Large Hadron Collider

Yes, I've noticed you have suddenly re-materialised Jude. Good to have you back! I don't think anyone is seriously expecting the world to be destroyed if the LHC explodes, Jude... Just half of Europe :O) Here's a link to the very excited CERN celebration. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2010/14/News%20Articles/12464... "The collisions at 7 TeV centre of mass give us confidence that the LHC will reach its maximum energy (14 TeV) in two years' time and that we can already start preparing for the next step, the super LHC!"

Didn’t that bloke who wrote Hitch Hiker’s Guide suggest that worlds like ours were usually destroyed by their search for the Higgs Boson but that the Vogun Constructor fleet will get here first? :O) Still what did he know about science ;O) Mind you. you've made me nervous, I thought that science had decided that any black holes produced would be unstable :-O Oops, repost, FTSE, and it will be back in synch.

Well of course since there is a scientific view that ever decision we make split’s the Universe into two (or possibly more) then it is probably very difficult to keep track of which Universe you are in at the moment. A friend of mine once wisely pointed out that the moment you suddenly understand something that you are involved in (or with) then it changes because you have changed and you are part of it.

For those few who might find it interesting here is a link to the CERN page The Missing Higgs. http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/science/higgs-en.html Interestingly, it furthers an argument of mine in that it suggests that there might have been a time when the laws of the Universe were different - yet, I’m sure that Stephen Hawking claims these laws are immutable. Mind you, the ‘invisible force field’ bit in the theory is a bit SciFi I have to admit.

Well Ricky Martin came out I see. Does anybody see a connection?

Well, it's obvious Chuck. He came out of a large hadron closet!

I thought it was a bargain 'til I got the bill :O) Great line, footsie, and, incidentally, a great song. Mind you - many a true word spoken in jest, footsie. These colliders use an awful lot of power. That was one of the points I was making in my poem Light In The Dark. "You tell us we're in danger; the village might burn we must stop having fires, yet you in your turn plan to burn all our wood to make enough steam to power your contraption and live out your dream!" In other words on the one hand they are telling us of the terrible dangers of Global Warming and that we should get rid of coal fired power stations and that we must stop leaving our gadget on stand by and we should all switch to low power light bulbs etc. While on the other hand they are using phenomenal amounts of power to run the LHC to look for Dark Matter and the unlikely Higgs!

These claims sound good but as I remember the discovery of Penicillin came from the fact that Alexander Fleming was in such a rush to get off on holiday that he didn’t do his job properly and discovered the Penicillin mould growing in one of his Petri dishes on his return. Admittedly he can be credited with noticing that the mould was prohibiting the bacterial growth but the point is that this and the other discoveries did not require huge amounts of power and were actually essentially one man discoveries using ingenuity and simple commonsense not vastly complex machines! I'm surprised that Cox claims Einstein 'discovered' Relativity - it's still only a theory and it's looking a bit long in the tooth! I have to say I completely agree with Lovelock!

In other words it doesn't really matter what we do. If the LHC doesn't blow up the planet will die anyway? Might as well have a quick knees up and die dancing :O) The scientific rationale for hedonism :O)

I want my £2 back. And who's Chris Martin?

If you get your two quid back, Celtic, bet it on the Euro Lottery… I reckon you’ll have more chance of winning that than the LHC has of finding the Higgs :O)

My point has never been about the monetary cost but the environmental one. If 85 countries are contributing at £2 per tax payer how big is the electric bill? Since we can be absolutely certain that the LHC gets cheap power then how much power does it actually consume? How much extra greenhouse gasses are created to generate that huge amount of power? As for the Higgs. CERN says : “Physicists have to look for it (the Higgs) by systematically searching a range of mass within which it is predicted to exist. The yet unexplored range is accessible using the Large Hadron Collider, which will determine the existence of the Higgs boson. If it turns out that we cannot find it, this will leave the field wide open for physicists to develop a completely new theory to explain the origin of particle mass.” So, what’s the bet that when they don’t find it they will say - “Ah, we didn’t find it because we miscalculated the expected mass range but we are confident we will find it once the Super LHC is up and running.” You have to wonder how good the present theory is if it can’t explain mass without invisible force fields and God particles! You also have to wonder how reliable the CERN scientist's assurances of safety are when they admit that their theory might be completely wrong!

I admit I could be wrong FTSE. I don't say it will blow up I say that it could! I can’t see how my arguments are so wrong but I'm ready to listen if you want to explain where I'm so embarrassingly wrong about the apparent hypocrisy of telling everyone else to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gasses while they don't. Maybe it doesn't need any power at all and just runs on sunshine or maybe it is all generated by billions of windmills and so doesn't add to the alarming effects of Climate Change. Could be that those scientists who argue that these sorts of experiment can wait until we’ve solved the more important problems facing the planet are just embarrassingly wrong too. I admit that I'm none too fond of the theories that don't actually work until you take into account the invisible, the highly unlikely, add a pinch of the undiscovered and then mix energetically with a pinch of desperation - they simply get more complicated and unlikely all the time as a result. You know as well as I do that the these theories are under threat from many scientists who do not like the way the data is distorted to support these 'elite' theories. Yet these theories are still being presented to the public as virtually certain... merely awaiting final confirmation.

You can be sure that the Emperor must be wearing clothes because he always has and in fact he has never looked better... The rare reports that he looks naked are due to the fact that some uneducated eyes have not quite learned to see the full glory of the subtle yet sublime Starshine ™ cloth that not only keeps the Emperor looking splendid but also automatically keeps his body temperature at optimum. It has been noted, however, that the result of negative thinking by the ignorant causes a local quantum field reversal within the immediate vicinity of the ignorance which interacts with the invisible force field resulting in the Starshine ™ cloth appearing to be transparent. THIS HAS BEEN SOLVED BY ONLY ALLOWING IGNORANT PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THE EMPEROR WHEN THEY ARE WEARING A BLINDFOLD. However, we do, of course, tell them what they would be seeing were they not ignorant. The initial reports of people seeing ‘goose pimples’ were again reports from the ignorant who were simply seeing an optical illusion caused by the effect of sunshine on the Dark energy flowing through the cloth and interacting with spontaneously generated micro, mini-black holes used in the process of reclaiming the energy used to create the Starshine™ effect in the first place

you are the living example of my deeply held belief that it's impossible to learn 'science' as an adult. The best you can do is learn pictures of 'science', or stories about it. Yes. I agree. I've tried and failed. I reckon I could get anybody, with a bit of school algebra at their disposal, through the exams with a month's work emmm unlikely. But Chris Martin could, whoever he is. Richard Feydman (don't know if that is how you spell his second name,unfortunately my English isn't great either) who is very funny, wrote about trying to teach an artist physics in return for learning how to paint. Feydman could paint a bit in the end...and the artist could still paint, but, I think even Feydman gave up in the idea that he could teach anyone physics I doubt that I could learn the basics of science. My knowledge of English is patchwork, but I think I can improve on that. The problem is how do you pick apart the pictures of science that others present without having a base? I don't know. I suppose that leaves the media to sway you one way or the other?

Okay.

That was very well put. The oft quoted figure is 10 000 hours to become some kind of expert. 30000 to become an experts of experts, but as we all know, kicking a ball for evermore does not make us a footballer. Writing in a straight line does not make us a ruler. Yeh, Feydman, the great safecracker. All the safes had the same combination so that they'd remember them! Sounds like my password strategy. No. Physics is beyond me. I can understand a little biology, some elementary chemistry, as long as I'm not tested on it. I can count, but not very well. Too late. But just wait until I'm reborn...

FTSE: When I said 'okay' it was in response to your kind offer "If you like, I'll try to explain one thing a day." I know you must be busy but a promise is a promise :O) I'm genuinely looking forward to your insight into what, you rightly say, is essentially a world out of most people’s reach. I suspect many others will find it enlightening too!

I actually enjoy the fact that I don't understand it. FTSE is of course correct in saying that, say, 'Bang Goes the Theory' or an article in the press, even a broadsheet, will never teach people scientific truths. But it might make people curious enough to find some out, even if, as for Celticman, it ends in failure. The point is it stimulates interest, provokes arguments (like this one perhaps). I don't expect good science from the Times, or the BBC for that matter, but I do expect, from time to time, to be kept informed of things about which I might like to find out more. I like the way some mathematicians think: "in mathematics you don't understand things. You just get used to them. John Von Neumann (1903-1957)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytxafTXg6c&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MmpUWEW6Is&NR=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsgBtOVzHKI&NR=1

FTSE: I had a lot on my mind the other day and I didn't pay enough attention to what you were saying "... Understanding is my religion, but since it isn't a recognised religion, anybody can trample on it in ways they wouldn't dream of doing if I had beliefs about sky pixies." You are perfectly right and I sincerely apologise!

“If the LHC enhances our understanding about the nature of reality…” Entering the Celebrity Big Brother house tonight we have the incredible Mr Boson Higgs himself. Famous for his work in helping solve weight problems, and for being dynamic in his own field, Higgs has gained something of a cult following recently. He will be joined in the house tonight by his rival the model, Ms Higgless, who Boson dismisses as lacking symmetry but admits she has good colour. They join the team of international scientists already settled in and everything is set for a great evening of Reality TV!

Yes, I’m sure we can all understand the great feeling of excitement that comes with getting a new, bigger, more powerful, toy, Jude. You may be right, maybe it will help to forward our theories about the fundamental laws of the Universe. My concern is that most of the things we learn from playing with these sorts of toys, as FTSE points out, is in the form of simply huge amounts of data from the various sensors and detectors. It is the interpretation of this data that is the most challenging aspect of the whole process. It seems to me that the theoretical framework onto which this data must be projected is a patchwork quilt at best. Legacy theories reaching right back to the time of Newton, covered with Relativistic patches and roughly stitched to Quantum theory. The upshot of this seems to me to be a house of cards that is in imminent danger of collapse because its foundations are unsteady to say the least. I would have thought that finding a Unification Theory should come BEFORE you start smashing things together ever more violently but I know you will argue that the smashing is necessary FIRST. Personally, I think that this is simply an excuse to play with their latest toy but I admit I could be wrong. I simply fear that modern science is more curious than it is cautious! Happy Easter.

Talking of spin... http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime4.html

I've just discovered this which seems to be a very smart, subtle and safe way to look into gravity. http://einstein.stanford.edu/MISSION/mission1.html

Two Words. Zero Ontology.

Zero Ontology is very interesting jrc... it does seems that the Universe is either everything or nothing ;O) Have you read - http://www.abctales.com/story/mykle/are-you-certain ?

FTSE : If you can manage to collide caravans at 99.9999% of the speed of light in the Chunnel without causing an almighty disaster then I’ll believe you are Jesus, otherwise I really can’t see the point of your Top Gear gag.

FTSE, Speed is massive… :O) The Earth appears to be 2.38 billion metric tons more massive due to its daily rotation! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence Interesting to note that mass is never converted into energy as many people believe!

Chill out FTSE! http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/EmcFallacies.html

FTSE, my observation “Interesting to note that mass is never converted into energy as many people believe!” was based on the linked Wiki article which stated - “According to the theory of relativity, mass and energy as commonly understood, are two names for the same thing, and neither one is changed or transformed into the other.” Perhaps I misunderstood but, if so, obviously many others have too. Hence I feel your criticism that I am “… relentlessly and incurably stupid” was, to say the least, a little harsh :O) I posted the second link because it was the first one I came across that echoed what I believed the wiki article had said... if you check you will find there are many more by reputable scientists but expressed more technically.

I’m sorry my posts annoy you, FTSE, that’s not my intention! I take your point on ‘context’, FTSE, but you must grant that this part of the Wiki link does seem to contradict the generally accepted belief that nuclear bombs convert mass into energy :- Binding energy and the "mass defect" Main article: binding energy Whenever any type of energy is removed from a system, the mass associated with the energy is also removed, and the system therefore loses mass. This mass defect in the system may be simply calculated as Δm = ΔE/c2, but use of this formula in such circumstances has led to the false idea that mass has been "converted" to energy. This may be particularly the case when the energy (and mass) removed from the system is associated with the binding energy of the system. In such cases, the binding energy is observed as a "mass defect" or deficit in the new system and the fact that the released energy is not easily weighed may cause its mass to be neglected. The difference between the rest mass of a bound system and of the unbound parts is the binding energy of the system, if this energy has been removed after binding. For example, a water molecule weighs a little less than two free hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom; the minuscule mass difference is the energy that is needed to split the molecule into three individual atoms (divided by c²), and which was given off as heat when the molecule formed (this heat had mass). Likewise, a stick of dynamite in theory weighs a little bit more than the fragments after the explosion, but this is true only so long as the fragments are cooled and the heat removed. In this case the mass difference is the energy/heat that is released when the dynamite explodes, and when this heat escapes, the mass associated with it escapes, only to be deposited in the surroundings which absorb the heat (so that total mass is conserved). Such a change in mass may only happen when the system is open, and the energy and mass escapes. Thus, if a stick of dynamite is blown up in a hermetically sealed chamber, the mass of the chamber and fragments, the heat, sound, and light would still be equal to the original mass of the chamber and dynamite. If sitting on a scale, the weight and mass would not change. This would in theory also happen even with a nuclear bomb, if it could be kept in an ideal box of infinite strength, which did not rupture or pass radiation.[4] Thus, a 21.5 kiloton (9 x 1013joule) nuclear bomb produces about one gram of heat and electromagnetic radiation, but the mass of this energy would not be detectable in an exploded bomb in an ideal box sitting on a scale; instead, the contents of the box would be heated to millions of degrees without changing total mass and weight. If then, however, a transparent window (passing only electromagnetic radiation) were opened in such an ideal box after the explosion, and a beam of X-rays and other lower-energy light) allowed to escape the box, then, as the box was cooled by this process to room temperature, it would eventually be found to weigh one gram less than it had before the explosion. However, any surrounding mass which had absorbed the X-rays (and other "heat") would gain this gram of mass from the resulting heating. No mass (or, in the case of a nuclear bomb, matter) would be "converted" to energy in such a process, however. Mass and energy, as always, would both be conserved. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ah well, I suppose I’d better not treat you to my hypothesis that Black Holes couldn’t grow if time stood still within the Schwarzschild radius ;O)

get a room

A room with a view?