bob, just to clarify - yer workng for MI5/NSA.  keywords: echelon, carnivore.
the main idea behind the hadron colider is to provide jobs for geeks who couldn't
make a living otherwise AFAIK.  just try reading their gibberish about quarks and
"the big bang" if ye have any doubts.

Once you've been through one black hole, the next one is a piece of cake.

I don't know what all the fuss is about.

Nolos
"I'm paying for this movie. I want guns."

Professor Stephen Hawking, author of A Brief History of Time, said of the CERN Collider:

"Collisions at these and greater energies occur millions of times a day in the Earth's atmosphere, and nothing terrible happens."

Thats easy for him to say..!

Quote - Professor Stephen Hawking, author of A Brief History of Time, said of the CERN Collider:

"Collisions at these and greater energies occur millions of times a day in the Earth's atmosphere, and nothing terrible happens."

Thats easy for him to say..!

LOL, yep.  However, he is pretty darn good at this stuff--proton smashing and combining as been going on for the last 14 or so billion years.  We wouldn't be here without it----Jan

 Fact: the particle collider near Chicago (Fermilab) has been running an antimatter beam for the last 10 years.  Millions of times a second it crashes into a matter beam going in the opposite direction and exotic forms of matter are produced.

Fact: high energy collisions like this (and even much much more energetic ones--much higher in energy than what will happen at the LHC) occur all the time when cosmic rays from outer space hit dust particles in our upper atmosphere.  Again, particles are created, and the ones that don't decay in flight are going through us every second.

I thought Quark was still tending bar at DS9...;) top, bottom (see holosuite for details), strange or charmed, you gotta wonder...;)

Which quark was tending bar--I hope it wasn't Strange?  Jan

Quote - I have seen the (fake) home page of  "Repubblica", the most important Italian online newspaper.

It reads:

"It's the world end! CERN confirms it!"
"Switzerland already sucked into the black hole."
"The Pope: ok, let's pray, but I cannot guarantee anything"
"Berlusconi: at least the Alitalia problem is solved"

another positive thing is that Naples will have rid itself of the trash pileup problem

There was a small rip in the atmosphere today. Well, truth be told it...was actually quite large.

And a wee but pungent too. :lol:

Quote - According to some details in New Scientist magazine, CERN will be
running through a gradual set of tests for the next few months.  The
accelerator won't reach the kind of high energies that could cause
these "singularities" until maybe January. 

Isn't that grand?  At least we have a few months of grace.

Yeah well, I wouldn't worry too much unless the thing can be everywhere at once and move backwards through time.

BTW, there are a couple of theories which reject the idea of black holes... and they work perfectly within the postulate of the universe as we understand it.  So, yer never know....

The black hole theory of infinite mass and zero volume per black hole isn't very logical IMHO.

Rationale:  How can the universe have billions plus black holes each with INFINITE mass?  There can be only one---hmmm heard that phrase somewhere---Jan 

physics is full of seemingly illogical things, though.  after all, check out quantum entanglement.  measuring one half of a quantum pair instantaneously will change the outcome of measuring the other half no matter how far apart.  since particles and waves can't travel faster than the speed of light it behaves as if the particles are not actually separate, even if on opposite sides of the universe.
some day our phones and power transmissions will probably work this way. 

*"1. humans don't have the ability to create super-massive objects

1. no extra-terrestrial interstellar vehicle has visited this planet
2. time travel from the future is impossible
   anybody who's concerned about these things should always wear his aluminium hat"*

Yep and 500 years ago the world was flat. Not saying that those 3 will happen but who know what theories will be changed in 500 years from now.

"There's a hole in my bucket, dear margret, dear margret."
 

In the moment the protons walk the dog only. No collisons with them till now. So we still have the chance of the black hole ;-)

Quote - physics is full of seemingly illogical things, though.  after all, check out quantum entanglement.  measuring one half of a quantum pair instantaneously will change the outcome of measuring the other half no matter how far apart.  since particles and waves can't travel faster than the speed of light it behaves as if the particles are not actually separate, even if on opposite sides of the universe.
some day our phones and power transmissions will probably work this way. 

God plays dice. Quantics are not compatible with Einstein.
The Einstein's light speed limit is not compatible with instantaneous action (infinite speed) of spin coupling.
Imagine the Big Bang theory made of things that don't match at all!

Quote - Yep and 500 years ago the world was flat.

500 years ago the Earth was round and a sphere. Around 1300 AD was measured in France the size of the Earth giving a value almost the same as we have today. Don't forget the Greeks that have done it too two mileniums before, even with less precission.

You missed the point I was making to correcting numbers.

Attached Link: Hackers break into Large Hadron Collider computer

The large hadron collider has exsisted for years in secret. It was needed to make black holes
for every clothes dryer on the planet, along  with airports. It's where our lost luggage, and at least one sock gets sucked into. Never to be found again.

:b_grin: @ albertdelfosse I never really thought of that... :laugh:

just to reassure y'all, they still won't be creating any black holes several months from now,
and time travel from the future will still be impossible in the year 3008 as well.  :lol:

those 2600 rascals

miss nancy here's a response about time travel

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Tachyon.html

sure some scientists don't see it as possible but plenty of mainstream scientists are ok with that.  they had a great show on one of the science channels about the evolution of this particular universe and the behavior of time, (and a possible ultimate fate of this particular universe) and they were really treating time like just another ordinary physical thing that can be and in fact (theoretically) is regularly slapped around.

so no real proof of tachyons yet, but the math is there, and that usually precedes tangible things.  and lets not forget that we really still don't know crap compared to how much there is to know.

kurzweil likes to say that technology sufficiently advanced appears to the viewer like magic.

Quote - The black hole theory of infinite mass and zero volume per black hole isn't very logical IMHO.

Rationale:  How can the universe have billions plus black holes each with INFINITE mass?  There can be only one---hmmm heard that phrase somewhere---Jan 

Actually black holes don't have infinite mass. They have the mass of what-ever object
got mashed down to create them.  For example if a black hole was created by the
explosion of a large star in a super nova, the black hole would have what ever mass
of the star that wasn't blown out into space in the explosion.  In the centers of
some galaxies there are super massive black holes, but there the mass of those
black holes in just the mass of all the stars that clumped together to form it.
A micro-black hole would have a very tiny mass. 

But you are right about a black hole having zero volume, it is a singularity,
a single point in space with no width, height, or length.  You could think of it
as taking a Poser figure and setting the x,y, and z scale dimensions to zero.
It would still have all the vertices, but they would all be mashed down into a
single point that you wouldn't even see in a render.

The singularity is not at the center, it is located at a distance GM/c^2 from the center. Inside the black hole is no singularity.
Well this is what happens in mathematics, in real world when asingurality happens in a point it only means that the mathematical equations used are not able or fail to describe what is happening, so find a better mathematical model!

lol i agree it's like saying "god did it, so we're off the hook" for finding an explanation

Nobody was able to prove that light speed is the maximun speed possible to achieve, only a theory tells this.
The speeds we can achieve are insignificant compared to the speed of light, how much? 40,000 km/h???, what is 40,000 km/h compared tp 300,000 /second?!
The only things we can accelerate near the speed og light are charged particles, in other words, electrons and protons. The only thing that experience tell us is that an electron becomes more difficult to accelerate as its speed is increased.
How do we accelerate a charged particle? The only way we know to do it is by means of an electromagnetic field and here the stoey gets complicated.
When we accelerate an electron by mean of an electric field the electron moves, as an electron is a charge and a moving charge is a current and a current creates a magnetic field that at its time will create an electric field. To simplify, we accelerate an electron by means of an electric field and so the moving electron will generate an electric field that oppose our accelerating electriv field.
Bigger the speed stronger the opossing field, it will be a moment when the reaction field will cancel our accelerating field, the resultant force on the electron will be zero and the electron will not be able to accelerate further, no matter how strong will be our field or how many miles long is our hadron collider. This moment is when the electron is traveling at the speed of light and this has nothing to do with Einstein's Relativity theory, that is not an electromagnetic theory, ignores electromagnetism and light is a particle and not a wave.
An electron can travel faster than light, but we have no means to do it because it doesn't respond anymore to our electric fields that are the only way that we know to make him move.
As an analogy, a tomate that is not a charged object, doesn't respond to electric fields.
We can put a tomate in a super maximum hyper hadron collider and the tomato will not move.
The conclussion will be that the maximum speed that a tomato can achieve is zero and it has an infinite mass. Nothing can travel faster than a tomato that doesn't move at all.

As an update, the collider has broken down.  Shame.

Quote - As an update, the collider has broken down.  Shame.

It was just a bad transformer.  They've replaced it, but it will take a while to chill
the whole thing back down again before they can restart it.  After that it should
be good to go, unless something else breaks down. 

Quote -
An electron can travel faster than light, but we have no means to do it because it doesn't respond anymore to our electric fields that are the only way that we know to make him move.
As an analogy, a tomate that is not a charged object, doesn't respond to electric fields.
We can put a tomate in a super maximum hyper hadron collider and the tomato will not move.
The conclussion will be that the maximum speed that a tomato can achieve is zero and it has an infinite mass. Nothing can travel faster than a tomato that doesn't move at all.

The speed of light is critical in three equations, the Lorentz transformations.  They're the ones that show that, as you go faster time seems to slow, mass increases, and length decreases.

These have all been experimentally demonstrated.  In fact, GPS satellites have to take this into account because their clocks tick at a slightly different than does a clock on the surface of the planet: it's not enough for a human to notice in the everyday world (just as the slight increase in mass when you run compared to standing still isn't big enough to matter given the forces involved), but if you need to calibrate highly accurate timepieces, it does.  The increase in mass, and time slowing down, has also been observed in particle accelerators.  A particle that decays in a certain amount of time takes longer to decay if it's moving faster, and one moving faster hits with more mass than one would expect if you didn't take relativistic mass increase into effect.

Common in all three equations is the Lorentz factor, 1/sqrt(1-[v^2/c^2]), where v is your velocity and c is the speed of light.  The way it works in the mass equation is:

Mass of moving object = mass of object when "unmoving"  times Lorentz factor

Let's say that you are travelling at the speed of light, v=c.  Then v^2/c^2 is 1/1, or 1.  So now you have to find the square root of 1-1, or 0.  The square root of zero is zero.  But now the factor is 1/0, or infinity.

So at light speed, the mass of the moving object is its rest mass...time infinity.  So if the object has any mass, any at all, it would have infinite mass at light speed.  That's why we know that photons that move at light speed can't have any mass to start with, and why you can't accelerate anything with mass to light speed: it would achieve infinite mass (that is, it would outweight the universe).

Here's the other thing: in order to accelerate something, you need energy.  The energy to accelerate something is directly proportional to the mass of the something.  The more mass, the more energy needed.  Well, to accelerate an object of infinite mass, you therefore need infinite energy. 

Incidentally, the reason why your tomato example in the particle accelerator makes no sense is because there isn't enough energy in the particle acccelerator to move a tomato.  There's a lot of energy in there relative to the particles and some individual atoms that are being moved, but no where near enough to significantly effect the huge number of atoms and particles in a tomato.  Your example is about as silly as arguing that because I can't push the space shuttle into orbit, therefore there's no amount of energy that can push the space shuttle into orbit, which is obviously a dumb thing to say.  All it's saying is that a single person doesn't have the energy, not that the energy isn't available.

Ah, but if that space shuttle, or that tomato, is moving really, really fast, then we run into the energy problem.  At 99.9% of lightspeed, the tomato masses 22.366 times as much.  At 99.99%, 70 times as much; at 99.999%, 223 times as much; at 99.9999%, 707 times as much, and so on until it reaches infinity at 100%.

So, in order to accelerate something with mass to equal lightspeed, we need more energy than exists in the entire universe, while moving something that weighs more than the entire universe.  Since that obviously makes no sense, you can't accelerate a tomato to exactly lightspeed.  And if you can't get it to lightspeed, you can't accelerate it it faster.

Just for giggles, when you get down to speeds we deal with, here's what happens.  The current aircraft speed record is held by the SR-71, and is about 3600 km/h, which conveniently enough is 1 km/s.  Rounding off light to be 300,000 km/s, the jet is travelling at 0.00033% of the speed of light.  Plunking that into the Lorentz factor means that the 77 metric tonne Blackbird would, at top speed, have an increased mass of 0.4 milligrams.  What, a flakes of paint, maybe?  That's why we don't notice the effects at the speeds we normally deal with, unless we are being (as in the GPS example) very, very precise.

and the Colliders down again.. a Quench has put it out for a week... there was a magnet heat up and a helium leak...

Quote - he speed of light is critical in three equations, the Lorentz transformations.  They're the ones that show that, as you go faster time seems to slow, mass increases, and length decreases.

That's the Lorenyz theory that later Eistein put as his Relativity theory. This is a theory and if you apply it is impossible to achieve light speed or higher, but first we must understand aether1s Lorentz theory.
Lorentz theory is based on Maxwell electromagnetic theory. Maxwell summed in a brilliant theory the worjs of Ampere and Faraday, the problem of Maxwell's theory is was that it was made only for stationary bodies, bodies that don't move and of course no force on a moving charge was defineded.
Yje consequence is that when we try to apply Maxwell's equation to a moving body we find that the form of the equations is not preserved (covariance). In other words the Maxwell's equations in Earth and Mars are not the same, something not good.
To overcome this problem Lorentz found a tranformation of coordinates that preserve the form of Maxwell's eauations in any system. In these tranformatins time is not more absolute and must transform too.
But this is only Lorentz approach to solve mMaxwell's equation problem. There were other solutions for the same problem that most of people doesn't know that exist.

• Hertz solved the problem replacing the partial time derivates in Maxwell's equations by total time derivates.
• Weber created other different electromagnetic theory that was based on the Ampere's force (not the force found in school books that is Biot-Savart force and not Ampere, Ampere's force is not in school books!!!!).
  If we apply anyone of these theories we have the same practical results and equations, but there is a big conceptual difference.
  On Çprentz theory we cannot achieve speed of light or overcome becaise time becomes infinite or imaginary.
  In Hertz or Weber's theory the force acting on a charged moving body becomes zero and it doesn't respond anymore to our electromagnetic fields. If the body is traveling faster than light the direction of the force is reversed slowing the object. Anyway there is nothing impossible for something move at light speed or above.
  In anyway these three theories can only be applied to charged bodies and never to neutral body.

Quote - These have all been experimentally demonstrated.  In fact, GPS satellites have to take this into account because their clocks tick at a slightly different than does a clock on the surface of the planet:....

He, he, he. .... GPS doesn't use Relativity and if use the results must be corrected by the Sagnac effect
What is the Sagnac effect? First at all what is an effect?
An effect is something that is observed, has empiric equations, but cannot be explained by any theory. Many 'effects" today have theorical explanation, but still are called  "effects''.
To understand all we must begin with the failed Michelson=Morley experiment (the failed one!).
Michelson-Morley tried to measure the absolute speed of Earth using light. They tried and failed.
They were not able to measure the absolute speed of Earth. To explain the fracass Einstein postulated that the speed of light is always the same in any direction and in consequence that is impossible to know the absolute speed of something. Yhis was the fundamental stone of the theory of Relativity.
This is the story that people know, but waht people don't know is that the story has not ended here.
Einstein's theory was not accepted, ignored or people didn't knew that Einstein existed, so Michelson-Morley continued with their experiments and tentatives and twenty years later had sucess measuring the absolite speed of Earth. Not only Michelson-Morley contined, other people did with different experiments and had success too. Among these people was Sagnac that in the 1920 decade has success. Nobody knows the existenece of those succesful experiments, it wre buried because contradicts Relativity that become a Holly dogma.
Sagnac survived by some very particular reasons even was burries for more than 50 years.
Sagnac's experiment was very simple and reliable. If we replace the light sources used by lasers, use solid state lasers we can have a very small, cheap and without moving parts that is able to measure the absolute speed of something, something that technology and industry cannot resist and so, devices based on Sagnac's effect are a common part in planes, satellites and missiles, they contradict Einstein, but they work and create money.

Quote - Incidentally, the reason why your tomato example in the particle accelerator makes no sense is because there isn't enough energy in the particle acccelerator to move a tomato.

You need very little energy to throw a tomato, any kis can do it and the particle accelerator has mega watts of energy, of course hundreds of thousands much more energy that the hands of a kid.
Is very simple, no matter how much energy you put in the particle accelerator the tomato doesn't respond to that energy, but it respond pretty well to the enrgy of your hand.
On the other side, try to move a beam of electrons with your hand....

Quote - and the Colliders down again.. a Quench has put it out for a week... there was a magnet heat up and a helium leak...

That's the problem with China made things, are nice and cheap, but works only for a short time....

/ignore kawecki = on

okies it's down for a coupla months now.. the damage was worse than they thought.

Khai can you pm me a link to the news story on it?

Thanks,

Daidalos

Attached Link: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2008/PR09.08E.html

What I read from the report is that the gas removed the vaccuum from the tunnel and that means that the protons aren't going anywhere fast--an analogy would be planting part of the Rocky Mountains (helium gas) right smack in the middle of the Daytona race track--cars (protons) aren't going anywhere.  Jan

lawrencian/einsteinian physics is only a phase in human evolutionary development.
like all the previous systems (animistic/aristotelian/newtonian) it will become obsolete
soon enuff IMVHO.  unfortunately, the hadron collider may only serve to further confuse
the issue, with their typical divagations that rival those of the alchemists in their desperate
search for funds to prove something that only exists in their own minds.

Alchemy???, they are trying to make the ekta-plumbum that transmute into gold$$$, much better than the defunct stock$$$$----, .......

oh if you want an interesting thing to show how damned smart our ancestors were, go check up the: ANTIKYTHERA DEVICE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

advanced analog computation device made aorund the time of Julius Ceasar.
For ages, the scientific world ignored it, deliberately, as it would blow the arse out of their arrogance, lol. Plenty were intrigued by it, but, to voice that opinion...they'd be ridiculed,

By this I mean, that alas, the Scientific HUMAN world of the day, was so bloody hide-bound and stupid :/
Think I'm kidding, see "Continental Drift Theory", and how that was ridiculed etc at the time :(

Scientific Method = great.
People = often bloody stupid, regardless of what area ;)
We're getting better, slowly.

LHC = fantastic work, and vital for our progression, however, there is a risk...

Why are we building the LHC?
Because we have never had such a powerful device before, to test our theories and learn from entirely new  events.

Since we do NOT know the results, we cannot be certain of the safety, to say it's 100% safe is NOT science, tha'ts belief!
To say the risk is "probably very small based on current knowledge and previosu tests", is correct: we've had no catastrophies with such devices before.

Well...not as far as we KNOW...as it's theoreticlal possible there has been many catastrophies that have collapsed/wiped out Universes, and we are in the "one" that has survived.
I'm not kidding.

Zen or  Astrophysics/quantum physics...you takes your Universe and plays with yer probabilities and points of view ... ;)

Actually, the Antikythera find was subject of much discussion.  What it actually turned out to be (an advanced astronomical calculator) was what it was believed to be early on.  Scientists didn't dismiss it, what they did dismiss were the "theories" that it was proof of Atlantis, or ancient astronauts, or whatever.

As for continental drift, as a geologist I have to speak up.  Wegener made his proposal based on evidence everyone agreed with.  It wasn't dismissed at the time because scientists were hidebound, but because his proposed mechanism was quickly shown to be highly unlikely.  What people who use this example either don't know or overlook was that there was a host of competing theories to try and explain the same data, and Wegener's theory simply didn't have any more evidence, at the time, than they did.

Fast forward a few decades, with more data collected and, most importantly, discovery of the mid ocean ridges, the various trenches, the ability to map the magnetic field of the sea floor, and now Wegener's idea now had a mechanism.  With the evidence and, most importantly, an explanation as to how it could happen, pretty much the entire geological community accepted it overnight.

As to the LHC, as has been pointed out, repeatedly, the energy involved int he particle collisions is many times smaller than that created in the atmosphere by high energy cosmic rays all the time.  In other words, nothing that's going to be done at the LHC doesn't already happen routinely in nature.  The only difference is that doing it at the LHC means doing it where the results can be observed and measured

Another big question about the Antikythera computer: For what the Hell Greeks do need an astrolab, a navigation instrument?! To go from one Greek island to another?, you needen't any instrument for that, even Egypt is so near you do not need that.
Even if you want to use an astrolab it would be useless for the distance involved, so small to see any difference in the measurements between one locations and other.
Or perhaps they used the astrolab to navigate to the Hesperides to bring tomatoes for their salad and tin for their bronze shields.....

About Wegener:
Wegener's theory continue to be ignored. Today theory is the tectonic plate theory that is not Wegener's theory even in both theories continents move. Wegener's theory is rock floating over more dense rock and not a plate of rock that moves.
Beside Australians, who give any importance to Gonfawana today?