Dark Energy Found Stifling Growth In Universe.

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In essense, that was the point I was trying to make with the CME comment.&nbsp; I would expect that nature would have already created such particles by some means or another.I do certainly hear your&nbsp; arguement about the OOM differences in energy states,&nbsp; I'm just inclined to believe that what will occur is what occurs in other particle collider experiments, namely the breakdown of protons into other (probably already identified) subatomic particles.Then again the whole reason I support the LHC experiment is because there is much we still do not know about nature, and particle physics theory still remains "incomplete" as it relates to observing and verifying the existence of the Higgs Boson. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Sure nature has created them. The point of the LHC is to hopefully create some of them at a known location, surrounded by detectors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Agreed completely with DrRocket.&nbsp; That was terribly poor science at best.A Proton-Proton collision is a chancy event at best.&nbsp; The cross-sections of a particle are important.&nbsp; These high-energy collisions are measured in units called Barns; one Barn is about the diameter of a Uranium atom.&nbsp; That of a Proton is about 40 milli-Barns.Now even under the tightly controlled and directed conditions of the LHC, the probability of a Proton-Proton collision is about 10^-22.&nbsp; The only reason a significant number of collisions can take place sufficient for the purposes of high-energy particle physics is that the beam diameters are quite narrow compared to a CME (despite the ferocious number of Protons emitted), that there are two beams precisely aimed at each other, that the particles are in clumps. and the sheer number of potential collisions per/second (several thousand crossings).&nbsp; Overall, it's somewhere around 600,000,000 possible each second.&nbsp; And of those, only a fraction will produce anything of interest for the guys at the LHC, or Fermilab, or any othersimilar place you may mention.All far different conditions than as with a CME.&nbsp; You're talking the difference between a sprinkle head spraying water outwards, and two machineguns aimed dead at each other. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>And equally important, the particles being both positively charged repel on another, hence try to deflect each other's trajectory.&nbsp; In order to come within the cross-section for an interaction it is important that the particles have high momentum, high speed and energy, in&nbsp;order to not be deflected.&nbsp; That means high individual particle energies, which has absolutely nothing to do with high total beam energy.&nbsp; If high total energy were the issue, we would use real machine guns and real bullets, since the energy of a .50 caliber machiine gun bullet traveling at 2700 fps is about 9.6 x 10^22 ev which is about 10 orders of magnitude greater than the energy in an LHC particle.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sure nature has created them. The point of the LHC is to hopefully create some of them at a known location, surrounded by detectors. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I suppose what I don't think likely is the notion that a *new* form of matter is going to be created that isn't already accessable to us here on earth.&nbsp; In other words I don't require LHC to find hydrogen atoms, or iron atoms, or uranium atoms.&nbsp; We already know that they (protons) combine and form "structures" that we are already familiar with and that we can find in plentiful quantify here on Earth.&nbsp; Assuming new forms of matter are being created in nature on a regular basis, I would expect that someone would have already found them by now. </p><p>I do however hear and appreciate the energy diffferences we're describing, I'm simply of the impression that will simply increase the destruction at the point of impact and the protons will simply disintegrate and form showers of known subatomic particles.&nbsp;&nbsp; I suppose however that we will not know what happens until it happens. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I suppose what I don't think likely is the notion that a *new* form of matter is going to be created that isn't already accessable to us here on earth.&nbsp; In other words I don't require LHC to find hydrogen atoms, or iron atoms, or uranium atoms.&nbsp; We already know that they (protons) combine and form "structures" that we are already familiar with and that we can find in plentiful quantify here on Earth.&nbsp; Assuming new forms of matter are being created in nature on a regular basis, I would expect that someone would have already found them by now. I do however hear and appreciate the energy diffferences we're describing, I'm simply of the impression that will simply increase the destruction at the point of impact and the protons will simply disintegrate and form showers of known subatomic particles.&nbsp;&nbsp; I suppose however that we will not know what happens until it happens. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I guess it depends on your definition of "new".&nbsp; I don't think we'll exceed the energies produced in the very early universe and create "new" particles that the very early universe could not.&nbsp; However, there are particles predicted by the standard model that we have yet to discover.&nbsp; The predictive power of the standard model has worked quite well ove the last 50+ years and there is no reason it should not continue.&nbsp; The Tevatron, can, and does, create particles that do not occur naturally anywhere in the Solar system, much less earth.&nbsp; The top quark as an example.&nbsp; Quite simply, not even the sun has the energy to produce these particles, but the Tevatron does.&nbsp; And the LHC will, by far, exceed the Tevatron.</p><p>I think your aversion is with WIMPs and dark matter.&nbsp; WIMPs are not predicted by the standard model.&nbsp; However, this does not preclude them from possibly existing. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think your aversion is with WIMPs and dark matter.&nbsp; WIMPs are not predicted by the standard model.&nbsp; However, this does not preclude them from possibly existing. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I think you are actually right about that.&nbsp; In other words, I would not be surprised at all to see new forms of matter found by the LHC, but I would be surprised if that form of matter was "long lived", or to see it form a WIMP or a "stable" particle of some sort.&nbsp;&nbsp; As you point out, there may be particles that the LHC can produce that can't be produced inside this solar system today, but IMO eventually all forms of "stable" matter would be distributed around the universe and I would expect to be able to find such forms of matter here on earth today, just as we find fissionable material on earth today. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[kg]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...The Tevatron, can, and does, create particles that do not occur naturally anywhere in the Solar system, much less earth.&nbsp; Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I thought that one of the reasons that these experiments were considered to be safe was because cosmic rays from outside the solar system are bombarding the earth with higher energy particles than can be created in the LHC without causing the end of the world.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /></p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought that one of the reasons that these experiments were considered to be safe was because cosmic rays from outside the solar system are bombarding the earth with higher energy particles than can be created in the LHC without causing the end of the world.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>That is correct. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess it depends on your definition of "new".&nbsp; I don't think we'll exceed the energies produced in the very early universe and create "new" particles that the very early universe could not.&nbsp; However, there are particles predicted by the standard model that we have yet to discover.&nbsp; The predictive power of the standard model has worked quite well ove the last 50+ years and there is no reason it should not continue.&nbsp; The Tevatron, can, and does, create particles that do not occur naturally anywhere in the Solar system, much less earth.&nbsp; The top quark as an example.&nbsp; Quite simply, not even the sun has the energy to produce these particles, but the Tevatron does.&nbsp; And the LHC will, by far, exceed the Tevatron.I think your aversion is with WIMPs and dark matter.&nbsp; WIMPs are not predicted by the standard model.&nbsp; However, this does not preclude them from possibly existing. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>One of the major objectives of the LHC, beyond verification of the Higgs boson which is&nbsp;the only particle in the standard model yet to be observed, is to attempt to confirm the existence of supersymmetric particles.&nbsp; Super symmetry is required for string theory/ M-theory, though supersymmetry itself depends on neither.&nbsp; None of the hypothesized supersymmetric partners to particles of the Standard Model have been found, so to find even one would be a big deal.&nbsp; Any supersymmetric partner would be a new particle by any reasonable definiton of the word "new".&nbsp; </p><p>There has been some speculation that supersymmetric particles are a significant constituent of dark matter.&nbsp; Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to be confirmed.&nbsp; It seems rather unlikely to me that we would suddenly find a giant pocket of stuff that we have been looking for and have not found hiding out in intergalactic space.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought that one of the reasons that these experiments were considered to be safe was because cosmic rays from outside the solar system are bombarding the earth with higher energy particles than can be created in the LHC without causing the end of the world.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by kg</DIV></p><p>Ah yes... good point.&nbsp; I was stuck on the argument of particles originating from the sun.&nbsp; With that said, good luck detecting a top quark created by cosmic rays.&nbsp; The constraints on creating them are such that they might not occur naturally anywhere in nature.&nbsp; It takes a proton-antiproton collision at specific energies for it to happen.&nbsp; Not to mention that Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR) are quite rare.&nbsp; Or at least, very rarely detected. </p><p>Regardless, good point. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One of the major objectives of the LHC, beyond verification of the Higgs boson which is&nbsp;the only particle in the standard model yet to be observed, is to attempt to confirm the existence of supersymmetric particles.&nbsp; Super symmetry is required for string theory/ M-theory, though supersymmetry itself depends on neither.&nbsp; None of the hypothesized supersymmetric partners to particles of the Standard Model have been found, so to find even one would be a big deal.&nbsp; Any supersymmetric partner would be a new particle by any reasonable definiton of the word "new".&nbsp; There has been some speculation that supersymmetric particles are a significant constituent of dark matter.&nbsp; Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to be confirmed.&nbsp; It seems rather unlikely to me that we would suddenly find a giant pocket of stuff that we have been looking for and have not found hiding out in intergalactic space.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Will wonders never cease?&nbsp; I actually agree with everything you said. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ah yes... good point.&nbsp; I was stuck on the argument of particles originating from the sun.&nbsp; With that said, good luck detecting a top quark created by cosmic rays.&nbsp; The constraints on creating them are such that they might not occur naturally anywhere in nature.&nbsp; It takes a proton-antiproton collision at specific energies for it to happen.&nbsp; Not to mention that Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR) are quite rare.&nbsp; Or at least, very rarely detected. Regardless, good point. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Nice article on the top quark and its discovery</p><p>http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/tml/SciAmTop.pdf<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Will wonders never cease?&nbsp; I actually agree with everything you said. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You must has misunderstood me. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>