Thread: The CERN particle collider

Hello, I'm reading this article about the malfunctioning CERN particle collider. I understand, with the help of colliding particles scientist do simulate the origin of the universe, or better, the conditions found shortly after the big bang.

I conclude they assume the collision (some sort of particle collision ) lead to the originating universe. Do they know something we don't? How comes they assume particles to be existent well before the actual universe?

Doesn't such an assumption very well disprove the Big Bang, however?

And, if it does, how could CERN create the - condition shortly after - of what was disproved?

Might be reading this post will help them to fix the d*** thing.

Steve

Particle accelerators like CERN simply simulate the high energy densities that were apparently present in the early universe, they make no assumtions about the cause of the so called 'singularity' - something which as of yet science cannot understand (To creationists delight).

Hi Nabla, how are you,

what 'singularity' do you talk of?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity

Steve

Hi Steve, the big bang theory suggests that the universe is expanding, and that at some point (about 13.5 billion years ago) the universe must have been concentrated in an infinitesimally small point of high density and energy, known as the singularity. From this point the universe expanded to what we know today.

Particle accelerators have allowed us to confirm much of the current theory by simulating the high density conditions (By smashing particles of hugh velocity and energy) predicted to be present in the early universe by the big bang theory.

However, the actual point of apparent spontaneous emergenge of the universe from a singularity still remains a question unanswered by science.

What's actually new to me was the point, but you say it as well, the universe was present before it was existent.?

So, there was a universe before the singularity, and, the singularity was same as the Big Bang, however?

Does that mean BB can not be conceived as the origin of the actual universe we know today?

You say, it was yet present before BB (or the singularity ), didn't you?

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Hello, I'm reading this article about the malfunctioning CERN particle collider. I understand, with the help of colliding particles scientist do simulate the origin of the universe, or better, the conditions found shortly after the big bang.

I conclude they assume the collision (some sort of particle collision ) lead to the originating universe. Do they know something we don't? How comes they assume particles to be existent well before the actual universe?

Doesn't such an assumption very well disprove the Big Bang, however?

And, if it does, how could CERN create the - condition shortly after - of what was disproved?

Might be reading this post will help them to fix the d*** thing.

Steve

The LHC will provide insight into particle collisions at energies higher than have been created before in a laboratory, but lower than energies that have been observed in nature. The connection to the Big Bang is greatly exaggerated.

DrRocket,

yes, once it's up and running. I felt I was reasoning why it doesn't.

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Hello, I'm reading this article about the malfunctioning CERN particle collider. I understand, with the help of colliding particles scientist do simulate the origin of the universe, or better, the conditions found shortly after the big bang.

I conclude they assume the collision (some sort of particle collision ) lead to the originating universe. Do they know something we don't? How comes they assume particles to be existent well before the actual universe?

Doesn't such an assumption very well disprove the Big Bang, however?

And, if it does, how could CERN create the - condition shortly after - of what was disproved?

Might be reading this post will help them to fix the d*** thing.

Steve

My opinion and I am sure these particle physicists won't like it is that the BBT is false.
There is a lot of evidence to prove it now. I think they are looking for the GOD particle(?) to keep this fantasy alive.
After billions of dollars spent in this research, all they have come up with is the Quark theory.

Hey, these particles do NOT exist in isolation. So to me, they are NOT real.

There are only TWO real particles and they have been studied and are proven beyond a doubt about their existance.
They are the electron and the proton and they form the basic matter element and that is the hydrogen atom.

Cosmo

Cosmo, don't you kinda delve into an other extreme (statement )?

Searching for new somehow relevant particles can be quite challenging, I imagine.

Was it an other task for the particle collider, btw.? I don't remember.

They are about to try to create a black hole as well, I think.

Well, I am happy with it as long as they don't get the planet busted. But, the d*r* thingy doesn't even work for them.

Steve

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion and I am sure these particle physicists won't like it is that the BBT is false.
There is a lot of evidence to prove it now. I think they are looking for the GOD particle(?) to keep this fantasy alive.
After billions of dollars spent in this research, all they have come up with is the Quark theory.

Hey, these particles do NOT exist in isolation. So to me, they are NOT real.

There are only TWO real particles and they have been studied and are proven beyond a doubt about their existance.
They are the electron and the proton and they form the basic matter element and that is the hydrogen atom.

Cosmo

Your record remains unblemished. Not a single correct or even sensible statement. Not one.

It is not worth rebutting this trash in detail. Literally nothing is even close to the mark.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion and I am sure these particle physicists won't like it is that the BBT is false.
There is a lot of evidence to prove it now. I think they are looking for the GOD particle(?) to keep this fantasy alive.
After billions of dollars spent in this research, all they have come up with is the Quark theory.

Hey, these particles do NOT exist in isolation. So to me, they are NOT real.

There are only TWO real particles and they have been studied and are proven beyond a doubt about their existance.
They are the electron and the proton and they form the basic matter element and that is the hydrogen atom.

Cosmo

At least you must agree that the photon is another particle whose existence is beyond dispute.

what about neutrons? Don't those exist in atoms larger than protium, like say, Deuterium and Tritium; not to mention every other element with more than one proton? Neutrons don't behave exactly like protons nor electrons, so don't they have to be different as well, cosmo?

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

what about neutrons? Don't those exist in atoms larger than protium, like say, Deuterium and Tritium; not to mention every other element with more than one proton? Neutrons don't behave exactly like protons nor electrons, so don't they have to be different as well, cosmo?

Indeed, atoms without neutrons seem unlikely. I think it's safe to assume that most atoms around us haven't blown themselves apart yet. Which means there must be neutrons (or something similar, and they'd be named neutrons anyway) holding them together.

Originally Posted by Incoming Dessert

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

what about neutrons? Don't those exist in atoms larger than protium, like say, Deuterium and Tritium; not to mention every other element with more than one proton? Neutrons don't behave exactly like protons nor electrons, so don't they have to be different as well, cosmo?

Indeed, atoms without neutrons seem unlikely. I think it's safe to assume that most atoms around us haven't blown themselves apart yet. Which means there must be neutrons (or something similar, and they'd be named neutrons anyway) holding them together.

The ordinary hydrogen atom has no neutrons.

What holds the nucleus together is binding energy among the nucleons, which is thought to arise from the strong interaction among quarks. The actual binding force, called the "residual strong force" has, however, not been rigorously derived from quantum chromodynamics (the theory of the strong interaction) -- yet.

I don't quite understand the sense in which you think that neutrons hold the nucleus together. You can split some nuclei with the addition of a neutron for instance.

Originally Posted by salsaonline

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion and I am sure these particle physicists won't like it is that the BBT is false.
There is a lot of evidence to prove it now. I think they are looking for the GOD particle(?) to keep this fantasy alive.
After billions of dollars spent in this research, all they have come up with is the Quark theory.

Hey, these particles do NOT exist in isolation. So to me, they are NOT real.

There are only TWO real particles and they have been studied and are proven beyond a doubt about their existance.
They are the electron and the proton and they form the basic matter element and that is the hydrogen atom.

Cosmo

At least you must agree that the photon is another particle whose existence is beyond dispute.

Whyever would you expect Cosmo to agree to that ?

I guess this proves that hope does indeed spring eternal.

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

What's actually new to me was the point, but you say it as well, the universe was present before it was existent.?

So, there was a universe before the singularity, and, the singularity was same as the Big Bang, however?

Does that mean BB can not be conceived as the origin of the actual universe we know today?

You say, it was yet present before BB (or the singularity ), didn't you?

Steve

No I didn't say the universe was present before it was present. This is a contradictory statement. It is thought that the singularity point saw the creation of the entire universe including time and space itself. In this view it is senseless to imagine what existed 'before' this point.

Well, but CERN was trying to create the creation of the universe, in a lab environment, right? They simply need to do this somehow, and, therefore, have to go to a point in time before the actual creation.

Practically, something had to have set off BB. This was the premise, I mean. CERN, or the particle collider in particular, ought to make those who are concerned approach their goals, as a matter of fact, and for everyone to witness.

It was as practical as the thought premise.

To make sure only, do you equal BB to the singularity? Are both the same in your thinking?

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Well, but CERN was trying to create the creation of the universe, in a lab environment, right?

No, they aren't trying to create a new universe, but simply simulate and observe the high energy collisions of particles, to try and understand the high energy conditions shortly after the big bang. By observation, they are hoping to prove/disprove the theoretical 'standard model' - in particular, to find the only remaining un-observed particle predicted by the standard model, the Higgs boson.

Yes, I'm sorry, wrong wording. Sure, CERN scientists do not want to create a new universe, but run a simulation of something, rather.

But, with one other question still remaining, was BB and the singularity to equal? What do you think. I didn't find out so far.

Steve

In terms of language:

The singularity is the extroplated point of extremely high energy and density from which the entire universe emerged.

The "big bang" refers to the emergence and expansion of the univrse from the singularity - the overall cosmological model.

Read the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...f_the_Big_Bang

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Yes, I'm sorry, wrong wording. Sure, CERN scientists do not want to create a new universe, but run a simulation of something, rather.

But, with one other question still remaining, was BB and the singularity to equal? What do you think. I didn't find out so far.

Steve

CERN and the LHC are not trying to "simulate" anything, and particularly not the big bang.

They are simply going to produce collisions of particles at energies that have never before been observed under laboratory conditions, but at energies that are well below those of high energy cosmic rays that occur naturally on a regular basis.

There have been similar experiments, at somewhat lower energies, going on for years in other accelerators.

The situation with the Big Bang is this: In the early 1970's Penrose and Hawking showed that if one assumes the validity of general relativity, the observed fact that the universe is expanding and a minimal amount of matter in the universe consistent with what is observed, then it is a logical consequence that the universe originated in a very compact form in the past, the Big Bang. One result of that analysis is a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang.

The singularity is not necessarily real. Most physicists view it as a signal that general relativity has broken down as a valid description of physics under the extreme conditions of the Big Bang. There is a different kind of singularity that is associated with black holes, and the usual interpretation is that general relativity also breaks down under those conditions. It is thought that quantum effects become important for densities that are extremely high and that more insight will come from an eventual theory that can address both quantum phenomena and gravitation simultaneously. No such theory currently exists.

There is another theory of gravitation that competes with general relativity. It is called Einstein-Cartan theory. It is different from general relativity in that it does not make the a priori assumption that the torsion tensor is zero. As a result the mathematics is more complicated, and hence not many physicists are aware of the theory. Einstein-Cartan theory makes predictions that are experimentally indistinguishable from general relativity with current measurement technology. It does not result in the Penrose Hawking singularities for black holes or the Big Bang.

Originally Posted by Nabla

In terms of language:

The singularity is the extroplated point of extremely high energy and density from which the entire universe emerged.

The "big bang" refers to the emergence and expansion of the univrse from the singularity - the overall cosmological model.

Read the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ban...f_the_Big_Bang

Seems there was lots and lots of work to do for the particle collider, once CERN manages to get it fixed.

I never truly regarded big bang as the origin of our universe, since the lack of data.

But, I do understand it might have to do even with the attempt to reel time backwards, or even to reel originating events backwards in time.

Sufficient and reliable data, therefore, was even more of a concern I think.

As for me, I think we (the universe ) will be surrounded by still something more prodigious than the universe was being itself.

Steve

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Yes, I'm sorry, wrong wording. Sure, CERN scientists do not want to create a new universe, but run a simulation of something, rather.

But, with one other question still remaining, was BB and the singularity to equal? What do you think. I didn't find out so far.

Steve

CERN and the LHC are not trying to "simulate" anything, and particularly not the big bang.

They are simply going to produce collisions of particles at energies that have never before been observed under laboratory conditions, but at energies that are well below those of high energy cosmic rays that occur naturally on a regular basis.

There have been similar experiments, at somewhat lower energies, going on for years in other accelerators.

The situation with the Big Bang is this: In the early 1970's Penrose and Hawking showed that if one assumes the validity of general relativity, the observed fact that the universe is expanding and a minimal amount of matter in the universe consistent with what is observed, then it is a logical consequence that the universe originated in a very compact form in the past, the Big Bang. One result of that analysis is a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang.

The singularity is not necessarily real. Most physicists view it as a signal that general relativity has broken down as a valid description of physics under the extreme conditions of the Big Bang. There is a different kind of singularity that is associated with black holes, and the usual interpretation is that general relativity also breaks down under those conditions. It is thought that quantum effects become important for densities that are extremely high and that more insight will come from an eventual theory that can address both quantum phenomena and gravitation simultaneously. No such theory currently exists.

There is another theory of gravitation that competes with general relativity. It is called Einstein-Cartan theory. It is different from general relativity in that it does not make the a priori assumption that the torsion tensor is zero. As a result the mathematics is more complicated, and hence not many physicists are aware of the theory. Einstein-Cartan theory makes predictions that are experimentally indistinguishable from general relativity with current measurement technology. It does not result in the Penrose Hawking singularities for black holes or the Big Bang.

Good to know DrRocket. Thank you.
Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Cosmo, don't you kinda delve into an other extreme (statement )?

Searching for new somehow relevant particles can be quite challenging, I imagine.

Was it an other task for the particle collider, btw.? I don't remember.

They are about to try to create a black hole as well, I think.

Well, I am happy with it as long as they don't get the planet busted. But, the d*r* thingy doesn't even work for them.

Steve

These particle accelerators are supposed to create the energies required to equal those that got the BBT started.
I do not recall that energy but it is a value beyond the one that CERN can currently reach, I think.
All they are doing now is smashing the current particles to 'smithereens'.

So the only thing I can see is that this research is on behalf of proving the BBT.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion and I am sure these particle physicists won't like it is that the BBT is false.
There is a lot of evidence to prove it now. I think they are looking for the GOD particle(?) to keep this fantasy alive.
After billions of dollars spent in this research, all they have come up with is the Quark theory.

Hey, these particles do NOT exist in isolation. So to me, they are NOT real.

There are only TWO real particles and they have been studied and are proven beyond a doubt about their existance.
They are the electron and the proton and they form the basic matter element and that is the hydrogen atom.

Cosmo

Your record remains unblemished. Not a single correct or even sensible statement. Not one.

It is not worth rebutting this trash in detail. Literally nothing is even close to the mark.

Maybe it is because you have NO answer or alternative to what I say ?

Cosmo

Originally Posted by salsaonline

Originally Posted by Cosmo

My opinion and I am sure these particle physicists won't like it is that the BBT is false.
There is a lot of evidence to prove it now. I think they are looking for the GOD particle(?) to keep this fantasy alive.
After billions of dollars spent in this research, all they have come up with is the Quark theory.

Hey, these particles do NOT exist in isolation. So to me, they are NOT real.

There are only TWO real particles and they have been studied and are proven beyond a doubt about their existance.
They are the electron and the proton and they form the basic matter element and that is the hydrogen atom.

Cosmo

At least you must agree that the photon is another particle whose existence is beyond dispute.

The photon is NOT a particle because it has NO mass.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

what about neutrons? Don't those exist in atoms larger than protium, like say, Deuterium and Tritium; not to mention every other element with more than one proton? Neutrons don't behave exactly like protons nor electrons, so don't they have to be different as well, cosmo?

The only particles I cite as real are the protons and the electrons because they can exist in isolation.

The neutron CANNOT exist in isolation. It has tp have a proton coupled to it to exist in isolation such as the deuteron nucleus.
Otherwise, in isolation, the neutron decays to an electron and a proton after about 10 to 15 minutes.

Cosmo

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician

what about neutrons? Don't those exist in atoms larger than protium, like say, Deuterium and Tritium; not to mention every other element with more than one proton? Neutrons don't behave exactly like protons nor electrons, so don't they have to be different as well, cosmo?

The only particles I cite as real are the protons and the electrons because they can exist in isolation.

The neutron CANNOT exist in isolation. It has tp have a proton coupled to it to exist in isolation such as the deuteron nucleus.
Otherwise, in isolation, the neutron decays to an electron and a proton after about 10 to 15 minutes.

Cosmo

Real neat Cosmo. You have now hypothesized a particle that "does not exist" but that decays in 10-15 minutes. Just how might it decay if it does not exist ?

What form of logic is used on your planet ?

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Cosmo, don't you kinda delve into an other extreme (statement )?

Searching for new somehow relevant particles can be quite challenging, I imagine.

Was it an other task for the particle collider, btw.? I don't remember.

They are about to try to create a black hole as well, I think.

Well, I am happy with it as long as they don't get the planet busted. But, the d*r* thingy doesn't even work for them.

Steve

These particle accelerators are supposed to create the energies required to equal those that got the BBT started.
I do not recall that energy but it is a value beyond the one that CERN can currently reach, I think.
All they are doing now is smashing the current particles to 'smithereens'.

So the only thing I can see is that this research is on behalf of proving the BBT.

Cosmo

This was being the cause of which I thought the particle collider can not function properly.

As it was going to prove Big Bang on the one hand, but must be fed with initial energy to set off Big Bang, as a simulation, on the other, Big Bang was dissed.

Or, does the Big Bang theory allow Big Bang to be initialized by this (initial ) energy? No, it doesn't. The particles that are are gonna be smashed to clump, rather senselessly, should neither be existent prior to Big Bang and the singularity.

That exactly might be where the flaw was being. How could such device work when the scientific theory was flawed? Never.

Steve

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

[
This was being the cause of which I thought the particle collider can not function properly.

As it was going to prove Big Bang on the one hand, but must be fed with initial energy to set off Big Bang, as a simulation, on the other, Big Bang was dissed.

Or, does the Big Bang theory allow Big Bang to be initialized by this (initial ) energy? No, it doesn't. The particles that are are gonna be smashed to clump, rather senselessly, should neither be existent prior to Big Bang and the singularity.

That exactly might be where the flaw was being. How could such device work when the scientific theory was flawed? Never.

Steve

One more time.

The collider experiments have nothing to do with "simulating the Big Bang".

The subject of the experiments is particle physics, not cosmology or general relativity.

However, I do think your reply was spongy. Particle physics, cosmology, the informations CERN was putting out were pretty manifold as well as often largely interpreted by the media.

An other indication therefore something was done wrongly.

Also, I was trying to help only.

Steve

I am sorry to appear ignorant but i have heard that Particle accelerators do have a possibility in creating black holes. Thereby sucking in and annihilating everything. What are the actual chances of this happening? Is there any real prove or mathematical relationship that points to this. I heard it has to do with the superstring theory. Is it a established theory among phycist?

Originally Posted by tikai

I am sorry to appear ignorant but i have heard that Particle accelerators do have a possibility in creating black holes. Thereby sucking in and annihilating everything. What are the actual chances of this happening? Is there any real prove or mathematical relationship that points to this. I heard it has to do with the superstring theory. Is it a established theory among phycist?

Collisions with far more energy that what will happen in the LHC happen naturally all the time anyway. The only difference is that the LHC can cause them to happen where the scientists have all their instruments in place to observe them. If the collisions don't create earth-destroying black holes when they happen naturally, there is no reason to think that they would create earth-destroying black holes when they're made to happen artificially.

Hello tikai,

thank you for replying. I know the particle accelerator was foreseen to create back holes aside from other tasks.
It didn't, at the time I read the article, function, simply.

I thought since, how could they go to prove the bb theory differently in practice then the theory reads theoretically.

I'm not sure if that's the cause. But, aside from some ever possible technical difficulties, it's quite obvious.

Somehow, someone had to make bb happen out of nothing to converge both theory and praxis.

Besides, the entire appliance was error prone ever, anyway. And moreover, how breathtaking it was in case such cause could be cited to be responsible for the apparatus to fail, but might be a bit early to be estimated by now. But, nevertheless, it would tell a lot about bb. And that it was installed for, originally.

Might be, in the first place, the sole challenge was to get it up and running, only.

Steve

:edited:

Originally Posted by tikai

I am sorry to appear ignorant but i have heard that Particle accelerators do have a possibility in creating black holes. Thereby sucking in and annihilating everything. What are the actual chances of this happening? Is there any real prove or mathematical relationship that points to this. I heard it has to do with the superstring theory. Is it a established theory among phycist?

That is a red herring that has been pushed by a couple of people in the courts unsuccessfully. thank Glod.

It is slightly probbly that microscopic black holes might be formed. They would be expected to evaporate in milliseconds due to Hawking Radiation.

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/14

Originally Posted by DrRocket

That is a red herring that has been pushed by a couple of people in the courts unsuccessfully. thank Glod.

So far as I know, the people making noise in the courts have been making the much more sophisticated (and interesting) argument that the current state of our universe's vacuum energy might be at a metastable local minimum, and that concentrating sufficiently high energy into one place (like with a high-energy particle collision) might provide the activation energy needed to nucleate a bubble of lower-energy space that would then expand and consume us all.

This argument still seems to fail due to the rather glaring problem of natural particle collisions with higher energies than what the LHC will achieve, but it's at least more interesting and grounded in real physics. It's hypothetically possible that we might eventually need to worry about this, if we continue to make more and more powerful accelerators.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by DrRocket

That is a red herring that has been pushed by a couple of people in the courts unsuccessfully. thank Glod.

So far as I know, the people making noise in the courts have been making the much more sophisticated (and interesting) argument that the current state of our universe's vacuum energy might be at a metastable local minimum, and that concentrating sufficiently high energy into one place (like with a high-energy particle collision) might provide the activation energy needed to nucleate a bubble of lower-energy space that would then expand and consume us all.

That is not physics. That is somewhere between rank speculation and the babble coming from string types who are non-plussed that string theory has utterly failed to either provide any correct predictions or to home in on a single unique set of physical laws.

There is zero evidence in either the form of a self-consistent mathematical model or any experimental evidence whatever to support those propositions.

String theorists cannot even provide a clear definition of string theory, let alone a testable prediction. They have an interesting research avenue, and nothing more a the moment. The contributions to mathematical research are significant. The contributions to physics are purely in terms of potential for the future.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

That is not physics. That is somewhere between rank speculation and the babble coming from string types who are non-plussed that string theory has utterly failed to either provide any correct predictions or to home in on a single unique set of physical laws.

The idea is a product of quantum field theory. An interesting paper on the topic can be found in Nature vol. 302, 508 by Piet Hut & Martin J. Rees. I don't know if you can access it without going through a pay wall, so here is part of the abstract:

It is possible that the vacuum state we live in is not the absolute lowest one. In many spontaneously broken field theories a local minimum of the effective potential, which can be quite stable, can exist for certain parameter values. The Universe, starting at a high temperature, might have supercooled in such a local minimum. If such a metastable minimum is separated by a high enough barrier from the absolute minimum, the tunneling rate from the 'false' to the 'true' vacuum may be slow enough to not have occurred in one Hubble-spacetime-volume1,2. In that case our vaccum state might suddenly disappear if a bubble of real vacuum formed which was large enough for the bulk energy gain (equal to the product of the volume and the potential drop between false and true vacua) to exceed the surface energy density in its walls (proportional to the barrier potential).

...Although the persistence of our present vacuum for 10^10 yr implies that a spontaneous transition via tunnelling is unlikely, we can ask whether a new generation of elementary particle accelerators might trigger such an unfortunate event. We show here that this chance, fortunately, is completely negligible since the region inside our past light cone has already survived some 10^5 cosmic ray collisions at centre of mass energies of 10^11 GeV and higher.

Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee

Originally Posted by DrRocket

That is not physics. That is somewhere between rank speculation and the babble coming from string types who are non-plussed that string theory has utterly failed to either provide any correct predictions or to home in on a single unique set of physical laws.

The idea is a product of quantum field theory. An interesting paper on the topic can be found in Nature vol. 302, 508 by Piet Hut & Martin J. Rees. I don't know if you can access it without going through a pay wall, so here is part of the abstract:

It is possible that the vacuum state we live in is not the absolute lowest one. In many spontaneously broken field theories a local minimum of the effective potential, which can be quite stable, can exist for certain parameter values. The Universe, starting at a high temperature, might have supercooled in such a local minimum. If such a metastable minimum is separated by a high enough barrier from the absolute minimum, the tunneling rate from the 'false' to the 'true' vacuum may be slow enough to not have occurred in one Hubble-spacetime-volume1,2. In that case our vaccum state might suddenly disappear if a bubble of real vacuum formed which was large enough for the bulk energy gain (equal to the product of the volume and the potential drop between false and true vacua) to exceed the surface energy density in its walls (proportional to the barrier potential).

...Although the persistence of our present vacuum for 10^10 yr implies that a spontaneous transition via tunnelling is unlikely, we can ask whether a new generation of elementary particle accelerators might trigger such an unfortunate event. We show here that this chance, fortunately, is completely negligible since the region inside our past light cone has already survived some 10^5 cosmic ray collisions at centre of mass energies of 10^11 GeV and higher.

Thanks. I cannot access the article without the pay wall.

That explanation still reeks of speculation however. There are some rather deep problems with the vacuum energy predictions of quantum field theory. I don't yet understand the details, but I do understand the nature of the problem and the thorny issues involved.

Notably the QED prediction of the vacuum energy, when viewed in terms of the cosmological constant that arises from it, is high by 120 orders of magnitude.

In short, I view any "theory" as to transitions between vacuum energies as rank speculation. That sort of thing is what is behind Susskind's "Landscape", for instance. Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of speculatoin of this type showing up.

I will be impressed when someone come up with a consistent theory that explains the universe as we actually see it. Maybe after that I would be willing to listen to theories regarding other possibilities and how there might be a transition among them.

Originally Posted by DrRocket

That explanation still reeks of speculation however.

Oh, I'm not saying it's something we should lose any sleep over. For one thing, we don't even know whether or not we're living in a false vacuum - it's entirely possible that our current universe is a ground-state "true" vacuum, or at least so close to a true vacuum that a nucleated bubble of true vacuum could never be large enough to expand. And this is all assuming QFT's ideas about vacuum energy are even correct.

It is, however, an interesting doomsday scenario that is based on "serious" physics, rather than crank pseudo-science.

Originally Posted by Ivan Gorelik

Originally Posted by Steve Miller

Hello, I'm reading this article about the malfunctioning CERN particle collider. I understand, with the help of colliding particles scientist do simulate the origin of the universe, or better, the conditions found shortly after the big bang.

I conclude they assume the collision (some sort of particle collision ) lead to the originating universe. Do they know something we don't? How comes they assume particles to be existent well before the actual universe?

Doesn't such an assumption very well disprove the Big Bang, however?

And, if it does, how could CERN create the - condition shortly after - of what was disproved?

Might be reading this post will help them to fix the d*** thing.

Steve

At LHC the extreme conditions will be created. The pressures and temperatures inside stars are much less. These extreme conditions could be compared only with the conditions at the collapsing objects and with the conditions at the “Beginning”, described by the Big Bang Hypothesis (BBH).

I don’t want to speak about BBH, because I think, it is completely erroneous, religious dogma.

It is known that collapsing objects are the stars transforming into black holes.
The process of gravitational collapse is very contradictive.

But is the gravitational collapse the only possible?

It was investigated that the magnetic collapse is also possible!
Magnetic collapse leads to the creation of magnetic hole.
Magnetic hole is much stronger than black (gravitational) hole.
Astronomical observations show that in fact we see magnetic holes and collapses, but not black, the gravitational holes and collapses.
Magnetic holes have axial symmetry.
Black holes must have spherical symmetry.
Look at the remnants of SN 1987A.

Our Solar System will look the same as SN 1987A, soon after the launch of LHC with great probability.

According to my computation a large quantity of microscopic magnetic holes can be created at the LHC.
Thusly the launch of collider can launch the magnetic collapse of ordinary matter on growing fusing magnetic holes.

The minimal possible mass of magnetic hole in energy units is about 0.3 TeV.
Collisions with energies about 1 TeV were already made at Tevatron collider, but those were the proton-antiproton collision, leading to annihilation.
Collisions of cosmic particles with atmospheric particles have even more energies. But magnetic holes, made in these collisions, have TeV energies relatively our atmosphere. Because of this, the following collisions of magnetic holes with atmospheric particles will lead to evaporation of holes and to the creation of observable particle showers.

Magnetic holes created at the collider can have very small velocities. Such holes will cause the proton decay, accompanied by the rejection of positrons and by the growth of the holes.

This is utter nonsense.

thank you for the explanation. I guess the world wont come to end because of the experiment. Just curious why would people go to court to sue against the experiment? Is there any thing to gain from doing such a thing. I mean it really sound like they are against progress.

By trying to re-create conditions in the early universe all we are proving is that the human race can replicate 'another universe' in a lab. This implies that god (not a bearded man but an intelligent chemical or formula) should be able exist.

It means that something could potentially have created our own universe. If the human race can re-create conditions for the start of a universe in a lab then this means that something could just have easily have created conditions for our universe?

Please note: I an an atheist through and through, I do not believe in religion and am in no way saying that a god exists.

I am merely saying that if the CERN achieves its goals, it means that a 'superior force' should be able exist. Either there is a 'god' or we are ourselves 'god'. In fact, I'm surprised the fundamental christians haven't got a hold of this already (please, noooooo!!!!!!)

Please consider this arguement, answers on a postcard :P

Originally Posted by lisa234

By trying to re-create conditions in the early universe all we are proving is that the human race can replicate 'another universe' in a lab. This implies that god (not a bearded man but an intelligent chemical or formula) should be able exist.

It means that something could potentially have created our own universe. If the human race can re-create conditions for the start of a universe in a lab then this means that something could just have easily have created conditions for our universe?

Please note: I an an atheist through and through, I do not believe in religion and am in no way saying that a god exists.

I am merely saying that if the CERN achieves its goals, it means that a 'superior force' should be able exist. Either there is a 'god' or we are ourselves 'god'. In fact, I'm surprised the fundamental christians haven't got a hold of this already (please, noooooo!!!!!!)

Please consider this arguement, answers on a postcard :P

One more time.

The LHC is NOT creating the conditions as they existed at the Big Bang. Not even close.

And I don't care what you may have read in some magazine article written by a journalist who flunked freshman physics.

Some people on this forum are so arrogant and rude.

Did you not understand what I said? IF they are able to reproduce the conditions, which in the future scientists WILL be able to reproduce.

The one great thing about science is thinking outside the box and not following a formula for the next 500 years without questioning its fundamental meaning. Idiot.

In fact, I'm going to stop using this forum. Nearly every thread I read where someone has asked an innocent (although maybe wrong) question, there is always some t**t who makes sarcastic rude comments. Can't you be polite and simply explain your opinion?

People like you is why science and physics is seen by most as a clique

So long!

The real issue is, the LHC at CERN isn't designed to even attempt to reproduce the conditions of the early universe. That's not why we made it. Pop-culture likes to paint physics as some amazingly interesting thing that is always trying to answer the "ultimate question" which simply isn't true. It's a moderately interesting thing that is trying to answer some moderately interesting question. If you're a layman, then replace the word moderate with the word lame; and if you're a trained physicist, than replace the word moderate with the word amazing.

Why was it being broken, even though you made it? You're being a Forum Professor, you should know better.

Steve

The posts referring to "magnetic holes" have been split off to a new thread here:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/Magne...les-20374t.php