When is it happening? This experiment is being carried out next Wednesday, the 10th of September, on the Swiss French border, when the Large Hadron Collider will be switched on.
Why is there concern? Some scientists argue, that the particle acceleration under such great speed, is unpredictable, and could lead to the creation of a micro black hole, which may stabilise, and engulf the planet. Others argue that the particles are breaking the electrical field required to produce strange matter, so if it is created, it could also engulf the planet. Some scientists even argue that the machine is powerful enough to destroy not only the planet, but the entire universe.
Has there been court cases? Yes. The European union, though it gave permission, became concerned, stating that the experiment poses a great threat to EU member states, and citizens. Also, some divisions of the American government have objected. In both cases, they were dismissed, and the experiment has been allowed to carry on.
So, how will this change the world? 1. If this is a success, humans will have a much greater insight into the creation of the universe, and may discover many new particles, like Higgs Bosson. It may also lead to the creation of more sustainable energy.
2. If this is a failure, Physists all over the world, will have wasted their time, and made citizens angry, due to worry over the possible destruction of the world.
The worst case scenario: The world is destroyed, by means of strange matter, becoming stable, and converting the entire world into strange matter. The world is destroyed by means of a micro black hole stabilisation, leading to a large black hole, causing the planet to implode. The particles do something so unpredicted, a rift is torn in time and space itself, and the universe is destroyed.
So this wednesday, is the greatest experiment in the history of the Earth. It cost over €5,000,000,000 to build the 24km long particle accelerator. Whatever happens, the world will change.
(Felt like making this to clear all my points in one topic)
Quote: from Event Horizon at 6:41 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Well, It is mathematically solid, but I wouldn't say that not believing in it would be logical ass-hattedness. Actually, I think YOU might have it a little wrong, unless I am mistaking what you are writing. If we are talking about temperatures at the time of the Big Bang, the elementary particles pass through the Higg's ocean without effort, giving them massless properties. When the higg's level finally settled at a non-zero plateau, it created a near-uniformity of [what is comprable to] a sort of friction substance. Basically an inertia-assigner. The idea of mass is the result not of having a ton of Higg's bosons stuck to you, but of particles having to move through the field. my point is only that there is no true VACUUM. Of course not believing in it is in no way idiotic, I was just saying that it makes a lot of sense and I feel that it is a solid theory. I completely agree with all your points, and in my second post I did point out that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. The analogy of the water sticking to you was simply the best way I could think of explaining the mechanism to the everyday person (let alone everyday teenager). While your way of explaining it is more correct, for most it is a lot harder to understand. I think that when I read your first post I inferred that you believed that the Higg's field was not comprised of any type of particle, just energy, seeing as you quoted my response to them saying that energy can't exist outside particles. In the Higg's field an elementary particle interacts with an ocean of uniformly distributed Higg's particles, slowing them down and giving them mass. The type of particle determines the level of interaction. That is all I was getting at.
Well, It is mathematically solid, but I wouldn't say that not believing in it would be logical ass-hattedness. Actually, I think YOU might have it a little wrong, unless I am mistaking what you are writing. If we are talking about temperatures at the time of the Big Bang, the elementary particles pass through the Higg's ocean without effort, giving them massless properties. When the higg's level finally settled at a non-zero plateau, it created a near-uniformity of [what is comprable to] a sort of friction substance. Basically an inertia-assigner. The idea of mass is the result not of having a ton of Higg's bosons stuck to you, but of particles having to move through the field. my point is only that there is no true VACUUM.
Actually, I think YOU might have it a little wrong, unless I am mistaking what you are writing. If we are talking about temperatures at the time of the Big Bang, the elementary particles pass through the Higg's ocean without effort, giving them massless properties. When the higg's level finally settled at a non-zero plateau, it created a near-uniformity of [what is comprable to] a sort of friction substance. Basically an inertia-assigner.
The idea of mass is the result not of having a ton of Higg's bosons stuck to you, but of particles having to move through the field.
my point is only that there is no true VACUUM.
Of course not believing in it is in no way idiotic, I was just saying that it makes a lot of sense and I feel that it is a solid theory.
I completely agree with all your points, and in my second post I did point out that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. The analogy of the water sticking to you was simply the best way I could think of explaining the mechanism to the everyday person (let alone everyday teenager). While your way of explaining it is more correct, for most it is a lot harder to understand.
I think that when I read your first post I inferred that you believed that the Higg's field was not comprised of any type of particle, just energy, seeing as you quoted my response to them saying that energy can't exist outside particles.
In the Higg's field an elementary particle interacts with an ocean of uniformly distributed Higg's particles, slowing them down and giving them mass. The type of particle determines the level of interaction. That is all I was getting at.
Gotcha, glad its cleared up
either that, or a black screen will drop down with the words "LEVEL TWO" on it.
I want.
Quote: from stimmer at 5:33 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Crazy snake at 12:52 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from telomere13 at 5:06 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from stimmer at 3:54 am on Sep. 7, 2008 You can't "rip" matter into antimatter and matter, normal matter isn't composed of both so it is impossible to seperate it into both. Antimatter is created by high energy reactions and the decay of unstable nuclei. For example, the most prominant way of creating positrons is the beta decay of carbon-11 and a few others. In this process, carbon-11 decays into boron-11, a positron, an electron and a neutrino. Oh and for the record, a vacuum is never perfect and there is no way to have completely empty space. If your question does infact imply that space is a perfect vacuum, there is no way to rip nothing into something. You're completely wrong. A vacuum is free of matter, but not energy, and energy can be converted into matter/antimatter. Yes, vacuums are free of matter, but still contains energy While yes you can convert energy into matter there is no such thing as free energy. Energy is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Energy is often defined as the ability to do work. This means that energy is a property of matter, you cannot have energy without a particle. Even the fundamental forces are transmitted by particles, although it may not seem that way. No kind of interaction occurs without a particle coming into contact with another particle. so I take it you are not a proponent of the Higgs ocean?
Quote: from Crazy snake at 12:52 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from telomere13 at 5:06 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from stimmer at 3:54 am on Sep. 7, 2008 You can't "rip" matter into antimatter and matter, normal matter isn't composed of both so it is impossible to seperate it into both. Antimatter is created by high energy reactions and the decay of unstable nuclei. For example, the most prominant way of creating positrons is the beta decay of carbon-11 and a few others. In this process, carbon-11 decays into boron-11, a positron, an electron and a neutrino. Oh and for the record, a vacuum is never perfect and there is no way to have completely empty space. If your question does infact imply that space is a perfect vacuum, there is no way to rip nothing into something. You're completely wrong. A vacuum is free of matter, but not energy, and energy can be converted into matter/antimatter. Yes, vacuums are free of matter, but still contains energy While yes you can convert energy into matter there is no such thing as free energy. Energy is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Energy is often defined as the ability to do work. This means that energy is a property of matter, you cannot have energy without a particle. Even the fundamental forces are transmitted by particles, although it may not seem that way. No kind of interaction occurs without a particle coming into contact with another particle.
Quote: from telomere13 at 5:06 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from stimmer at 3:54 am on Sep. 7, 2008 You can't "rip" matter into antimatter and matter, normal matter isn't composed of both so it is impossible to seperate it into both. Antimatter is created by high energy reactions and the decay of unstable nuclei. For example, the most prominant way of creating positrons is the beta decay of carbon-11 and a few others. In this process, carbon-11 decays into boron-11, a positron, an electron and a neutrino. Oh and for the record, a vacuum is never perfect and there is no way to have completely empty space. If your question does infact imply that space is a perfect vacuum, there is no way to rip nothing into something. You're completely wrong. A vacuum is free of matter, but not energy, and energy can be converted into matter/antimatter. Yes, vacuums are free of matter, but still contains energy
Quote: from stimmer at 3:54 am on Sep. 7, 2008 You can't "rip" matter into antimatter and matter, normal matter isn't composed of both so it is impossible to seperate it into both. Antimatter is created by high energy reactions and the decay of unstable nuclei. For example, the most prominant way of creating positrons is the beta decay of carbon-11 and a few others. In this process, carbon-11 decays into boron-11, a positron, an electron and a neutrino. Oh and for the record, a vacuum is never perfect and there is no way to have completely empty space. If your question does infact imply that space is a perfect vacuum, there is no way to rip nothing into something. You're completely wrong. A vacuum is free of matter, but not energy, and energy can be converted into matter/antimatter.
You can't "rip" matter into antimatter and matter, normal matter isn't composed of both so it is impossible to seperate it into both. Antimatter is created by high energy reactions and the decay of unstable nuclei. For example, the most prominant way of creating positrons is the beta decay of carbon-11 and a few others. In this process, carbon-11 decays into boron-11, a positron, an electron and a neutrino. Oh and for the record, a vacuum is never perfect and there is no way to have completely empty space. If your question does infact imply that space is a perfect vacuum, there is no way to rip nothing into something.
You're completely wrong. A vacuum is free of matter, but not energy, and energy can be converted into matter/antimatter.
Yes, vacuums are free of matter, but still contains energy
While yes you can convert energy into matter there is no such thing as free energy. Energy is a scalar physical quantity that is a property of objects and systems which is conserved by nature. Energy is often defined as the ability to do work. This means that energy is a property of matter, you cannot have energy without a particle. Even the fundamental forces are transmitted by particles, although it may not seem that way. No kind of interaction occurs without a particle coming into contact with another particle.
so I take it you are not a proponent of the Higgs ocean?
Quite the contrary I believe a lot in the Higgs Mechanism. It's very hard not to believe in it as the theory is so solid and has interconnection with many other fields of work, all it's lacking is observation of the Higgs boson. However, I don't think that you understand how it works. The theory proposes that at temperatures where symmetry is unbroken, every particle except the Higgs boson is massless. When an elementary particle passes through the Higgs ocean which you describe, a Higgs boson interacts with that particle, giving it mass and allowing it to bond. Think of when you walk into the ocean, water molecules stick to you skin, and when you exit the water some are still on you. This is the same thing that happens, except the ocean is the Higgs field, the water is the Higgs boson and them sticking to you is what gives you mass. There are still particle interactions taking place.
Sad that we COULD die. But lets all think good karma here.
Its very improbable anythings going to happen, and it almost certainly wont.
However, if I am going to die on Wednesday, sucked into a black hole is my prefer d choice, so Im good.
Also, about antimatter, not related to this much, but from what I understand is the exact opposite to matter. So if you were to go into a vacuum and had the equipment to do so, could you basically rip empty space apart into both matter and antimatter?
Quote: from Crazy Snake at 4:35 pm on Sep. 6, 2008
However, they are technically recreating a smaller controled version of the big bang. They're smashing the particles at speeds greater than ever before. And they've already started warming it up. They've tested it with low energy amounts already
The big bang is theorized as a point of infinite density and temprature that, for whatever reason, exploded and gave birth to all that exists. THAT was the big bang. All they are doing is accelerating particles, letting them collide and seeing what is inside. What they find never shows itself outside of the composite particles they form, just like there is no such thing as free quarks, they are always together in larger particles. Like fauna said, following the big bang analogy (which I think is a horrible way to think off it, all it does is adds a sense of fear of the experment by having them associate the LHC with an unimaginable explosion) the state of the universe split seconds after the big bang. At this time everything is in it's most basic form, having had no time to combine yet.
While yes they have started warming it up, the process of warming it up takes months. They have to cool the entire ring to and temprature of 1.9K. That takes a while.
they haven't tested it either, the first beam is on wednesday. look on their website it even says, "LHC first beam">
The accelerator isn't trying to "recreate the big bang," all it is doing is taking hadrons, accelerating them, and smashing them together to see what makes them up. It's the same thing as throwing two rocks together to see what's inside, just on a much smaller scale. The reason the the big bang comes up is at the very start, everything was in it's most basic form, then combined to form what we see today. Oh and anti-matter is created every day around the world in laboratories, it's already proven to exist.
anti matter does exist, I know that.
399 users online 
225622 members 287 active today Advertise Here
399 users online 225622 members 287 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
