Starship Asterisk*

Final LHC magnet goes underground - 2009 April 30

• The 53rd and final replacement magnet for CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was lowered into the accelerator's tunnel today, marking the end of repair work above ground following the incident in September last year that brought LHC operations to a halt. Underground, the magnets are being interconnected, and new systems installed to prevent similar incidents happening again. The LHC is scheduled to restart in the autumn, and to run continuously until sufficient data have been accumulated for the LHC experiments to announce their first results.
  

bystander wrote:Final LHC magnet goes underground - 2009 April 30

• The 53rd and final replacement magnet for CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) was lowered into the accelerator's tunnel today, marking the end of repair work above ground following the incident in September last year that brought LHC operations to a halt. Underground, the magnets are being interconnected, and new systems installed to prevent similar incidents happening again. The LHC is scheduled to restart in the autumn, and to run continuously until sufficient data have been accumulated for the LHC experiments to announce their first results.
  

------------------------------------------------------------
. Angels & Demons (2009)

Vittoria Vetra: [points to computer diagram of the antimatter device] the antimatter is suspended, there, in an airtight nano-composite shell with electromagnets on each end. But if it were to fall out of suspension, and come into contact with matter, say with the bottom of the canister, the two opposing forces would annihilate one another. Violently.
------------------------------------------------------------

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

It is funny that I was reading this paper when this topic popped up again.
Just sharing the reading.

The ATLAS tau trigger
Apr-09
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009NuPhS.189..291C

>The implementation of a trigger for hadronically decaying tau leptons at the Large Hadronic Collider (LHC) is challenging due to the high background rate, on the other hand it increases tremendously the discovery potential of ATLAS in searches for Standard Model (SM) or Supersymmetric (SUSY) Higgs or other more exotic final states. In this paper we describe the ATLAS tau trigger system, focusing on the early data taking period, and present results from studies based on GEANT 4 simulated events, including trigger rates and the acceptance of tau leptons from SM processes. In order to cope with the rate and optimize the efficiency of important physics channels, the results of the current simulation studies indicate that ATLAS tau triggers should include either relatively high transverse momentum single tau signatures, or low transverse momentum tau signatures in combination with other signatures, such as missing transverse energy, leptons, or jets.

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Just sharing the reading of this paper, I may have post it before.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106219
High Energy Colliders as Black Hole Factories: The End of Short Distance Physics

Authors: Steven B. Giddings, Scott Thomas
(Submitted on 19 Jun 2001 (v1), last revised 26 Jun 2002 (this version, v4))

Abstract: If the fundamental Planck scale is of order a TeV, as the case in some extra-dimensions scenarios, future hadron colliders such as the Large Hadron Collider will be black hole factories. The non-perturbative process of black hole formation and decay by Hawking evaporation gives rise to spectacular events with up to many dozens of relatively hard jets and leptons, with a characteristic ratio of hadronic to leptonic activity of roughly 5:1. The total transverse energy of such events is typically a sizeable fraction of the beam energy. Perturbative hard scattering processes at energies well above the Planck scale are cloaked behind a horizon, thus limiting the ability to probe short distances. The high energy black hole cross section grows with energy at a rate determined by the dimensionality and geometry of the extra dimensions. This dependence therefore probes the extra dimensions at distances larger than the Planck scale.

Dooms day postponed until October...

http://www.softsailor.com/news/5188-the ... -2009.html

mark

G'day Mark

Darn I'm on Holdays in October.

Make the end of the world in November

or was that booked in for 2012

Chris Peterson wrote: ... as the idea of "before" the BB has no basis ...

Even an uneducated ignoramus like me can easily know for sure for certain positively that there was a time before the theoretical Big Bang. In eternity, from the beginning of the theoretical Big Bang till now is a blip in time, a bleep, a blurp, whatever you want to call a micro nanosecond of vapour. Eternity is BIG and always was and always will be.

Loco wrote:Even an uneducated ignoramus like me can easily know for sure for certain positively that there was a time before the theoretical Big Bang.

Well, only an uneducated ignoramus would have that opinion, because it is far from certain scientifically.

Chris Peterson wrote:

Loco wrote:Even an uneducated ignoramus like me can easily know for sure for certain positively that there was a time before the theoretical Big Bang.

Well, only an uneducated ignoramus would have that opinion, because it is far from certain scientifically.

Ah, so you admit it is POSSIBLE scientifically there was a time before the theoretical Big Bang? By the way, as you probably know, my certainty that there was time before the Big Bang does not come from science; but I see nothing in science that forbids it in any possible way. In fact, if the theoretical Big Bang originated in something, there had to be something before the Bang, and that something would have had to exist in Time.

harry wrote:G'day Mark

Darn I'm on Holdays in October.

Make the end of the world in November

or was that booked in for 2012

The world will be around for at least another 1,000 years, just not in its present state.

aristarchusinexile wrote:Ah, so you admit it is POSSIBLE scientifically there was a time before the theoretical Big Bang? By the way, as you probably know, my certainty that there was time before the Big Bang does not come from science; but I see nothing in science that forbids it in any possible way. In fact, if the theoretical Big Bang originated in something, there had to be something before the Bang, and that something would have had to exist in Time.

Of course it's possible. But I don't think it's likely, because the theory works out so well when time begins at the Big Bang. However, that's not to say there isn't some sort of analog of time which exists "outside" the Universe and isn't part of the causality of the Big Bang.

Big Bang machine hit with another delay
ComputerWorld - 2009 July 22

Newly found vacuum leaks will keep Large Hadron Collider offline until November.

Bystander.. The folks who locked us up and threw away the key, do not want us to leave this place..

Just for argument sake And Nowt else.


Fire a lead iron particle into a proton at close to the speed of light and lets see what falls out?
Was these particles created in a time and place that we hardly understand? Energy seems to come from nothing but does it really? Read these words: The immense power that comes from splitting the Atom.
What immense power comes from splitting a proton? Is it true they have no idea of the out come?

Quote :

''Only experimental data using the higher energies reached by the LHC can push knowledge forward, challenging those who seek confirmation of established knowledge, and those who dare to dream beyond the paradigm''.

Further Quote :

''Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy. Teams of physicists from around the world will analyse the particles created in the collisions using special detectors in a number of experiments dedicated to the LHC''.

Is one of these detectors located on Pluto?

Conservation of energy states, at the creation of a proton, neutron,electron,nucleus, etc etc etc the energy that created them is still there.

Quote :

''Newton's unfinished business''...

''What is mass''?

''What is the origin of mass? Why do tiny particles weigh the amount they do? Why do some particles have no mass at all? At present, there are no established answers to these questions. The most likely explanation may be found in the Higgs boson, a key undiscovered particle that is essential for the Standard Model to work. First hypothesized in 1964, it has yet to be observed''.

''The ATLAS and CMS experiments will be actively searching for signs of this elusive particle''.

At what point do you decide enough is enough, The answer's only reveal new questions, that we have no way to answer?
My view is that this Higgs Boson is just a long line of ever more problematic puzzles to solve. Who said if you want to discover the universe .. You need to go inwards, as well as outwards? They are just as bad as each other.

Interesting though.. And i,m just as interested to find out, as the rest of you. I just hope they have taken into account the dangers of releasing the powers that created our universe.
Quotes From:

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/WhyLHC-en.html
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/HowLHC-en.html
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html

Mark

Come on chris,,,, input....


Mark

mark swain wrote:Come on chris,,,, input....

The energies involved- in absolute terms- are small. You release more with a firecracker than they will see from these collisions. They are merely boosting individual particles (or small numbers of them) to high energy levels. Natural processes do the same. There is no risk, this is merely another way of studying nature, and advancing our knowledge a little bit more.

Hello All,

It has occurred to me that the solution may lie in the EM spectrum and not in matter. Although the current technology involves matter particles I feel that, in the long run, the Higgs Boson will remain elusive and pretty much a pipe dream because it probably does not exist. In any event, the knowledge to be gained will culminate with the idea that, as the so-called BB originated from non-matter energy, then that is where the efforts will eventually be focused.

The mechanical and mathmatical proccesses to gain such knowledge at this time are astounding to say the least, and the theories surrounding creating energy from matter has resulted in some pretty wild and dangerous undertakings. However, I still say that the end result will be discovering the massless particles we may already know about (or predict). But there is, at this particular time, no other likely recourse but to continue as safely as possible in the direction that science is currently going in- namely the experiments involving the LHC.

As you can see, I am not in favor of halting any near-future trials, but I think developing a program to investigate compacted EM energy should be looked into as a way to work at the discovery of matter's "secret" component by entering the room through the opposite door so to speak just so we don't miss anything and maybe the two approaches would meet and, who knows, maybe validate each other.

If lasers and other energy pulses can affect matter there must be a reasonable way to further condense EM energy INTO matter which, to me, is where it's at (can you say, "Tranporter Room. Mr. Scott, two to beam up."?). It probably will cost as much, if not more, than the monies invested in trying to reduce matter to a state of pure energy, perhaps finding some Plank-length thing we can't even measure. BTW that could also occur coming from the EM-energy end as well but I can't help but feel that our ability to control the experiments and (maybe the outcome) would be better.

Sorry for so much speculation on a scientific Forum such as this but thanks for the opportunity nonetheless

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

This may be of interest, ABS states what I would say.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.5277
Quest for the Dynamical Origin of Mass - An LHC perspective from Sakata, Nambu and Maskawa

Authors: Koichi Yamawaki
(Submitted on

30 Jul 2009

)

Abstract: I review the dynamical symmetry breaking (DSB) approach to the Origin of Mass, which is traced back to the original (2008 Nobel prize) work of Nambu based on the BCS analogue of superconductor where mass of nucleon (then elementary particle) arises due to Cooper paring and pions are provided as massless Nambu-Goldstone (NG) bosons, being composite as in Fermi-Yang/Sakata model. In this talk I will focus on the modern version of DSB or composite Higgs models: Walking/Conformal Technicolor, Hidden Local Symmetry (HLS) or Moose, and Top Quark Condensate, with the their extra dimension versions closely related with HLS. Particular emphasis will be placed on the large anomalous dimension and conformal symmetry at the conformal fixed points, developed along the line of the pioneering work of Maskawa and Nakajima. Due to (approximate) conformal symmetry these models do have composite Higgs particle ("Techni-dilaton", "Top-sigma" etc.). Weakly coupled composite gauge boson is realized at "Vector Manifestation" formulated at conformal fixed point, which may be applied to the composite W/Z boson models. They will be tested in the upcoming LHC experiments.

G'day

Could the LHC produce a condensed matter that would grow into a so called black hole?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1667
QCD effects on "stable" micro black holes at the LHC

Authors: Itzhak Goldman, Yuval Grossman, Shmuel Nussinov
(Submitted on 9 Jul 2009)

Abstract: If Micro Black Holes (MBHs) can be produced at the LHC, they will decay very fast. We study hypothetical MBHs that do not decay; in particular, QCD effects on accretion by MBHs that are produced at rest. We explain why accretion of a nucleon by such MBHs is associated with pion emission. This pion emission results in a kick to the MBHs, such that their velocities are large enough to escape the Earth. Our study provides an extra assurance that MBHs which might be produced at the LHC are not dangerous.

G'day

If you can keep a micro black hole stable (confinement) you would solve the energy problem on this planet.

You would become a billion dollar man.

G'day

As for black holes, their definition needs to be clarified.

This paper is interesting reading.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.3151
Critical Thoughts on Cosmology

Authors: Wolfgang Kundt
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2009)

Abstract: An overview is given in section 1, of uncertain building blocks of present-day cosmologies. Thereafter, these edited lecture notes deal with the following four special problems: (1) They advertise Wiltshire's result -- making `dark energy' obsolete -- that accelerated cosmic expansion may be an artefact, due to an incorrect evaluation of the cosmic timescale in a Universe whose bulk matter is inhomogeneously distributed. (2) They cast doubt on Hawking's prediction of black-hole evaporation. (3) They point at various inconsistencies of the black-hole paradigm, in favour of nuclear-burning central engines of AGN. (4) They re-interpret (a best case of) `anomalous redshifts' as non-cosmological, kinematic redshifts in strong jet sources.

mark swain wrote:Fire a lead iron particle into a proton at close to the speed of light and lets see what falls out?
Was these particles created in a time and place that we hardly understand? Energy seems to come from nothing but does it really? Read these words: The immense power that comes from splitting the Atom.
What immense power comes from splitting a proton? Is it true they have no idea of the out come?

Chris Peterson wrote:The energies involved- in absolute terms- are small. You release more with a firecracker than they will see from these collisions. They are merely boosting individual particles (or small numbers of them) to high energy levels. Natural processes do the same. There is no risk, this is merely another way of studying nature, and advancing our knowledge a little bit more.

Take a ''pin prick'' of matter from the center of the sun.. And it will kill you from 125 miles away.. These are minor temperatures with a minor gravity, from a minor star.... Which fuses metal (iron) from gas....

That is just an example of the little things we have found.

What Energy is locked up in the Higgs Boson? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Please read this... before making a comment..

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... nd_you.php

If our universe was created by a power that is indescribable and power/Energy conservation stands. Why tempt fate?

I have more to say on this,,

Mark

mark swain wrote:Take a ''pin prick'' of matter from the center of the sun.. And it will kill you from 125 miles away..

How do you figure?

These are minor temperatures with a minor gravity, from a minor star.... Which fuses metal (iron) from gas...

I don't see your point.

If our universe was created by a power that is indescribable and power/Energy conservation stands. Why tempt fate?

How are we tempting fate? Your reference provides a very rational argument why there is essentially zero risk. The fact is, there are natural cosmic rays with more energy than the LHC is capable of producing, and over the existence of the Earth, it is certain that some of those cosmic rays have collided with atomic nuclei in the Earth. Yet we're still here. The experiment has already been done by nature; there is no risk. Someday we may have colliders that can produce detectable black holes. Still, no risk.

Take a ''pin prick'' of matter from the center of the sun.. And it will kill you from 125 miles away..

Matter in the core of the sun only has its extreme properties (namely high temperature and density) because it is in the core of the sun. If you took some kind of uber-ladle, dipped it all the way into the core of the sun, sealed the container with that core material, and pulled it out into space...then opened the container...you'd eventually have a stable cloud of, well, ordinary hydrogen and helium (though still ionized perhaps).

These are minor temperatures with a minor gravity, from a minor star.... Which fuses metal (iron) from gas...

I assume you mean "minor" as in ordinary material in an ordinary object (like a medium-sized star)...as opposed to high-energy exotic particles and mini-black holes?

One other thought: Taking "minor" to mean "average size," it's important to point out that small to medium stars don't ever get to the point where iron is the next step. Only the big boys get that far down the periodic table. The biggest stars, when faced with iron fusion, have run out of life. For stars can't be powered by iron fusion; iron is the point at which fusion costs more energy than it releases. Iron is the point at which gravity finally wins the tug of war between itself and the radiation pressure from the core.

Orca wrote:I assume you mean "minor" as in ordinary material in an ordinary object (like a medium-sized star)...as opposed to high-energy exotic particles and mini-black holes?

No,

Split the Atom.. Minor power/energy that our sun and most stars use... I used the word minor to distance from the extreme. The item posted said from scratch to a 1 kg black hole will take 3 trillion years to form... Nobody knows what black holes use for power? split 1 higgs boson particle to get infinite energy? Or release our real creator?

But we all Know, there is an 18 billion solar mass black hole out there that did not take 3 trillion years to form... or am I wrong?

Mark

mark swain wrote:The item posted said from scratch to a 1 kg black hole will take 3 trillion years to form... Nobody knows what black holes use for power?

Black holes don't use anything for power. They don't consume energy.

split 1 higgs boson particle to get infinite energy?

Why? If they exist, and can be split at the energy levels the LHC can produce, then they are being split naturally all the time. I don't see any sign of infinite energy being released anywhere in the Universe.

But we all Know, there is an 18 billion solar mass black hole out there that did not take 3 trillion years to form... or am I wrong?

The rate that a black hole can grow is determined by its mass. It takes three trillion years for the smallest possible black hole to reach a mass of 1 kg. That doesn't mean it takes three trillion years for a supermassive black hole to form.