| Author |
Message
|
| Steve Miller |
 Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:33 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 768
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| tikai |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 10 Jun 2009
Posts: 32
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| tikai wrote: |
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Steve Miller |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 768
Location: Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
|
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:
Last edited by Steve Miller on Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:42 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| tikai wrote: |
| 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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| DrRocket wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
| DrRocket wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| DrRocket wrote: |
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:
| Quote: |
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. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Scifor Refugee wrote: |
| DrRocket wrote: |
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:
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Scifor Refugee |
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 1897
|
| DrRocket wrote: |
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 5:59 am Post subject: Re: The CERN particle collider |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ivan Gorelik wrote: |
| Steve Miller wrote: |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tikai |
| Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 10 Jun 2009
Posts: 32
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lisa234 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Location: England
|
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  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| lisa234 wrote: |
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 |
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| lisa234 |
| Posted: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Location: England
|
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 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
