1. Hey guys,

I`m new here and from the Netherlands so please be patient..LOL

Now about the LHC, what I find disturbing about this machine is that is uses VERY large magnets to speed up and control the movement of the particles.
But what is keeping the polarity of the magnets in control?
If the polarity of the magnets flip so to say, well they and we have a HUGE problem.

I have mailed CERN about this and they came up with a reply that magnets with the size they are using are incapable of "switching" polarity.
But they are so very wrong on that.
According to Faraday's law, the rate of change of a magnetic field over
time is proportional to the electromotive force applied to produce the
change.
And look at the forces they are trying to apply!

Am I wrong on this????

Crush

2.

3. Why would the magnets change polarity anyway?

4. What are the forces relative to the mass, compared to a 100g experiment carried out in schools?

5. The particles involved are protons, at the mass of: 1.67262171(29)×10−27 kg, slightly lighter than 100g, yes? The energy they will have will peak at around 7 TeV energy, at just less than the speed of light (299,792,458 metres per second - roughly 3x10^8 m/s) The LHC will also be used to collide lead (Pb) nuclei with a collision energy of 1,150 TeV

Also, the magnets are superconducting electro-magnets, being cooled to about 1.9K. In total, over 1600 superconducting magnets are installed, with most weighing over 27 tonnes, and during the experiments, the magnetic field will be increased from 0.54 T to 8.3 T. These are no normal magnets, and I doubt CERN would let it run if there was chance of the polarity swapping, and especially if that affects the experiments...

6. Haha yeah, I was referring to a 100g magnet to prove a point. My point being that the scale of the energy compared to their 'magnet's' strength, surely is similar. I say that form a philosophical standpoint.

7. I edited my post, that help?

All the rumours and theories about Black Holes etc... going around, well they are far-fetched.

The probability of black hole forming inside the particle accelerator is very, very low, and if they did, the would last for an incredibly small amount of time, I mean, like 5millionth of a nano-second (can't remember the guestimated :P time)

8. yeah, the fact is, that earth is being bombarded by millions of cosmic rays, many of which has a much higher energy when they collide with earths atmosphere than LHC.
and we're here still

9. Originally Posted by dejawolf
yeah, the fact is, that earth is being bombarded by millions of cosmic rays, many of which has a much higher energy when they collide with earths atmosphere than LHC.
and we're here still
Stop those cosmic rays, with a bomb and you can see their potential. The original atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was called a cosmic bomb.

Because that is what it slowed down, cosmic rays. Or better put the ether or ambient radiation. That actually stabilizes all matter on earth. The atomic bomb just blocks ambient radiation a bit.

When you raise something in voltage enough anything, it will explode.

It is just another stupid project eating up precious time if you are truly interested in science.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

10. The LHC is investigating the nature of subatomic particles.

I think what they will find is that the closer you get to investigating subatomic phenomena is that the more of a "dead patch" they will find, that they will at best record "pre" and "post" collision results. In other words, with their subatomic collisions, they will record notable results of the particles just before the collision and just after, without recording anything of note "of" the moment of the collisions themselves. If they had any imagination with their results they may even propose a dual theory for time, time "pre" collision and time "post" collision, and then come to some type of theoretical conclsuion on the nature of the subatomic world.

11. Actually, the experiments can't record the moment of collision at all. Instead they record the effects of the collision and work backwards to figure out what happened. This may sound unreliable, but if almost the same thing happens every time, you can start to paint a good picture of what's going on.

12. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Actually, the experiments can't record the moment of collision at all. Instead they record the effects of the collision and work backwards to figure out what happened. This may sound unreliable, but if almost the same thing happens every time, you can start to paint a good picture of what's going on.
We can positively accelerate things in a straight line. Exponentially faster then particles or objects orbiting, circling or taking an arced path.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

13. Originally Posted by MagiMaster
Actually, the experiments can't record the moment of collision at all. Instead they record the effects of the collision and work backwards to figure out what happened. This may sound unreliable, but if almost the same thing happens every time, you can start to paint a good picture of what's going on.

Is there an echo in here?

(don't get too excited Will.....you know what I am saying right......me and all my experiments............ya ya ya)

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement