produce collisions at this average luminosity is about ten million seconds. Hence, each of the two major detectors is expecting to obtain about 10^17 proton-proton collisions over the planned duration of the experiments.

[The] highest-energy cosmic rays observed attain energies of around 10^20 eV, and the total flux of cosmic rays with energies of 10^17 eV or more that hit each square centimeter of the Earth’s surface is measured to be about 5x10^–14 per second. The area of the Earth’s surface is about 5x10^18 square centimeters, and the age of the Earth is about 4.5 billion years. Therefore, over 3x10^22 cosmic rays with energies of 10^17 eV or more, equal to or greater than the LHC energy, have struck the Earth’s surface since its formation. This means that Nature has already conducted the equivalent of about a hundred thousand LHC experimental programmes on Earth already – and the planet still exists.

Other astronomical bodies are even larger. For example, the radius of Jupiter is about ten times that of the Earth, and the radius of the Sun is a factor of ten larger still. The surface area of the Sun is therefore 10,000 times that of the Earth, and Nature has therefore already conducted the LHC experimental programme about one billion times via the collisions of cosmic rays with the Sun – and the Sun still exists.

Moreover, our Milky Way galaxy contains about 10^11 stars with sizes similar to our Sun, and there are about 10^11 similar galaxies in the visible Universe. Cosmic rays have been hitting all these stars at rates similar to collisions with our own Sun. This means that Nature has already completed about 10^31 LHC experimental programmes since the beginning of the Universe. Moreover, each second, the Universe is continuing to repeat about 3x10^13 complete LHC experiments. There is no indication that any of these previous “LHC experiments” has ever had any large-scale consequences. The stars in our galaxy and others still exist, and conventional astrophysics can explain all the astrophysical black holes detected.
Effington:
From the local interviews I've listened to, it sounds like the whole, "could create black holes to destroy the world" was just a PR stunt to attract attention.
Actually, I think the problem lies within journalism. Journalists, who tend not to be experts of any field, with only a most minimal understanding of the sciences, tend to be contacted by alarmists. Furthermore, journalism is based upon sensationalism and they have a daily news gap to fill even when no news is happening. Furthermore, it's hard to get scientists to say the word "impossible." They will speak in terms of improbabilities, however remote, and journalists will interpret it as "Okay, so there's a 0.00000001% chance?" and then run the headline "DEATH TO US ALL! LHC MAY DESTROY THE EARTH!"
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
SmoothTalker said:
Nice, I actually understood Ingeniarius's work there.. But you come up with a minimum energy of about 6 GeV. And Deep Dish's quoted article talks about natural collisions of energies upto 1100 GeV.

But according to wikipedia, "The LHC will also be used to collide lead (Pb) heavy ions with a collision energy of 1,150 TeV.", as in 1000 times greater energy. Even if this part is a typo before that it talks about collision energies in th 7+ TeV range, ie way above what the article mentioned.
Maybe I'm wrong—which wouldn't surprise me because my brain just didn't function today—but it would seem you may have confused energy for collision energy. The article I cited, the one mentioning hadron energies, stated the energies of the particles themselves, not the energy of collisions, except alluding to the collisions are much greater than the LHC can produce.
 

Deep Dish

Master Don Juan
Joined
Nov 25, 2002
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
167
SmoothTalker said:
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.
Las Vegas is calling. Do you want to wager any bets when the collisions begin? ;)
 

Ingeniarius

Don Juan
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
sosuave
Deep Dish said:
Maybe I'm wrong—which wouldn't surprise me because my brain just didn't function today—but it would seem you may have confused energy for collision energy. The article I cited, the one mentioning hadron energies, stated the energies of the particles themselves, not the energy of collisions, except alluding to the collisions are much greater than the LHC can produce.
For calculations involving collisions, you have to take total energy

E=mc^2=m0c^2+Ekin (=resting energy + kinetic energy)

into account, otherwise the equations of the collisions are invalid.
 

(JJ)

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Jan 13, 2007
Messages
487
Reaction score
9
fuzzx said:
I think someone out there is going to take an interest in us pretty soon.

there WAS a spike in ufo activity directly following the use of the atomic bombs in wwii... hmmm....cant believe we made it 3 pages w/o bringing that up lol
 
Top