Large Hadron Collider

[trekkor]

So, we make high energy accelerators, and slowly stumble across new, higher energy particles, hoping that (a) they exist on our zoological list and (b) are at a proper energy level. They're ticking off the shopping list. If they can get everything on the list, it was found where they expected it, and nothing different shows up, then the Standard Model would be pretty well verified.

Am I understanding you correctly?
They want to prove all of the theories, that they have have been teaching as fact, to themselves?


KT

[Jim Richards]

No, you do not understand correctly.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Am I understanding you correctly?
They want to prove all of the theories, that they have have been teaching as fact, to themselves?


KT

Actually it would probably be phenomena that coincides or reinforces their theories at best. That's why they call it a theory. Dark matter is taught as a theory not fact.

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

No, you do not understand correctly.

C'mon, Jim. Give us the answers.
Don't keep it to yourself.


KT

[Jim Richards]

trek, you asked if you understood correctly and I responded with the answer...no, you don't understand correctly. I'm sorry if the answer displeases you. Perhaps you need to ask more in depth questions, like what is wrong with your understanding or lack thereof.

[dtw]

Originally Posted by trekkor

C'mon, Jim. Give us the answers.
Don't keep it to yourself.


KT

No KT...theories are taught as theories, not as fact.

[trekkor]

Jim.

Why be like that?
There's just no reason for it.



KT

[trekkor]

Originally Posted by dtw

No KT...theories are taught as theories, not as fact.

You'd be surprised. ( Darwin )



KT

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Am I understanding you correctly?
They want to prove all of the theories, that they have have been teaching as fact, to themselves?
KT

If you know someone who has been teaching any of this as fact, then you do not know a scientist.

Also, no one wants to PROVE any theories. They want to examine the intricacies of the theories, to find their strong and weak spots, so as to continue supporting them, or destroy them, or modify them.

Most people have no clue how science works, because they have this very distorted view of what scientists do, what they believe, how they work, and what they're trying to do. I'm not sure where this distorted view came from, but it's most definitely there. Because of this false view of science, they are outright discounted as liars, cheats, thieves and worse by those people who don't understand what a theory is. It's been shown to exist in this very board recently.

Interestingly enough, if you were to rewrite that paragraph and replace "scientist" with "Jehovah's Witness" it would work just as well

[IROC]

Originally Posted by trekkor

C'mon, Jim. Give us the answers.
Don't keep it to yourself.


KT

Trek, what is the basis of your maniacal aversion to learning? The LHC shouldn't impact your religious views - why do you seem to "avert your gaze" from knowledge at every opportunity?

Did you not read Mike's excellent post right before yours? And that didn't make any sense to you?

[Jim Richards]

Originally Posted by trekkor

Jim.

Why be like that?
There's just no reason for it.



KT

trekkor, what on Earth is wrong with you? I simply answered your question precisely and concisely. You don't have to personalize this into some weird conflict.

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by trekkor

You'd be surprised. ( Darwin )



KT

Also taught as theory.

[sjf911]

Originally Posted by trekkor

C'mon, Jim. Give us the answers.
Don't keep it to yourself.


KT

And just what "answers" are you looking for. You clearly do not understand science and the scientific method. You have no tolerance for scientific uncertainty. This is why you cling to the magical world view that allows you to hide from the real world in a self-delusional inspired illusion of certainty.

[trekkor]

The LHC shouldn't impact your religious views

It doesn't.



KT

[ronin]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

If they are going to create a black hole and destroy our galaxy, I think it would be really sporting of them to let us know a few day in advance. I have some moves in the bedroom I have been waiting to try out on the misses, and it would be a damn shame to have them go to waste.

Wait a minute.....if Hawking is correct, my bedroom moves will not go to waste. Surely somewhere in the radiation from our newly sprouted black hole, a data stream describing my new attempt at 'sexy sexy' will be decipherable, yes?

indeed. sad but true

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

They are not trying to make black holes.

There is a zoo of elementary particles that are postulated to exist (or have existed). The Standard Model of subatomic physics gives approximate energy levels for each of these. Since Einstein showed us that mass and energy are equivalent, that means that if you can produce that much energy in a small area, there would be enough "mass" for the particle to form.

We're now to the point where they're searching for particles with such high energy, that they haven't existed in any appreciable amounts in the Universe since there was that much energy...the Big Bang, and possible in the core of some super-massive supernovae.

So, we make high energy accelerators, and slowly stumble across new, higher energy particles, hoping that (a) they exist on our zoological list and (b) are at a proper energy level. They're ticking off the shopping list. If they can get everything on the list, it was found where they expected it, and nothing different shows up, then the Standard Model would be pretty well verified.

Now, this seems like it would be easy to check, right? Maybe the Higgs bozon is postulated to have (make up numbers here) a weight of 40 pounds. Calculations show that you need a 20 mile circumference accelerator to get that energy. However, we only have a 17 mile unit. Basic atomic physics says that we will never see the Higgs.

However! Quantum Mechanics now steps in. It says that the energy/mass correlation can FLUCTUATE. You can give 35 pounds of accelerator energy, and it'll steal 5 pounds from the space-time fabric, and make that 40 pound Higg's bozon with your 17 mile accelerator...SOMETIMES. The more energy it needs to steal, the less likely it is, and the faster that particle disintegrates back into 35 pounds of energy and pays back the 5 pounds borrowed.

THAT is what they're looking for. They are hoping that the Higgs appears, for ever so short of a time, every millionth or billionth or trillionth collision. They hope that the probability catches up with them because of the volume of collisions they will do.

Now, the curse of this "borrowed" energy is that in an EXCEPTIONALLY small percentage of collisions, the energy borrowed will be so large that you exceed the mass requirements for a black hole in the center of that collision. It's postulated that this happened A LOT during the Big Bang...numerous uber-tiny black holes spawning out of the energy that existed then. Some might still exist, but many/most/all don't, according to Hawkings. His Hawking Radiation says that black holes slowly bleed energy back out into the Universe. Big ones (from stars) would take millions of times the age of the Universe to bleed out, but tiny ones are small enough that they might have evaporated already (over the past 15 billion years).

Take a breath...

I think I follow you with this. 17 miles is not long enough for the tunnel to actively produce the Higgs bozon, so they compensate a bit, hoping it will still appear.

Is the Higgs bozon black matter?
How exactly will the scientists know it when it occurs?
How many times will the scientists run these tests before they achieve their desired results? Or, if not, will there come a time when they'll just give up and call it a day?

[dd74]

Originally Posted by IROC

Just for fun, a couple of pictures of portions of our facility:

The "Front End" where the hydrogen ions are produced:



And a portion of the linac:

Mike - is that an accelerator or collider (or is an accelerator and collider the same thing)?
Does it make a noise when operating?

[trekkor]

And just what "answers" are you looking for.

In this recent exchange, I was asking Jim for an explanation of his comment to me other than

No, you do not understand correctly.

Apparently, he does, and wants to keep it a secret.

trekkor, what on Earth is wrong with you? I simply answered your question precisely and concisely. You don't have to personalize this into some weird conflict.

I'm not interested in 'weird conflicts'. Not at all.

I find our conversation here frustrating at times.



KT

[Jim Richards]

It's because we're not communicating. Communication requires talking (typing), listening (reading), and thinking/understanding.

[trekkor]

Calculations show that you need a 20 mile circumference accelerator to get that energy. However, we only have a 17 mile unit. Basic atomic physics says that we will never see the Higgs.

If they went to all the trouble to build this thing, why did they make it too small.
What's a few more billion?

Or are they already planning a VLHC?


KT