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
Larg=
e
> Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located
along
> the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
mil=
es
> 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
avera=
ge
> 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 =3D
> 1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
Althoug=
h
> such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
th=
is
> 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
possibilitie=
s
> 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
understandi=
ng
> 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
releva=
nt
> 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
tota=
l
> combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
generate=
d
> 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
i=
s
> 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
a=
re
> 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
vanishe=
s.
> 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
Publishe=
d
> 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
su=
ch
> as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
whic=
h
> 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
referenc=
es
> 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
Bla=
ck
> 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
fa=
ct
> 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
be=
am
> is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
eac=
h
> beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no
collision=
> would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
sen=
se
> 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
Hole=
s?
>
> It is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem
wit=
h
> 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
ver=
y
> 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
enti=
re
> 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.
Certa=
in
> types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically convert
a=
ll
> matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is not
a=
s
> 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
yo=
u
> 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,
a=
nd
> a basic ...
>
> plus de d=E9tails =BB
Ze vorld veel come to an end! Ve veel all be zucked eentoo zis black
h=F6lle! Nein! Nein! Neiiiiiiiiiiin! Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaach der
leiberrrrrrrrrrr!
|
