LHC Dangerous?

For the discussion of the sciences. Physics problems, chemistry equations, biology weirdness, it all goes here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

Should it be fired?

No
29
8%
Yes
326
92%
 
Total votes: 355

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11116
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Yakk » Sat Jan 24, 2009 3:42 am UTC

baragon-kun wrote:I fixed some of my terrible grammar for my questions

1.- what is supposed to be the actual energy for micro black holes in collisions according to either the standart model or GR
2.- what evidence does support this and is agaisnt the other subteories who predict the micro black holes atlower energies

Lower energy black holes coming into existence seem to be consistent with observations. What isn't consistent, no matter how people twist things, is a low energy black hole that doesn't evaporate and/or otherwise fail to gather mass at a reasonable rate.

There is even a model (cannot remember if it was disproved) that uses a rapidly rotating micro black hole with a charge as being ... an electron. (The speed of rotation causes the singularity to pass the event horizon, and it forms a naked ring...)
3.- Is True that All theories are predicted as true, and did Eisntein predicted micro black holes.

This is not a question, and it is nonsense.
4.- How is possible that all of Eisntein predictions came right, and did he predicted the impossibility of micro black holes at LHC

No, not all of Einstein's predictions came true? He was wrong about a bunch of quantum mechanics problems, and spent decades trying to solve problems he failed at.
5.- And how is know that the model of accrettion are logical (the ones who said that theres no danger until a long time)

Because the universe is engaging in a version of the experiment we are doing very often. We have detected higher energy collisions than we are going to do in the LHC, we just haven't been sitting right next to them with huge sensory apparatuses to look at them. From knowing roughly how often they happen, something like "strangelets" or "micro black holes that eat the earth" isn't something that could happen from them, because if that was a result of the experiment, it would have happened already.

Between neutron stars and the known planets, we have a range of densities and a huge duration of experiment (billions of years), and it gives us lots of data about the macroscopic results of something like the LHC collision.

i admit that i have some slighty paranoia, but i dont try and even intent to be like some people like (You may know who), but i still waiting a answer for this questions if you dont mind.

It might be because you aren't expressing what you want to express due to your lack of ability to express yourself in English, but... that sentence sounds like a crazy person.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:46 am UTC

by the way Mr Yakk, isthere a possibility of proton proton collisions may differ in creation or non-creation of black holes, since cosmic ray collisions are mostly protons, but when they collide in earth atmosphere and nueron stars and white dwarfs, i know that:

Earth Atmosphere - Molecules
Neutron Stars = Soup of electrons

and i know that what matters is the energy released in such collision, but for example, Heavy ion collisions made different things than proton/proton collisions such as the quark gluon for example, also, as far asi did research, cosmic rays are subatomic particles, and maybe cosmic ray collision are not exavtly subatomic particle / subatomic particle collisions???

Im Wrong like always?? :P

PS: by the way, the reason of my grammar is cause, im mexican and my english is sloppy, and my keyboard doesnt have the lleter written up

and to wisnij it wasnt my inttention to get you upset, and about what you say, is not what it seems, yesim a little bit paranoic, but i feel pretty relax in this forums with you useful answers guys, i hope i can interact with peace with you, if is not in this threadh, maybe in the whole community

And to

zealo
Posts: 321
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2006 11:36 am UTC
Location: perth, australia
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby zealo » Sun Jan 25, 2009 11:31 am UTC

Image
ave_matthew wrote:in a perfect system a gallon of body fat is worth one third of the US GDP

User avatar
TauCeti
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:16 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby TauCeti » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:05 pm UTC

baragon-kun wrote:Earth Atmosphere - Molecules
Neutron Stars = Soup of electrons


Close. Neutron stars are soups of neutrons, hence the name. A neutron star is effectively a single, huge atomic nucleus. Their densities are ludicrous, which is why they're a good test for the risk of free floating black holes. Even if a fast moving black hole could pass through the Earth safely, it couldn't pass through a neutron star, and yet neutron stars aren't vanishing all of the time.


baragon-kun wrote:and i know that what matters is the energy released in such collision, but for example, Heavy ion collisions made different things than proton/proton collisions such as the quark gluon for example, also, as far asi did research, cosmic rays are subatomic particles, and maybe cosmic ray collision are not exavtly subatomic particle / subatomic particle collisions???

Im Wrong like always?? :P


My understanding of black holes is that they only care about gravity, and thus mass. Since even energy has some mass (E=mc^2), the idea is that a sufficiently energetic collision, in a small enough space, might make a mini black hole. It doesn't matter where that energy comes from, only how much of it there is (and how much space it occupies). Since cosmic rays are faster, more energetic, and smaller than anything the LHC will be working with, if the LHC can make a mini black hole, cosmic rays could do it trivially.

If I am wrong, would someone please correct me?


baragon-kun wrote:and to wisnij it wasnt my inttention to get you upset, and about what you say, is not what it seems, yesim a little bit paranoic, but i feel pretty relax in this forums with you useful answers guys, i hope i can interact with peace with you, if is not in this threadh, maybe in the whole community


From a physicist's perspective, the arguments why the LHC are dangerous had started repeating themselves months ago. People are getting tired of explaining why it is safe again and again, and thus many are getting angry and snippy. I don't think there is anything you or I can do about it, except to learn the truth and give it to others.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:48 am UTC

TauCeti wrote:My understanding of black holes is that they only care about gravity, and thus mass. Since even energy has some mass (E=mc^2), the idea is that a sufficiently energetic collision, in a small enough space, might make a mini black hole. It doesn't matter where that energy comes from, only how much of it there is (and how much space it occupies). Since cosmic rays are faster, more energetic, and smaller than anything the LHC will be working with, if the LHC can make a mini black hole, cosmic rays could do it trivially.


But maybe the space when a cosmic ray collides with a stationary particle is a big open space like the atmosphere or the other stronomical objects, and the place when the collisions in LHC will be made are going to be compressed and small, plus, the LHC will make 60 million collisions per second in a small place at once, the cosmic rays only do in open space like squaremeter

Our maybe our planet and even other astronomical objects are not in the centre of mass energy

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26738
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:00 am UTC

Do you have any even remotely plausible mechanism by which the higher concentration of collisions in the LHC could have *any* effects other than what happens in cosmic ray collisions?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:05 am UTC

Well, No, but it sounds plausible to me

and whats the mechanism to tell the opposite what im say before

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26738
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:42 am UTC

Um... you don't need a mechanism for a negative result. The "mechanism" by which nothing untoward happens at LHC is just the same as what already happens constantly in cosmic ray collisions.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:55 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Um... you don't need a mechanism for a negative result. The "mechanism" by which nothing untoward happens at LHC is just the same as what already happens constantly in cosmic ray collisions.


Sure, but, lets think,

Point A= the LHC will make 600,000,000 collisions per second in the small place (im not making this up, you can clearly see in http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Facts-en.html)


Point B = it is known that per second there's more cosmic rays collisions at the atmosphere in the same scale (14TeV) yet to date there is no evidence in particle detectors that they may produce micro black holes, so it will mean one of 2 things:

1.- they are not produced in 14 Tev scales (in all scenarios)
2.- they travel too fast to beign detected

If case 1 is the correct, then it should beign said that the LHC will not make them, if is case 2, the hypothethical theories should be true, and if the black holes are stable and if they escape the earth, it should be possible than those can still enter on neutron stars and whote dwarfs, and thus, the longevity of this objects suggests those scenarios

1.- they are too slow and weak for acrrettion and grow, and perphaps even more for acretion in earth
2.- simply they are not created neither in cosmic ray collisions with those objects (theories of extra dimensions will not be true)
3.- they are created in cosmic ray collisions with those objects but they most evaporate (via Hawking radiation or another mechanism)

But here's a question, i dont claim this hypothesis to be correct at all, but for curiosity, what if cosmic ray collisions will indeed differ (at some rate) from collisions on particle accelerator?, im not a scientist, and i dont claiming to be one, but just for the sake of the question, back to point A, takin in consideration the number of collisions at LHC, it has been suggested that the LHC will create 1 micro black hole per second, it has been theorized by Steve Giddings and others, but also they have theorized that if that the case, they also will be produced in the LHC, but the question here's a question:

the arguments for black hole creation in CR collisions, are for single collisions? (1 proton vs 1 proton), or many collisions at once, since cosmic rays naturally comes in more quantity, they should create the gravity and energy needed, but, the cosmic ray collisions, while they occour in more rate per second, what if they vehav differently after all?, here i found some plausible arguments:

theres a certain quantity of cosmic ray per square m to square m, but lets say, one per square centimeter, and the earh has an area of 5 x 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 centimeters then there should be like 5,000,000,000,000,000,000, thats indeed more than the collisions in the LHC, and all whil happen in the same time, per second (for cosmic rays at 1 per square centimeter), BUT, theres only 1 collision per square centimeter, independently of all happening per second, they dont happen in the same place, (one square centimeter), so, maybe cosmic ray collisions dont make micro black holes, but can still be plausible if the 600,000,000 collisions per second in the same area on LHC can behave differently, since most of theorists have been suggest that there will be one micro black hole per second, so it means that they need the 600,000,000 collision at once to make them, this is what suggest that maybe the cosmic ray collisions will differ from particle colliders, cause since theres apparently (as far as i know) no many comic ray collisions at once in one same spot in astronimical objetcs, maybe what can possible create black holes is energy concentration since it will be 6000,000,000 collisions of 14TeV at the same time, what is the mechanism to allowing cosmic rays to imitate them? since they only create a small concentration for the centre of mass energy... i dont know. i read some of Steve Giddings papers and apparently they dont specify the number of collisions at LHC, so this leds to some hypothesis:

1.- they did take in consideration the rates of collisions per second at LHC and in square meters (since for more powerful cosmic rays theres a bigger space?,

2.- If hypothesis one is not valid, then it would be plausible to think in the old model of a micro black hole per single collision, if that the case, and the LHC will make so many collisions, should we conclude then that there will be 600000000 micro black holes per second instead of one per second?

should this be turned into a model of mechanism?

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby BlackSails » Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:25 am UTC

Image

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:12 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:Image


i know it can sound retarded, but is plausible that the mechanism for TeV gravity can be different for each type of collisions??

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby phlip » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:38 am UTC

Analogy time!

I've dropped a few pencils in my time, and seen the results. Nothing especially untoward happens, they just fall and land on the ground. Many people have done the same, and if dropping pencils was potentially dangerous, we would've heard of it by now, simply by the sheer number of pencils that have been dropped between when the pencil was first invented and now.

Now, suppose I proposed an experiment that involved dropping a whole handful of pencils at once. Now, I'd posit that, despite the fact that there's a lot of pencils there, they'll behave in the same way as pencils always behave, ie fall down and land on the floor. You're positing instead that they'll behave completely differently, fly off at high speed, and stab people in the face. We ask you why you think they'd behave differently... not even why you think they'd specifically stab people in the face, but why you think they'd behave differently at all... and you respond with just "because it's a handful of pencils! That makes it different somehow!" and then challenge us to provide some special mechanism that would make the pencils act in exactly the same manner as they normally do.

It doesn't work like that. You have to provide some kind of evidence for the concept that it might behave at all differently (beyond "it seems plausible to me"... note that if you don't know much about a field, things can seem plausible that are completely false... for instance, I know very little of meteorology, so to me it seems plausible that it'll rain tomorrow... but the professional meteorologists claim otherwise)... you can't just spout a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and demand we debunk it.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby thoughtfully » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:54 pm UTC

TauCeti wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:Earth Atmosphere - Molecules
Neutron Stars = Soup of electrons


Close. Neutron stars are soups of neutrons, hence the name. A neutron star is effectively a single, huge atomic nucleus. Their densities are ludicrous, which is why they're a good test for the risk of free floating black holes. Even if a fast moving black hole could pass through the Earth safely, it couldn't pass through a neutron star, and yet neutron stars aren't vanishing all of the time.

Neutron stars have a crust of Iron, and the innards can be more interesting than straight neutronium. The limits of current theory are pushed to their limits here, but something like a quark-gluon plasma or other exotica may be present at sufficient depths.

Also, I apologize for not following up on my earlier comments earlier. I was out of town, enjoying some warm weather :)
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:01 pm UTC

phlip wrote:Analogy time!

I've dropped a few pencils in my time, and seen the results. Nothing especially untoward happens, they just fall and land on the ground. Many people have done the same, and if dropping pencils was potentially dangerous, we would've heard of it by now, simply by the sheer number of pencils that have been dropped between when the pencil was first invented and now.

Now, suppose I proposed an experiment that involved dropping a whole handful of pencils at once. Now, I'd posit that, despite the fact that there's a lot of pencils there, they'll behave in the same way as pencils always behave, ie fall down and land on the floor. You're positing instead that they'll behave completely differently, fly off at high speed, and stab people in the face. We ask you why you think they'd behave differently... not even why you think they'd specifically stab people in the face, but why you think they'd behave differently at all... and you respond with just "because it's a handful of pencils! That makes it different somehow!" and then challenge us to provide some special mechanism that would make the pencils act in exactly the same manner as they normally do.

It doesn't work like that. You have to provide some kind of evidence for the concept that it might behave at all differently (beyond "it seems plausible to me"... note that if you don't know much about a field, things can seem plausible that are completely false... for instance, I know very little of meteorology, so to me it seems plausible that it'll rain tomorrow... but the professional meteorologists claim otherwise)... you can't just spout a bunch of unsubstantiated rubbish and demand we debunk it.


here's the part that i dont understand

so if cosmic rays collisions do the same thing, and itsall about gravity and energy released.

then since the collider do many collisions at once (lets say one million), why they only appears one object (particle) and its tiny, they shouldnt be objects per single collision-?

or is about a lucky collision, whetaver in acceleraotrs or cosmic rays? :oops:

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby phlip » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:08 am UTC

baragon-kun wrote:[...]why they only appears one object (particle) and its tiny[...]

What? Where did you get that idea from? Only a few Higgs bosons will be created from the huge numbers of protons colliding in the LHC (Wikipedia says that the guess is one every few hours or so), but each one will be solely from the collision of two protons, not from a whole bunch colliding into one place...

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:50 am UTC

phlip wrote:What? Where did you get that idea from? Only a few Higgs bosons will be created from the huge numbers of protons colliding in the LHC (Wikipedia says that the guess is one every few hours or so), but each one will be solely from the collision of two protons, not from a whole bunch colliding into one place...


the idea came from the theory that if the LHC will create a black hole it will be 1 per second, and my question is that everyone who analyzed the cosmic ray argument know that the machine will make a whole bunch colliding?, since the creation of a black hole will be from collisions of 2 single protons, then why will not be a bunch of black holes at once????

wait, reading better about what you say of the collisions, so this means, that all collisions made those particles but not every single collision, just per rate?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26738
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:58 am UTC

Every pairwise collision would in theory result in pretty similar particle showers afterward. But those aren't perfectly detectable, so the LHC smashes a lot of stuff together, giving a larger number of subsequent particles being detected. But each time it's still just one particle into one other one. (The beam is not tight enough for any more than that. Protons are tiny, and so it would take a huge additional amount of effort and luck to somehow collide three together at once. And that luck would mean we're again going into realms of (im)probability like one chance in 10^50 or something.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:36 pm UTC

then why they did teorized that it will be a micro black hole per second??

here is Giddings original work in blackholes on LHC http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106219

and also here are Greg Landsberg & Savas Dimopoulos work http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106295

and here is when it was theorized the theory of black hole production at LHC, apparently the quantum mechanics model, and extra dimmensions all forms the theory of TeV Gravity wich is what will allow the LHC or cosmic rays to produce them, but as far as i read both, i dosnt say much about cosmic ray collisions.

heres the question, what makes that black hole creation (if is possible) only is limited to 1 per second?

and while we are at it, why is it that not all collisions made the same hypotetical particles????, i mean, for example, that only a few higgs bosson are discovered from million of collisions, but still each of those bosson will be from a single collision of 2 protons?

How is that work, and how can be applied to black holes?

User avatar
TauCeti
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:16 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby TauCeti » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:08 pm UTC

thoughtfully wrote:
TauCeti wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:Earth Atmosphere - Molecules
Neutron Stars = Soup of electrons


Close. Neutron stars are soups of neutrons, hence the name. A neutron star is effectively a single, huge atomic nucleus. Their densities are ludicrous, which is why they're a good test for the risk of free floating black holes. Even if a fast moving black hole could pass through the Earth safely, it couldn't pass through a neutron star, and yet neutron stars aren't vanishing all of the time.

Neutron stars have a crust of Iron, and the innards can be more interesting than straight neutronium. The limits of current theory are pushed to their limits here, but something like a quark-gluon plasma or other exotica may be present at sufficient depths.


Holy mackerel that is amazing. Thanks.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:38 pm UTC

i found this quote made by otto rossler on one of thecomments debunking him

http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2008/08/08/gerhard_w_bruhn_darmstadt_university_of__2008

So he claimed that he can still be correct????

by the way, how stronger are the magnetic fields of white dwarfs and neutron stars??

User avatar
thoughtfully
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:25 am UTC
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby thoughtfully » Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:47 pm UTC

White dwarfs have fields of around a hundred tesla, which is the same order of magnitude that have been achieved in labs on Earth. These fields are not sustained, however, and generally involve blowing things up :)

The magnetic fields in the vicinity of a rapidly rotating neutron star, however, can reach billions of tesla. This sort of field distorts electron orbitals significantly and alters the rules of chemistry. The energy density of the field (in empty space!) is thousands of times the mass-energy equivalent of the densest ordinary matter!

I wonder which would kill an astronaut first: the distorted chemistry or tidal forces :)
Image
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:49 pm UTC

thoughtfully wrote:White dwarfs have fields of around a hundred tesla, which is the same order of magnitude that have been achieved in labs on Earth. These fields are not sustained, however, and generally involve blowing things up :)

The magnetic fields in the vicinity of a rapidly rotating neutron star, however, can reach billions of tesla. This sort of field distorts electron orbitals significantly and alters the rules of chemistry. The energy density of the field (in empty space!) is thousands of times the mass-energy equivalent of the densest ordinary matter!

I wonder which would kill an astronaut first: the distorted chemistry or tidal forces :)


so this means that for at least neutron stars, they are stronger enough to deflect particles created in collisions????

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:57 pm UTC

baragon-kun wrote:
thoughtfully wrote:White dwarfs have fields of around a hundred tesla, which is the same order of magnitude that have been achieved in labs on Earth. These fields are not sustained, however, and generally involve blowing things up :)

The magnetic fields in the vicinity of a rapidly rotating neutron star, however, can reach billions of tesla. This sort of field distorts electron orbitals significantly and alters the rules of chemistry. The energy density of the field (in empty space!) is thousands of times the mass-energy equivalent of the densest ordinary matter!

I wonder which would kill an astronaut first: the distorted chemistry or tidal forces :)


so this means that for at least neutron stars, they are stronger enough to deflect particles created in collisions????

Er, no. In fact, very much the opposite; these fields are still magnetic fields so they have two or more poles which will intersect with the 'surface' of the star. Any charged particles generated by impacts with matter within the field will eventually end up hitting one of the poles. And uncharged particles will, by definition, not be affected in the slightest.
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
Charlie!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Charlie! » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:38 pm UTC

Mr_Rose wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:
thoughtfully wrote:White dwarfs have fields of around a hundred tesla, which is the same order of magnitude that have been achieved in labs on Earth. These fields are not sustained, however, and generally involve blowing things up :)

The magnetic fields in the vicinity of a rapidly rotating neutron star, however, can reach billions of tesla. This sort of field distorts electron orbitals significantly and alters the rules of chemistry. The energy density of the field (in empty space!) is thousands of times the mass-energy equivalent of the densest ordinary matter!

I wonder which would kill an astronaut first: the distorted chemistry or tidal forces :)


so this means that for at least neutron stars, they are stronger enough to deflect particles created in collisions????

Er, no. In fact, very much the opposite; these fields are still magnetic fields so they have two or more poles which will intersect with the 'surface' of the star. Any charged particles generated by impacts with matter within the field will eventually end up hitting one of the poles. And uncharged particles will, by definition, not be affected in the slightest.

I wonder if strong enough fields could actually polarize spinning neutrons, since they're made up of quarks. That would be... odd.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

Mr_Rose
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 9:32 am UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Mr_Rose » Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:43 pm UTC

Charlie! wrote:
Mr_Rose wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:
thoughtfully wrote:White dwarfs have fields of around a hundred tesla, which is the same order of magnitude that have been achieved in labs on Earth. These fields are not sustained, however, and generally involve blowing things up :)

The magnetic fields in the vicinity of a rapidly rotating neutron star, however, can reach billions of tesla. This sort of field distorts electron orbitals significantly and alters the rules of chemistry. The energy density of the field (in empty space!) is thousands of times the mass-energy equivalent of the densest ordinary matter!

I wonder which would kill an astronaut first: the distorted chemistry or tidal forces :)


so this means that for at least neutron stars, they are stronger enough to deflect particles created in collisions????

Er, no. In fact, very much the opposite; these fields are still magnetic fields so they have two or more poles which will intersect with the 'surface' of the star. Any charged particles generated by impacts with matter within the field will eventually end up hitting one of the poles. And uncharged particles will, by definition, not be affected in the slightest.

I wonder if strong enough fields could actually polarize spinning neutrons, since they're made up of quarks. That would be... odd.

I suppose it'd be technically possible; you just have to get a field dense enough for there to be an appreciable differential acceleration of the partial charges that make up your neutrons. How wide is a neutron anyway?
Microevolution is a term — when used by creationists — that is the evolutionary equivalent of the belief that the mechanism you use to walk from your bedroom to the kitchen is insufficient to get you from New York to Los Angeles.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:38 pm UTC

well, how are the atmosphere of those stars????

and they have the same molecules and particles that the earth has, allowing to the production of particles?, and that beign said, if a cosmic ray penetrates a white dwarf and collides with one of the electrons inside of the star, dont you think that there's a chance that some of those particles created in those stars can beign carapulted away from those stars?

since, the argument of black hole trapping is needed for the point that those particles are created in collisions above the magnetic fields, or before entering the astronimical bodie?
Last edited by baragon-kun on Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:24 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26738
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:12 pm UTC

Some might escape the star, sure. But it's not going to be *all*, and remember that we've got billions of stars and billions of years to work with here, and no evidence of anything bad happening at all as a result of such collisions.

So if anything catastrophic would happen, it's with extremely low probability. You're more likely to have a cosmic ray collision in your own brain produce superhero brain cancer, for example.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby oxoiron » Sun Feb 08, 2009 7:54 pm UTC

Wikipedia, regarding superhero brain cancer, wrote:Plot summary

[snip]

The movie ends at George's next birth day [sic] party with same friends. Everyone plays the jukebox and cuddles. Fade to black. The credits begin to roll and there is an outtake montage set to Benny Hill music.

Everyone then walks out of the theater wishing they had gone bowling instead.
Truer words were never written.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
CokeBottleBeeBop
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 8:56 am UTC
Location: leeds, north england
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby CokeBottleBeeBop » Sun Feb 08, 2009 10:35 pm UTC

i read on a maths thread that the mathematical probability of the collider making a black hole is 0,
not impossible,
0,
the exact same probability that the sun has of doing the same thing,
it's been going for a while now,
and i'm ok.
x
Chemists say "WHAAAAAAAAAAT?...."

Technical Ben
Posts: 2986
Joined: Tue May 27, 2008 10:42 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Technical Ben » Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:21 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:So if anything catastrophic would happen, it's with extremely low probability. You're more likely to have a cosmic ray collision in your own brain produce /superhero brain cancer, for example.


This post wins the thread, if only for the movie link. :)
just cos something may be "possible" does not make it "probable".
It's all physics and stamp collecting.
It's not a particle or a wave. It's just an exchange.

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:27 am UTC

All Right, one more thing

the whole argument ofthe blak hole is because of the theory of "TeV Gravity", how much will contradict the laws of psysics if the LHC make a black hole and the coscmi rays dont?

like lets say, divide by zero (i heard these term used when it comes to black holes)

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby doogly » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:28 am UTC

baragon-kun wrote:like lets say, divide by zero (i heard these term used when it comes to black holes)


That is a sign to get a new information source.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:38 am UTC

doogly wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:like lets say, divide by zero (i heard these term used when it comes to black holes)


That is a sign to get a new information source.


can you explain it, well since im not familiar with psysichs but i was worried of this whole thing, than i saw pics like this

Image

If this has some comedic relief, take it like that :|

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby doogly » Mon Feb 09, 2009 12:48 am UTC

baragon-kun wrote:
doogly wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:like lets say, divide by zero (i heard these term used when it comes to black holes)


That is a sign to get a new information source.


can you explain it, well since im not familiar with psysichs but i was worried of this whole thing


What would you like to know, and how much physics do you already know? Black holes are fun to chat about and make images out of but if you want to do things like compare different extensions of general relativity you need some more solid preparation.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:03 am UTC

err, well, and the ones who are the experts in the field, why they dint make one? or if we can suggest them to seek if there's a plausible mechanism that can be applied or not?

I think that this is the reason of the "naysaying model" of the crackpots, they always think that the expertes may overlooked something, and thats why they dint feel safe

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26738
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:10 am UTC

CokeBottleBeeBop wrote:i read on a maths thread that the mathematical probability of the collider making a black hole is 0,
not impossible,
0,
the exact same probability that the sun has of doing the same thing,
it's been going for a while now,
and i'm ok.
x

To set the record straight, no, that is not what you read in the math thread. The things in this discussion have minute non-zero probability, which was stated explicitly in the math thread. Our knowledge of science is not good enough to really say that anything has probability equal to zero (and in fact it's entirely possible that no real-world scenario has the probability of a possible event equal to zero, because we can't do things like pick real numbers uniformly or flip a coin an infinite number of times).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5530
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby doogly » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:26 am UTC

baragon-kun wrote:err, well, and the ones who are the experts in the field, why they dint make one?


Make what?
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
baragon-kun
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby baragon-kun » Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:46 am UTC

doogly wrote:
baragon-kun wrote:err, well, and the ones who are the experts in the field, why they dint make one?


Make what?


the solid preparation that you say, i mean, mathemathical and/or experimental evidence that can support or disprove an argument in sciencie

and how exactly psysicist know how micro black holes can beheave?

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:03 am UTC

We don't. That's why we'd really, really like to see them in the lab. We don't know if they'll even show up.

When you think about it, it's not something you would assume is going to happen. But some theories say it will, and we'd like to test those. The thing is, the mathematics that says they might show up also tells us that they will dissolve very quickly.

We're doing an experiment precisely because we aren't sure what will happen--it doesn't make any sense to insist that we know exactly what will happen, because if we did, we wouldn't be doing the experiment.
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

User avatar
Charlie!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Re: LHC Dangerous?

Postby Charlie! » Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:23 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:We don't. That's why we'd really, really like to see them in the lab. We don't know if they'll even show up.

When you think about it, it's not something you would assume is going to happen. But some theories say it will, and we'd like to test those. The thing is, the mathematics that says they might show up also tells us that they will dissolve very quickly.

We're doing an experiment precisely because we aren't sure what will happen--it doesn't make any sense to insist that we know exactly what will happen, because if we did, we wouldn't be doing the experiment.

Of course, if he was referring to a thorough prediction of what will happen given what we currently know about the universe, you just completely didn't answer his question :P But essentially the "they may or may not show up, but if they do they'll be smaller than a proton and dissolve extremely quickly" answer is what our current ideas about how the universe works say.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"


Return to “Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests