CERN, LHC. The End is soon.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Fine Particle Physics and the Mathison-Trenite Life Energy Fluctuation Meter (LEF Meter) PART FOUR - {FPP 20090913-draft-V1.0-p4}
Next: JSH: So Crank.net really works?
From: Media Watcher on 23 Nov 2009 13:19 CERN's site reports that a working group commissioned for evaluation of the safety of the planned experiments (made up of John Ellis, Gian Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, Igor Tkachev and Urs Wiedemann - all working at CERN) has released the report, which affirms that the Large Hadron Collider does not present any danger. The main argument that CERN uses to support the safety of its experiments is the very existence of the Earth. It goes like this: our planet is being constantly exposed to the influence of cosmic rays of energies which surpass that of the collider, and nevertheless the planet has not yet been destroyed by strangelets, black holes, magnetic monopole, or anything of that sort. Let us remind here that the experiments are devised to accelerate protons along the ring of the collider at the unprecedented rate, compressing them into tight beams and then colliding head-on. Let's consider this MAIN ARGUMENT. First of all, following the astrophysical theory, which is at the basis of CERN's experiments, the main event in the universe which has given the maximum emission of energy in space was the Big Bang. CERN's experiments are expected to simulate the energy conditions which existed about one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. But the Big Bang is believed to have occurred more than 14 billion years ago. So where in today's universe can we find the streams of protons of energy levels, which will be achieved in the collider? What cosmic events are able to produce them? Secondly, if we consult the encyclopedia (Big Encyclopedia of Cyril & Methodius, 2008): "Cosmic rays are streams of stable particles of high energies (approximately from 1 up to 1012 GeV), reaching Earth from space (primary radiation), and also created by these particles during their interaction with the nuclei of the atmosphere (secondary radiation) which consists of all known elementary particles ". As we see, cosmic rays have a limit of 1012 GeV, while the collider will produce 1.4È1013, i.e. more than one order higher (naturally, since the experiments will be modeling the conditions which existed one trillionth of a second after Big Bang!). Thirdly, collisions of protons in the collider's counter beams are planned to be carried out at speeds, which practically equal the speed of light in vacuum. Arguing that the protons in cosmic rays have higher levels of energy then the planned energy of their collisions in the collider means arguing that they have much greater speeds. Is CERN ready to rebut the major principle of the theory of relativity, that any particle cannot exceed the speed of light? Therefore, the argument, that installations on Earth register cosmic beams with energies that are greater than what is planned in the collider, suggests that the detected rays where not made up of high energy protons, but of atoms of various heavy elements, and even micrometeorites, which is a big difference. Fourth, moving at high speeds in space protons scatter along the radiuses away from the epicenter of their emission. They cannot have head-on collisions with each other for this very reason and also because same charge particles push each other away. This will be different in the collider, where their streams will be compressed by means of a magnetic field into dense beams and pushed together in counter directions: thus black holes will be strewed as sparks from under a grinding circle. If particles with the energy which is planned in the collider even collide heads-on somewhere in the space vacuum, the resulting black hole will really disappear instantly since there will be vacuum around it, that is there will be no matter to absorb. But if the particles of ultrahigh energy manage to reach large material objects, there appears a black hole with all its characteristics. Currently CERN is finishing up preparations for starting up the Large Hadron Collider. If everything goes as planned, the dense beams of protons will start colliding at speeds about 0,99999992 from the speed of light with the number of collisions reaching billions times per second! QUESTION: Where in it's safety rapport does CERN address these (perhaps fatal) differences between cosmic ray and LHC collisions...???
From: Media Watcher on 23 Nov 2009 14:10 These are the correct written numbers: Secondly, if we consult the encyclopedia (Big Encyclopedia of Cyril & Methodius, 2008): "Cosmic rays are streams of stable particles of high energies (approximately from 1 up to 10^12 GeV), reaching Earth from space (primary radiation), and also created by these particles during their interaction with the nuclei of the atmosphere (secondary radiation) which consists of all known elementary particles ". As we see, cosmic rays have a limit of 10^12 GeV, while the collider will produce 1.4x10^13, i.e. more than one order higher (naturally, since the experiments will be modeling the conditions which existed one trillionth of a second after Big Bang!).
From: Greg Neill on 23 Nov 2009 14:20 Media Watcher wrote: > CERN's site reports that a working group commissioned for evaluation > of the safety of the planned experiments (made up of John Ellis, Gian > Giudice, Michelangelo Mangano, Igor Tkachev and Urs Wiedemann - all > working at CERN) has released the report, which affirms that the Large > Hadron Collider does not present any danger. > > The main argument that CERN uses to support the safety of its > experiments is the very existence of the Earth. It goes like this: our > planet is being constantly exposed to the influence of cosmic rays of > energies which surpass that of the collider, and nevertheless the > planet has not yet been destroyed by strangelets, black holes, > magnetic monopole, or anything of that sort. > Let us remind here that the experiments are devised to accelerate > protons along the ring of the collider at the unprecedented rate, Unprecedented for a manmade effort, but not even an also-ran compared to what nature serves up continuously as cosmic rays. > compressing them into tight beams and then colliding head-on. Let's > consider this MAIN ARGUMENT. > > First of all, following the astrophysical theory, which is at the > basis of CERN's experiments, the main event in the universe which has > given the maximum emission of energy in space was the Big Bang. Since space itself was generated and expanding at the time, this is a false idea. All the stated energy was already in existence and spread throughout all of the then existing universe. What was remarkable was the overall energy density. > CERN's experiments are expected to simulate the energy conditions > which existed about one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. > > But the Big Bang is believed to have occurred more than 14 billion > years ago. So where in today's universe can we find the streams of > protons of energy levels, which will be achieved in the collider? What > cosmic events are able to produce them? Does it matter? They are routinely detected as cosmic rays. > > Secondly, if we consult the encyclopedia (Big Encyclopedia of Cyril & > Methodius, 2008): "Cosmic rays are streams of stable particles of high > energies (approximately from 1 up to 1012 GeV), reaching Earth from > space (primary radiation), and also created by these particles during > their interaction with the nuclei of the atmosphere (secondary > radiation) which consists of all known elementary particles ". As we > see, cosmic rays have a limit of 1012 GeV, while the collider will > produce 1.4�1013, i.e. more than one order higher (naturally, since > the experiments will be modeling the conditions which existed one > trillionth of a second after Big Bang!). You can't even understand the literature. Cosmic rays are detected with energies upwards of 10^20 eV. That's 10^11 GeV, or 100 EeV (Exa electron volts, where the prefix exa represents 10^18). The LHC is looking at producing proton collisions on the order of 10 TeV, a mere 10^3 GeV. That's seven orders of magnitude *less* than what cosmic rays are routinely hitting us with. > > Thirdly, collisions of protons in the collider's counter beams are > planned to be carried out at speeds, which practically equal the speed > of light in vacuum. You don't know what cosmic rays are, do you? You think they're trundling along at walking pace and delivered in a meteor sandwhich? > Arguing that the protons in cosmic rays have > higher levels of energy then the planned energy of their collisions in > the collider means arguing that they have much greater speeds. A nonsensical strawman argument. No one is saying such a thing. By relativity the measured speed difference will be tiny fractions of a percent of the speed of light. Everyone who understands relativity understands this. Only a crackpot relativity denier would claim that speeds would be "much greater" for higher energy particles already moving close to the speed of light. > Is > CERN ready to rebut the major principle of the theory of relativity, > that any particle cannot exceed the speed of light? No, what makes you think so? > Therefore, the > argument, that installations on Earth register cosmic beams with > energies that are greater than what is planned in the collider, > suggests that the detected rays where not made up of high energy > protons, but of atoms of various heavy elements, and even > micrometeorites, which is a big difference. That's a ridiculous argument. Your conclusion in no way follows from you (already badly flawed) premis. > > Fourth, moving at high speeds in space protons scatter along the > radiuses away from the epicenter of their emission. They cannot have > head-on collisions with each other for this very reason and also > because same charge particles push each other away. So your contention is that there is only one point source of cosmic rays in all of space. It is your further contention that protons which can collide head on at mere accelerator energies cannot do so at immensely higher energies of cosmic rays. Do you realize how silly that is? > This will be > different in the collider, where their streams will be compressed by > means of a magnetic field into dense beams and pushed together in > counter directions: thus black holes will be strewed as sparks from > under a grinding circle. Cite references or provide the theory and math for this outlandish claim. > > If particles with the energy which is planned in the collider even > collide heads-on somewhere in the space vacuum, the resulting black > hole will really disappear instantly since there will be vacuum around > it, that is there will be no matter to absorb. But if the particles of > ultrahigh energy manage to reach large material objects, there appears > a black hole with all its characteristics. Let's see you strut your knowledge of theory then. What's the upper size limit for a micro black hole that the LHC might produce. We'll accept the event horizon radius as adequate. Next, tell us what the mean interatomic spacing is for some solid matter (a block of lead, say), then give us the net gravitational force caused by the micro black hole on the nucleus of an atom at that distance. Compare and contrast with the electromagnetic forces that keep atoms in their places and prevent them bumbing uglies. > > Currently CERN is finishing up preparations for starting up the Large > Hadron Collider. If everything goes as planned, the dense beams of > protons will start colliding at speeds about 0,99999992 from the > speed of light with the number of collisions reaching billions times > per second! 0.99999992 from the speed of light. What does that mean? Perhaps you meant to say "at speeds of about 0.99999992 times the speed of light"? > > QUESTION: > Where in it's safety rapport does CERN address these (perhaps fatal) > differences between cosmic ray and LHC collisions...??? Why don't you actually read the report and find out?
From: Media Watcher on 23 Nov 2009 14:41 I'm not a scientist and I only did some copy/edit/paste from this website: http://dovgel.com/engl/analysis.htm Finally someone gave me - a non scientist - a reassuring answer regarding the points I was deeply worried about. Thank you!
From: Tom Roberts on 23 Nov 2009 14:39
Your diatribe contains so many errors of fact that no knowledgeable person can take it seriously. When the correct facts are used, it's clear there is no problem. Media Watcher wrote: > But the Big Bang is believed to have occurred more than 14 billion > years ago. So where in today's universe can we find the streams of > protons of energy levels, which will be achieved in the collider? What > cosmic events are able to produce them? We see such "streams" intersecting the earth's atmosphere every day. We don't really know in detail what processes create them, but various aspects of compact objects are at least in principle sufficient to generate such high-energy cosmic rays. Not knowing what produces them does not affect the fact that they are there. Yes, there is a difference between high-energy cosmic rays hitting atmospheric nuclei at rest and the head-on collisions of protons in the LHC. This is well modeled by relativity, and does not affect anything significantly. In particular the cosmic-ray products will be moving at high energy towards earth, while those of the LHC are moving with low energies (comparatively). Geometrically, >90% of the cosmic-ray products intersect the earth, and most of them will be stopped by the earth, so they will be located deep inside the earth with speeds comparable to the LHC products. Given that the cosmic-ray products have not destroyed the earth, there is no expectation that the LHC products will do so, either. Apparently you don't know that high-energy particles are stopped by traversing matter. This is why nuclear reactors and particle accelerators are shielded. The LHC beams are stopped by ~10 meters of steel. The earth has millions of meters of rock, iron, and other materials, more than enough to stop any charged object at the energies of observed cosmic rays. If, as you claim, "black holes" are produced, then most of them will have nonzero charge, and will be stopped before they fully traverse the earth. There are some exceptions to this stopping, such as neutrinos; black holes certainly do not qualify, and neither do the other exotica conjured up by fear mongers like yourself. > Secondly, if we consult the encyclopedia (Big Encyclopedia of Cyril & > Methodius, 2008): "Cosmic rays are streams of stable particles of high > energies (approximately from 1 up to 1012 GeV), reaching Earth from > space (primary radiation), and also created by these particles during > their interaction with the nuclei of the atmosphere (secondary > radiation) which consists of all known elementary particles ". As we > see, cosmic rays have a limit of 1012 GeV, while the collider will > produce 1.4�1013, This is just plain wrong. The LHC has a maximum energy of 1.4X10^4 GeV, FAR below your claims, and well below the energies of routinely observed cosmic rays. > Thirdly, collisions of protons in the collider's counter beams are > planned to be carried out at speeds, which practically equal the speed > of light in vacuum. Arguing that the protons in cosmic rays have > higher levels of energy then the planned energy of their collisions in > the collider means arguing that they have much greater speeds. Is > CERN ready to rebut the major principle of the theory of relativity, > that any particle cannot exceed the speed of light? You really got this wrong, and merely display your own ignorance of physics. Yes, the ENERGIES of cosmic rays can greatly exceed the ENERGY of the LHC's beams, but their SPEEDS differ by very little. The cosmic rays are just slightly closer to the speed of light. This is all fully consistent with the theory of relativity. You should learn something about physics before attempting to write about it. > Fourth, moving at high speeds in space protons scatter along the > radiuses away from the epicenter of their emission. They cannot have > head-on collisions with each other for this very reason and also > because same charge particles push each other away. This is nonsense. Those cosmic rays that happen to intersect the earth's atmosphere will hit the nuclei of the atoms in that atmosphere, and will interact. The charges on such particles are WOEFULLY inadequate to "push each other away" and prevent interactions. This is no different from the interactions where the beams intersect inside the LHC. > If particles with the energy which is planned in the collider even > collide heads-on somewhere in the space vacuum, the resulting black > hole will really disappear instantly since there will be vacuum around > it, that is there will be no matter to absorb. But if the particles of > ultrahigh energy manage to reach large material objects, there appears > a black hole with all its characteristics. Using the outrageously simplistic model that high energy collisions create "black holes", then they must be created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays; due to the kinematics of such collisions, those "black holes" will then travel downward, and >90% of them will hit the earth, and most of those will be stopped inside it. If such things actually happened, and they were dangerous to the earth, it would have been destroyed billions of years ago. That has not happened :-). > Currently CERN is finishing up preparations for starting up the Large > Hadron Collider. If everything goes as planned, the dense beams of > protons will start colliding at speeds about 0,99999992 from the > speed of light with the number of collisions reaching billions times > per second! Close, but not correct -- you can't even get simple cut-and-paste correct. The actual speed of the LHC beams at 7 TeV is 0.999999991 times the speed of light. Initial collisions will be at 3.5 TeV, with a speed of 0.99999996 times the speed of light. They will start up at lower energy because that puts considerably less stress on the cryogenic systems and magnets, making it both easier to manage and also less likely to damage accelerator components. Yes, billions of collisions per second are expected. Most of them are elastic or low-energy radiative processes, neither of which has any possibility of creating any particles other than low-energy photons, not to mention "black holes", "strangelets", "magnetic holes", or other exotica imagined by fear-mongers like yourself who do not understand physics. Cosmic rays of all energies hitting the atmosphere greatly exceed that "billions per second". Based on current rates, over the past 3 billion years, more cosmic rays with energies above the LHC have hit the atmosphere than the total number of collisions there will be in the LHC over the next 20 years. > QUESTION: > Where in it's safety rapport does CERN address these (perhaps fatal) > differences between cosmic ray and LHC collisions...??? Throughout. But you are so confused, and so ignorant of actual physics facts that you were unable to understand it. None of your claims hold up when the CORRECT facts are used. Tom Roberts |