Here's what happened just after the "BIG BANG", wait that wasn't supposed to_________

[mytheory]

Again, these experimental collisions of protons are set up in a highly controlled environment's unlike the natural ones that occur in our earths atmosphere every day, as stated by Hawking. I can not find studies anywhere that compare and contrast the difference's between the two types of collisions. Has anyone else found research that shows evidence of this? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">@LEX</span> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket,? I did ask a question in my last post, if you did not see..."I am curious to find out if these collisions that are due to take place have been conducted and recorded before in other experiments? If so what were the top speeds reached and what were the outcomes, if any?" I'm not sure if you can't answer this question and are somehow frustrated by this, or your just an A-hole/ mad scientist that likes bashing people... &nbsp;If anyone different would like to continue this discussion then great, if not then whatever. <br />Posted by mytheory</DIV></p><p>Of course they have not been conducted before and recorded in other experiments.&nbsp; If they had been there would not be such excitement over the upcoming experiments, and there would have been no need to build&nbsp;the rather expensive LHC facility.&nbsp; &nbsp;But if you had read the web site that I provided for you, you would see that collisions of that energy and higher occur regularly in nature.&nbsp; The results have not been carefully measured, but any catastrophic consequences would have been seen.</p><p>The key parameter is not velocity per se, but rather energy.&nbsp; However, the two are closely related.&nbsp; Read the post to get a flavor of the real physics involved.&nbsp; </p><p>Perhaps before you decide that your questions have not been answered you ought to take a look at what has been provided for you.&nbsp; Or perhaps you ought to do a little research on your own.&nbsp; Try http://www.google.com/&nbsp;if nothing else.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mytheory]

your not understanding what I am asking and I don't know of many other ways to phrase it. Also, why are you the only one replying to my posts. I wish this site had an IM on it so people could have discussions in real time.&nbsp;<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">@LEX</span> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Again, these experimental collisions of protons are set up in a highly controlled environment's unlike the natural ones that occur in our earths atmosphere every day, as stated by Hawking. I can not find studies anywhere that compare and contrast the difference's between the two types of collisions. Has anyone else found research that shows evidence of this? <br /> Posted by mytheory</DIV></p><p>Not sure I understand your point or your question.&nbsp; The physics behind particle collisions are the same regardless whether they happen in a lab or in nature.&nbsp; The only difference between the two are the energies involved.&nbsp; The LHC is a step of from the Tevatron.&nbsp; Collisions in our atmosphere are a considerable step up from the LHC.&nbsp; We can not (yet) produce the energies we see in nature such as Active Galactic Nuclei or Gamma Ray Bursts.&nbsp; Not quite sure what comparisons you are looking for.</p><p>The physics behind these collisions are described using Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).&nbsp; Might start a bit of research there:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics</p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not sure I understand your point or your question.&nbsp; The physics behind particle collisions are the same regardless whether they happen in a lab or in nature.&nbsp; The only difference between the two are the energies involved.&nbsp; The LHC is a step of from the Tevatron.&nbsp; Collisions in our atmosphere are a considerable step up from the LHC.&nbsp; We can not (yet) produce the energies we see in nature such as Active Galactic Nuclei or Gamma Ray Bursts.&nbsp; Not quite sure what comparisons you are looking for.The physics behind these collisions are described using Quantum Electrodynamics (QED).&nbsp; Might start a bit of research there:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Actually, there is another important difference. The high speed (near c) collisions that occur in the atmosphere are randomly distributed, so you cannot get appropriate measurement tools around the collisions. That's the whole point of the LHC; the collisions occur at a known point in space, so the detectors can surround that point. More energetic events occur all the time but we can't measure them. With LHC, we know where the events happen, so we can surround that place with detectors. That will give us far more information.</p><p>The hysteria about the black holes being created is proven to be incorrect by the fact we know that the events that could create them occur all the time, in fact are far more likely outside of the LHC.</p> <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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, there is another important difference. The high speed (near c) collisions that occur in the atmosphere are randomly distributed, so you cannot get appropriate measurement tools around the collisions. That's the whole point of the LHC; the collisions occur at a known point in space, so the detectors can surround that point. More energetic events occur all the time but we can't measure them. With LHC, we know where the events happen, so we can surround that place with detectors. That will give us far more information.The hysteria about the black holes being created is proven to be incorrect by the fact we know that the events that could create them occur all the time, in fact are far more likely outside of the LHC. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I understand that.&nbsp; I was getting the notion that 'mytheory' was somehow thinking the underlying physics behind these collisions are different.</p><p>I will point out that high altitude balloons can detect the results of atmospheric collisions.&nbsp; If I'm not mistaken, that's how muons where discovered (or was that the mountain top discovery).&nbsp; I believe even geiger counters can detect cosmic rays collisions.&nbsp; I'd have to look up these two assertions, but I have to run out for a bit.&nbsp;</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>

 

[mytheory]

Finally, that's what I am interested in exploring meteorWayne. You said,"<span style="border-collapse:collapse;font-size:12px" class="Apple-style-span">The high speed (near c) collisions that occur in the atmosphere are randomly distributed, so you cannot get appropriate measurement tools around the collisions. That's the whole point of the LHC; the collisions occur at a known point in space, so the detectors can surround that point." According to what you stated, these collisions in nature have yet to be measured in detail and may be very difficult to observe and record accurately. This leads me to another question, "why is this considered fact if there's no data to study?"&nbsp;</span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">@LEX</span> </div>

 

[mytheory]

"little data"&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">@LEX</span> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. Also, why are you the only one replying to my posts.</DIV></p><p>He's not the only one replying.&nbsp; But, because he's giving good answers to your questions, it isn't necessary for others to chime in with "Yes." and "Me too." </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wish this site had an IM on it so people could have discussions in real time.&nbsp; Posted by mytheory</DIV></p><p>Join the club.</p><p>However, a forum community is a much better place for discussions like this than PMs or even Emails.&nbsp; Others can both benefit from and contribute to good discussions while interaction would be limited in PMs/Emails.&nbsp; (Emails amongst multiple people in a discussion like this would quickly get to the point where they were unintelligible.) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Finally, that's what I am interested in exploring meteorWayne. You said,"The high speed (near c) collisions that occur in the atmosphere are randomly distributed, so you cannot get appropriate measurement tools around the collisions. That's the whole point of the LHC; the collisions occur at a known point in space, so the detectors can surround that point." According to what you stated, these collisions in nature have yet to be measured in detail and may be very difficult to observe and record accurately. This leads me to another question, "why is this considered fact if there's no data to study?"&nbsp; <br />Posted by mytheory</DIV><br /><br />There is some data to study, that's how we know that it happens. But many of the kinds of particles that are created have lifetimes of microseconds so only travel a few feet, even at near light speed. Some do travel further, those we can detect from the ground (and high altitude balloons as noted above, thanx).</p><p>The LHC will create these short lived particles with detectors close enough to, well, detect them </p><p>It also sorrounds the impact point with strong magnetic fields allowing the mass, charge and spin of the particles to be measured. Other devices measure the precise energy of the particles so all of that created can be accounted for.</p><p>It's kind of like the difference between watching a baseball game from the moon, and actually playing in it.</p><p>MW</p> <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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am aware that these impacts will be observed in close proximity when the particles collide, which will allow scientists to potentially see what they are looking for/ hoping to find. But unfortunately I am still skeptical about the studies that have been done already in our atmosphere, involving particle(proton) collisions. I wonder if the personnel involved in this experiment have collected a sufficient amount of data to ensure/prove that these "unnatural" collisions will happen without a "BANG"&nbsp; &nbsp;After all, a Mini BLACK HOLE is still a BLACK HOLE and if Hawkings "Radiation" doesn't do the job, then what will you do? <br />Posted by mytheory</DIV><br /><br />If you checked out the facts, IF any tiny black holes were created, they would have an event horizon too small to absorb any additional matter...so it doesn't matter <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>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. After all, a Mini BLACK HOLE is still a BLACK HOLE and if Hawkings "Radiation" doesn't do the job, then what will you do? Posted by mytheory</DIV></p><p>Then, you have a "black hole" (AFAIK not quite the same but close enough for discussion) about the size of small ball bearing (relatively speaking) floating around a sea of particles that have distances between them equal to the distance from here to the Sun. (Liberal approximations just for demonstration.) </p><p>This stuff is tiny.&nbsp; Real tiny.&nbsp; Not only does this itsy bitsy black hole have to come close to another particle, it has to capture it.&nbsp; These "black holes" are very tiny with almost imperceptable amounts of mass.&nbsp; In fact, if they were any smaller, we couldn't really conceive of them existing.&nbsp; They're pretty darn small. (Considerations of Schwarchild Radius and Dimensional forcers aside.)</p><p>So, this little bitty black hole would immediately move towards the center of the Earth at pretty high speed.&nbsp; After bouncing in great swings back and forth, it would settle into a swaying orbit around the Earth's center of mass.&nbsp; Occassionally, it may capture another particle.&nbsp; After several billion years worth of this, it might get to the size of a golfball.</p><p>But, we haven't seen this type of thing occuring anywhere else.&nbsp; Very dense stars don't seem to be under consumption from mini black holes and they'd have a much faster mini-black-hole evolutionary timeline.&nbsp; Their mass is more compact.&nbsp; They'd certainly be candidates for evidence of mini-black-hole destruction if all the theory is correct with the only exception being for Hawking radiation...</p><p>But, that's just it, isn't it?&nbsp; The same rigorous scientific inquiry concerning the possible creation of mini-black holes comes from the same school that teaches Hawking Radiation possibilities and the same school that teaches people how to build things like the LHC.&nbsp; If all of that is right, which it appears that it is, then the idea that these do not pose a threat should also be right.. right?</p><p>Sure, it could all be wrong and the first impact startup of the LHC could blow the Earth to kingdom come.&nbsp; But, if it was all wrong, the odds that we'd have been able to construct the LHC based on "Wrong Science" are pretty darn slim to begin with.&nbsp; CERN is really the place to go for some really good answers on this.&nbsp; Read over what they have to say on it. </p><p>Just my two cents.&nbsp; Others are more qualified to answer so heed their words first.&nbsp; I just responded so you wouldn't be lonely. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then, you have a "black hole" (AFAIK not quite the same but close enough for discussion) about the size of small ball bearing (relatively speaking) floating around a sea of particles that have distances between them equal to the distance from here to the Sun. (Liberal approximations just for demonstration.) This stuff is tiny.&nbsp; Real tiny.&nbsp; Not only does this itsy bitsy black hole have to come close to another particle, it has to capture it.&nbsp; These "black holes" are very tiny with almost imperceptable amounts of mass.&nbsp; In fact, if they were any smaller, we couldn't really conceive of them existing.&nbsp; They're pretty darn small. (Considerations of Schwarchild Radius and Dimensional forcers aside.)So, this little bitty black hole would immediately move towards the center of the Earth at pretty high speed.&nbsp; After bouncing in great swings back and forth, it would settle into a swaying orbit around the Earth's center of mass.&nbsp; Occassionally, it may capture another particle.&nbsp; After several billion years worth of this, it might get to the size of a golfball.But, we haven't seen this type of thing occuring anywhere else.&nbsp; Very dense stars don't seem to be under consumption from mini black holes and they'd have a much faster mini-black-hole evolutionary timeline.&nbsp; Their mass is more compact.&nbsp; They'd certainly be candidates for evidence of mini-black-hole destruction if all the theory is correct with the only exception being for Hawking radiation...But, that's just it, isn't it?&nbsp; The same rigorous scientific inquiry concerning the possible creation of mini-black holes comes from the same school that teaches Hawking Radiation possibilities and the same school that teaches people how to build things like the LHC.&nbsp; If all of that is right, which it appears that it is, then the idea that these do not pose a threat should also be right.. right?Sure, it could all be wrong and the first impact startup of the LHC could blow the Earth to kingdom come.&nbsp; But, if it was all wrong, the odds that we'd have been able to construct the LHC based on "Wrong Science" are pretty darn slim to begin with.&nbsp; CERN is really the place to go for some really good answers on this.&nbsp; Read over what they have to say on it. Just my two cents.&nbsp; Others are more qualified to answer so heed their words first.&nbsp; I just responded so you wouldn't be lonely. <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>I always like to point out that you have billions of neutrinos passing through your body every seconds with no affects.&nbsp; Micro black holes are orders of magnitude smaller than neutrinos.&nbsp; I've also read that should one settle in at the earth's core, the estimated amount of time for the black hole to consume earth is longer than the estimated age of the universe and certainly longer than what life time the sun has left.&nbsp; We are going to have bigger problems over the next few billion years than having to worry about man-made micro black holes.&nbsp;</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then, you have a "black hole" (AFAIK not quite the same but close enough for discussion) about the size of small ball bearing (relatively speaking) floating around a sea of particles that have distances between them equal to the distance from here to the Sun. (Liberal approximations just for demonstration.) This stuff is tiny.&nbsp; Real tiny.&nbsp; Not only does this itsy bitsy black hole have to come close to another particle, it has to capture it.&nbsp; These "black holes" are very tiny with almost imperceptable amounts of mass.&nbsp; In fact, if they were any smaller, we couldn't really conceive of them existing.&nbsp; They're pretty darn small. (Considerations of Schwarchild Radius and Dimensional forcers aside.)So, this little bitty black hole would immediately move towards the center of the Earth at pretty high speed.&nbsp; After bouncing in great swings back and forth, it would settle into a swaying orbit around the Earth's center of mass.&nbsp; Occassionally, it may capture another particle.&nbsp;Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>You might be interested in this thread from elsewhere, which includes some evaluation of the time tht might required for a black hole of this nature to absorb a macroscopic amount of matter&nbsp;( many times the age of the universe ) based on some simplified models.&nbsp; In this particular thread the guy doing the calculatioin is not an amateur. </p><p>http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/78750-relationship-between-mass-radius-black-hole.html</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might be interested in this thread from elsewhere, which includes some evaluation of the time tht might required for a black hole of this nature to absorb a macroscopic amount of matter&nbsp;( many times the age of the universe ) based on some simplified models.&nbsp; In this particular thread the guy doing the calculatioin is not an amateur. http://www.bautforum.com/general-science/78750-relationship-between-mass-radius-black-hole.html <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I think I just left it at several billion years to accumulate to the size of a golfball simply because that was the only true referrence of "size" I could corroborate. There's no doubt that it would take an enormous amount of time for it to "consume" the Earth. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[mytheory]

<span style="font-size:12px;border-collapse:collapse" class="Apple-style-span"><p style="margin:11px0px;border-collapse:collapse;outline-width:initial;outline-color:initial;outline-style:none">"I should point out that the Hawking radiation that can evaporate Black holes has not yet been observed, IIRC.</p><p style="margin:11px0px;border-collapse:collapse;outline-width:initial;outline-color:initial;outline-style:none">It's a fairly new concept that hasn't really had time to be thoroughly investigated yet."</p><p style="margin:11px0px;border-collapse:collapse;outline-width:initial;outline-color:initial;outline-style:none">Meteor Wayne posted this&nbsp;and I think it is something that should be discussed further. I find it odd how some are saying there has been sufficient studies done about this type of "radiation" and it's effects and others are saying the opposite. Thing's are not as definitive as they appear to be.</p></span> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="font-weight:bold" class="Apple-style-span">@LEX</span> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I should point out that the Hawking radiation that can evaporate Black holes has not yet been observed, IIRC.It's a fairly new concept that hasn't really had time to be thoroughly investigated yet."Meteor Wayne posted this is another thread, but I thought it was something that should be seen in this forum. I find it odd how some are saying there has been sufficient studies done about this type of "radiation" and it's effects and others are saying the opposite. Thing's are not as definitive as they appear to be. <br /> Posted by mytheory</DIV></p><p>I wouldn't quite say it is a fairly new concept.&nbsp; It's been around for 30 some years.&nbsp; While it has never been observationally detected, it is based on some very sound theoretical physics and there's no reason to believe it should not be an actual phenomena.&nbsp; I don't believe I have ever read any dissenting opinion on Hawking raditation.</p><p>In other words, it's not really a controversy.&nbsp; It is, AFAIK, an expected phenomena that is, currently, very difficult to back up with experiments or observations.&nbsp;</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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wouldn't quite say it is a fairly new concept.&nbsp; It's been around for 30 some years.&nbsp; While it has never been observationally detected, it is based on some very sound theoretical physics and there's no reason to believe it should not be an actual phenomena.&nbsp; I don't believe I have ever read any dissenting opinion on Hawking raditation.In other words, it's not really a controversy.&nbsp; It is, AFAIK, an expected phenomena that is, currently, very difficult to back up with experiments or observations.&nbsp; <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />That phrased better than the way I said it. Thanx. <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>

 

[sponge]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>An individual from the UK and his colleagues are playing with fire here, in regards to the CERN project. You need to know there is no second chance, if this collision trial of Protons goes wrong, the possible repercussions couldl be unfathomable. Scientists are trying to recreate an environment that was present fractions of a second after the "BIG BANG." I don't know about you, but I don't want to risk the chance of recreating anything close to what happened after the "BIG BANG" went Bang! I am blown away by how the people of the world are willing to put their family's lives in the hands of these few scientist's/Doctor's who say things like," This is going to be amazing, and really fantastic." If anything happens that is unforeseen or unexpected then we mite all be doomed and forced to accept the fact that we were the one's responsible for the demise of earth+. There are many scientists who have stated that there is a possibility that a "BLACK HOLE" or "STRANGLET" mite emerge. Mans curiosity could end up doing the unimaginable. It is sickening that some scientists are willing to risk everything in order to see what happens next!. No amount of money is worth risking the lives of some six and a half billion people. Stephen Hawkings is wrong and here's is why. He says that particle's collide in the atmosphere every day at similar speeds and nothing happens. These particles are not aligned perfectly , aimed precisely at one another at exact speeds. These particles are hitting each other at different angles and different speeds in non controlled environments. How is this similar to the CERN particle excelerator, it' not. Hawkings also states that even if a black hole starts to form that radiation will hault it's expansio. This is just a theory from one brilliant man, but he has been wrong before and if there is any chance at all of this back firing in our face then I say, "Don't play GOD, unless you are GOD!" <br />Posted by mytheory</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Hi Mytheory,</p><p>I can see your concerns on the whole LHC project, some of it may even be justified, however, if we stop taking risks, we will never progress as a species, just look at the space industry, quite a few people have lost their lives because of it, same with aviation&nbsp;and a myriad of other technological applications. the particle accelerator in my opinion, is a required step in our understanding of ourselves, and the universe around us, we need to do these experiments plain and simple. The ancient explorers who travelled unexplored oceans in rickety wooden boats knew this aswell, and look at the great benefits we have reaped in agriculture, medicine, engineering,arts etc etc, just by those early risk takers, exploring our own globe. Great advancements always come with some sort of sacrafice, and if we become fearful and&nbsp;are always preoccupied with the " What ifs", we wold never get out of bed in the morning. If people are religious, and think that the scientist are playing God, you must think God is stupid,&nbsp;Im sure that God if he is there, would be quite well versed in the wokings of the human mind, and would know our curiosity would leads us to paths like the LHC, it is in our nature to&nbsp;to want to understand and explore, simple.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>