"Capitalist Pig" <cochon-capitaliste@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:83462d77-7519-40b3-bfcb-e84892be80fe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 1 mai, 12:12, "Doomsday Machine" <seeli...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole
Generator)
>> Unknown Planetary Risk To Create BIG BANG
>>
>> French Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator)
>> Old Dying Physicists want to go out with a BIG BANG
>>
>> What are we talking about?
>>
>> Many helpful Links and Video links at end of post.
>>
>> http://lhcconcerns.com/
>>
>> In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The
>> Large
>> Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located
along
>> the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
>> miles
>> will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The
>> principal
>> behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest
>> elements
>> of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
>> further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were
once
>> thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
>> Electrons, and Protons discovered.
>>
>> The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as
the
>> "Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by
Peter
>> Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
>> believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve
the
>> observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
>> (specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
>> average
>> person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
>>
>> To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two
>> beams
>> will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
>> roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
>> 1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
>> Although
>> such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
>> this
>> will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
>> Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
>> possibilities
>> that could arise.
>>
>> Why haven't I heard about this before?
>>
>> Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response
a
>> lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC,
or
>> even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a
>> lot
>> more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to
it's
>> geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is
not
>> covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of
>> interest,
>> or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
>> understanding
>> something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
>> other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully
sure
>> why some people have not heard about this as from a financial
perspective
>> it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful
>> scientific
>> Expirement of al time.
>>
>> Why We're Concerned
>>
>> To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated
that
>> the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle
accelerator
>> in
>> history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
>> Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
>> invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger
>> and
>> More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
>> accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
>> increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the
construction
>> of
>> the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
>> Production,
>> Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
>> relevant
>> possibilities.
>>
>> So, what's different this time?
>>
>> This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
>> different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC
were
>> explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for
>> these
>> scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
>> total
>> combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
>> generated
>> by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a
reality,
>> in
>> fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes,
here
>> is
>> an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
>>
>> "If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
>> higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth
is
>> still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the
LHC
>> are
>> harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
>> process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot
attract
>> matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
>> eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
>> vanishes.
>> If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would
exist
>> only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only
>> way
>> they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their
>> decay."
>> We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next
>> section.
>>
>> So, what's the problem?
>>
>> In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
>> eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass,
and
>> being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It
has
>> never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem
is
>> that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
>> Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
>> Published
>> a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
>> Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole
would
>> not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go
here
>> Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
>>
>> In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
>> theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
>> such
>> as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
>> which
>> do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
>> previously thought.
>>
>> The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument
for
>> safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
>> references
>> Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be
>> incorrect
>> then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential
>> rate.
>>
>> Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
>> Black
>> Holes on Purpose?
>>
>> Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish
>> to
>> usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies
>> in
>> Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper
recently
>> which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
>> fact
>> not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
>> Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of
the
>> nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
>>
>> Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
>>
>> Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
>> addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
>> beam
>> is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
>> each
>> beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no
>> collision
>> would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
>> sense
>> any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with
both
>> beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest,
>> or
>> to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
>> velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
>>
>> At that point two hypothetical scenarios exist. It would either
maintain
>> a
>> rather low orbit within our planet itself, slowly accreting mass at an
>> exponential rate, or it's possible it may "gravitate" to the direct
>> center
>> of the planet in which case would accrete mass very quickly
>>
>> Wait a second, I've also heard of other dangers like "Strange Matter",
>> "Bubble Nucleation", and "Magnetic Monopoles", why the focus on Black
>> Holes?
>>
>> It is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem
>> with
>> representing them accurately is the true danger can never be quantified
>> as
>> None of these have been observed, however that does not mean the risk
is
>> zero. The very fact that this experiment is called an experiment is the
>> prove a hypothesis, if the results were truly known then this would not
>> be
>> occurring in the first place.
>>
>> The Large Hadron Collider is going to be forcing Protons together in a
>> very
>> unnatural way, not only forcing them into groups of roughly 3,000
protons
>> for the collisions, but exposing them to temperatures colder than space
>> as
>> well (1.9 K or -271 C). These types of collisions in a sense are
>> unnatural
>> because collisions at those speeds and temperature would never happen,
>> meaning at the point of activation, no one will truly know these
results
>> until they occur, in a matter of Femtoseconds we would be placing the
>> entire
>> world in potential Danger. I've seen many websites calculate
>> possiblity/problem or a percentage of risk, however without many of
these
>> theories as proof, there is no accurate way to calcuate them, So
although
>> the risk potential is unknown, the risk can never be calculated at
zero.
>>
>> Although the credence given Strange Matter production, and it's
>> subsequent
>> catalytic behavior by the scientific community is not always mutual.
>> Certain
>> types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically
convert
>> all
>> matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is
not
>> as
>> likely as creating a Black Hole, it's worth mentioning because it is a
>> possibility.
>>
>> I want to learn more, where can I go?
>>
>> The internet is a good place, it brought you here, didn't it? Of course
>> you
>> could always visit the links on the site, and take part in our
discussion
>> on
>> the forum, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with all the
issues,
>> and
>> a basic understanding of Black Holes won't hurt either, of course I can
>> always recommend reading A Brief History of Time or the Universe in a
>> Nutshell there is always Google, for as many people as there are
>> concerned,
>> there are people who believe the danger is zero, it's im****tant for
you,
>> to
>> properly evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion, of course
we
>> would like your sup****t, however, the goal of this web site is
>> information,
>> discussion, action, and rationale, we are real people after all, and so
>> are
>> you.
>>
>> Thinking outside the box can't hurt either, I encourage you to Talk to
a
>> Professor at a local college, write a Letter to CERN, do whatever you
>> need
>> to do to inform yourself and make an informed decision, any
contribution
>> you
>> make, even discussing with one other single person in the world, has
the
>> possibility to make all the difference.
>>
>> Links..
>>
>> Large Hadron Collider
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>>
>> CERN
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
>>
>> LHC Concerns
>>
>> http://lhcconcerns.com/
>>
>> National Geograhic - The God Particle
>>
>> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
>>
>> BBC News - Lab Fireball May Have Been Black Hole
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm
>>
>> An Open Letter To Stephen Hawking
>>
>> http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72
>>
>> Black Holes On Demand (George Street Journal)
>>
>>
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ...
>>
>> CBC News - LHC
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/lhc.html
>>
>> New York Times - LHC Dangerous?
>>
>>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15cern.html?ex=1336881600&e...
>>
>> LHC Legal Defense Fund
>>
>> http://www.lhcdefense.org/
>>
>> MySpace STOP CERN Website
>>
>> http://www.myspace.com/stopcern
>>
>> LHC Risk Evaluation Forum
>>
>> http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/
>>
>> YouTube music Video Of The Atom Smasher (LHC) Black Hole Generator
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOFSrS03wjE#GU5U2spHI_4
>>
>> French Build Doomsday Machine
>>
>> http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm
>>
>> U-Tube Videos
>>
>> Do***entery
>>
>> Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [1 of 3]
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJ6PMfnz2E&feature=related
>>
>> Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [2 of 3]
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNPpeVvZ9w&feature=related
>>
>> Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [3 of 3]
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZwXK-3c&feature=related
>>
>> The Large Hadron Collider: The End Of The Universe?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPxYdObyJ2A&feature=related
>
> The Americans sank billions into a gigantic collider in Texas, but the
> Dimmocrats in congress killed it in favor of food stamps for Negros.
unaha uahu ahua.
In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The
Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron CollideIn May of 2008 the largest, most expensive
scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collideIn May of 2008 the largest, most expensive
scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressinIn May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment,
The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific
experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead centerIn May of 2008 the largest,
most
expensive scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dIn May of 2008 the largest, most
expensive
scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
ead center, or "still", in a relative sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
, or "still", in a relative sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
g, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.In May of 2008 the
largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The
Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center,
unaha uahu ahua.
In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The
Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron CollideIn May of 2008 the largest, most expensive
scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collideIn May of 2008 the largest, most expensive
scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressinIn May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment,
The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific
experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sense
any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest, or
to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dead centerIn May of 2008 the largest,
most
expensive scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
vanishes.
If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only way
they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their decay."
We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next section.
So, what's the problem?
In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass, and
being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It has
never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem is
that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
Published
a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole would
not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
such
as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
which
do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
previously thought.
The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
references
Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be incorrect
then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential rate.
Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
Black
Holes on Purpose?
Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish to
usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies in
Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
fact
not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of the
nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
beam
is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
each
beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no collision
would create a particle exactly dIn May of 2008 the largest, most
expensive
scientific experiment, The Large
Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located along
the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
miles
will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The principal
behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest elements
of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
Electrons, and Protons discovered.
The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
"Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve the
observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
(specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
average
person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two beams
will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Although
such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
this
will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
possibilities
that could arise.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response a
lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC, or
even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a lot
more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of interest,
or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
understanding
something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully sure
why some people have not heard about this as from a financial perspective
it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful scientific
Expirement of al time.
Why We're Concerned
To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated that
the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle accelerator
in
history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger and
More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the construction
of
the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
Production,
Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
relevant
possibilities.
So, what's different this time?
This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC were
explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for these
scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
total
combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generated
by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a reality,
in
fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
is
an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
"If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth is
still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
are
harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot attract
matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, th |
