Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:32 am

Stephen wrote:Ivan, how are you doing? Some of us worry when you disappear on us for too long.
Thank you. I lay bricks, working on a construction site.
Stephen wrote:Did you accept the fact that magnetic holes were impossible to be produced in 3.5 TeV collisions?
The probability that the embryo of dead dark matter has already been created, and we are already condemned to death, is approximately equal to 12%.

The probability that the embryo of dead matter will be created at the first billion of collisions is approximately equal to 23%.

The probability that the embryo of dead matter will be created at the first trillion of collisions is approximately equal to 34%.

As you can see, this value is about 1/3 less than 50%, which a give 10 days earlier, before the first 3.5 TeV collisions.

If we will not explode after the first hundred of days of work at 3.5 TeV, these probabilities should be divided about by 2.

If we will not explode after the first thousand of days of work at 3.5 TeV, the collisions of protons at these energies can be considered almost harmless, but not completely.

There is an additional risk in heavy ion collisions of high energy. About 5-10 additional percents.

There is an additional risk of 2*7 TeV proton collisions. About 15-20 additional percents.

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Xymox » Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:22 am

Well good to hear from you... Good you have work in this bad economy. I too take any work I can find..
If we will not explode after the first thousand of days of work at 3.5 TeV, the collisions of protons at these energies can be considered almost harmless, but not completely.
It is great to hear that there is a possibility of the LHC being harmless.

As far as the number of collisions, I think you are using the triggered event rates for current collisions rather then the raw rate. This is a big difference. Most collision data is discarded, however the collisions did occur..

They were testing much higher injection intensities today, 7e10 PER BUCKET. If they fill a 16x16 pattern thats very high luminosity and a huge leap in collisions per second. Of course they want to hit much higher fill rates like 130x130. This will exponentially increase the number of collisions per second.

You may need to revise your odds based on the planned luminosity ahead.

Im not sure when they will reach 10 or 100 trillion raw collisions but its going to be sooner then your estimating.. So by your calculations the LHC at these energies might be proven harmless sooner then your estimating..

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Xymox » Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:58 am

I just checked and they plan on reaching 600,000,000 collisions per second.
The probability that the embryo of dead matter will be created at the first trillion of collisions is approximately equal to 34%.
So this will be reached very quickly once they are up to speed...

This is the plan for the weeks ahead..

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by CharmQuark » Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:15 pm

Ivan :D

It's good to hear from you it's great news about your job too :thumbup:

It pleases me very much to hear that you are ok ;)

Hugssss Em :wave:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:15 pm

Ivan, hearing about your new job is great. Your probabilities are lower than before, so you should be calmer after we survive a large number of collisions. Hopefully you can put most of your fear behind you soon enough.

Best wishes.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: O - FL - B - EU - W

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chelle » Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:09 am

Image
Mailo wrote:Actually, the explanation is very simple. No particle detector actually measures tracks of the particles. They all consist of layers which have a certain probability to detect the passage of a particle through the layer (called a "hit").
In LHCb, there are no layers inside the magnet (the white block slightly left of the middle of the image), only before and after. The detected passages of particles are marked by purple and green x.
After an event is measured, a software routine then runs over these "hits" and tries to assign them to particles passing through the detector. In this case, that software routine obviously failed and needs to be improved.
Granted, this assignment is rather difficult if many particles were present. Not all of them leave hits in all layers, so your software needs to take into account these "missing" hits, the angle the particles change direction in the magnet depends on the yet unknown momentum, etc.
If you look at the first image you showed, you can see the software failing on the lowest purple "x" on the right side of the magnet. A straight line would have fit just fine through these points, yet the software insists on putting these wiggly lines through them (and remember, there is no information at all about the particle position between these purple x, so it is all fantasy).
If there is an event where atoms are converted into BEC, and an atom would get hit by an incoming particle, changing the BEC's position in the magnetic field, causing a Bosenova, how would it be noticed by the detector? Might these unnatural lines represent a horizontal incoming parton, converting matter into a vertical or sideways flying object. In that case the software would be looking for a follow up spot, horizontally further down the line to make the connection, but if the there is none, the software would search around to reconstruct a natural line, and start generating weird lines. How can something very unusual be observed if the software isn't designed to do so?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Mailo
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:42 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Mailo » Sun Apr 11, 2010 9:40 am

I'm not really sure where the connection between LHC and BEC is. As far as I know, BEC can be achieved by cooling gas clouds of certain (not all) atoms in a trap down to 170 nK, about 7 orders of magnitude colder than the LHC magnets. 7 Orders of magnitude is larger than the difference in temperature between the LHC magnet and the surface of the sun.
And even if this was somehow possible, causing the gas cloud to drift apart again (which I guess is what a "bosenova" is) doesn't really sound very spectacular.

As for track reconstruction - the detector is designed to detect tracks coming from the interaction region on the left hand side of the picture. If the software works in the same way as the one used in HERAb, it starts out on the right hand side and works to the left, trying to "connect the dots". Since no detector is 100% efficient, it has to be able to cope with missing information ... but looking straight down or up makes no sense. And since so far we've not seen a single shred of evidence that "conservation of momentum" is violated, sudden 90° bends in tracks are not really possible.

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Xymox » Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:49 am

The LHCb had issues with its tracking recently. So those tracks are not real..

Just FYI..

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:17 am

Mailo wrote:I'm not really sure where the connection between LHC and BEC is. As far as I know, BEC can be achieved by cooling gas clouds of certain (not all) atoms in a trap down to 170 nK, about 7 orders of magnitude colder than the LHC magnets. 7 Orders of magnitude is larger than the difference in temperature between the LHC magnet and the surface of the sun.
And even if this was somehow possible, causing the gas cloud to drift apart again (which I guess is what a "bosenova" is) doesn't really sound very spectacular.
There are two main types of condensates: Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and Fermi-Dirac Condensate (FDC).

There are two sub types of Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC): atomic and subnuclear.

Idea of bose-nova implosion of cold matter into an atomic Bose-Einstein Condensate is described at the page http://www.lhcfacts.org/category/safety ... incidents/

Magnetic hole can be considered as subnuclear BEC.
Droplets of strange matter can be considered as subnuclear FDC.

The probability to die in air plain catastrophe is about 0.000001. Yesterday about a hundred of authorities of Poland had died near Smolensk.

The probability to explode the Earth by creation of droplet of BEC or FDC at LHC is about 0.5.

A man decides himself to fly, or not to fly by air plain.
Civilization can not ban the dangerous LHC Experiment, - our lives in the hands of crazy criminals, naming themselves as “scientists”.

People, friends, I do not understand you!
Why are you promoting the LHC Experiment?
This Experiment can kill the Earth.
Xymox wrote:The LHCb had issues with its tracking recently. So those tracks are not real..

Just FYI..
Magnetic hole can be registered by its tendency to move along the lines of magnetic field at detector region.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: O - FL - B - EU - W

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chelle » Sun Apr 11, 2010 12:45 pm

Mailo wrote:I'm not really sure where the connection between LHC and BEC is. As far as I know, BEC can be achieved by cooling gas clouds of certain (not all) atoms in a trap down to 170 nK, ...
BEC can also be created at room temperature (link)
Mailo wrote:And even if this was somehow possible, causing the gas cloud to drift apart again (which I guess is what a "bosenova" is) doesn't really sound very spectacular.
It's not like a gas cloud, BEC is a new phase of matter, so an atom is no longer an atom but BEC. And this is what happened during an experiment:

When the scientists raised the magnetic field strength still further, the condensate suddenly reverted back to attraction, imploded and shrank beyond detection, and then exploded, blowing off about two-thirds of its 10,000 or so atoms. About half of the atoms in the condensate seemed to have disappeared from the experiment altogether, not being seen either in the cold remnant or the expanding gas cloud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einst ... cteristics
Mailo wrote:As for track reconstruction - the detector is designed to detect tracks coming from the interaction region on the left hand side of the picture. If the software works in the same way as the one used in HERAb, it starts out on the right hand side and works to the left, trying to "connect the dots".
What are you trying to say here?
Mailo wrote:Since no detector is 100% efficient, it has to be able to cope with missing information ... but looking straight down or up makes no sense. And since so far we've not seen a single shred of evidence that "conservation of momentum" is violated, sudden 90° bends in tracks are not really possible.
90° bends could happen if a BEC/Atom is charged so it can set-off in perpendicular direction as the parton that causes the discharge. btw How can you measure precisely "conservation of momentum" for an in-flying object that keeps moving in a forward direction?

Xymox wrote:The LHCb had issues with its tracking recently. So those tracks are not real..
Do you mean the issues discussed here, after you posted these graphs, and on which I'm commenting, or are you referring to something else?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: O - FL - B - EU - W

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chelle » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:12 pm

MagneticTrap wrote:There are two main types of condensates: Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and Fermi-Dirac Condensate (FDC).

There are two sub types of Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC): atomic and subnuclear.
Could you post a refference to this, as I understand BEC is a new phase of matter, where an atom changes into BEC, so no atom- or subnuclear difference. Are you perhaps talking about the difference between gas and condensate?
MagneticTrap wrote:Magnetic hole can be considered as subnuclear BEC.
Why?
MagneticTrap wrote:Droplets of strange matter can be considered as subnuclear FDC.
Isn't strange-matter made up out of 4 quarks or so, while Fermi-gas is just an atom transformed into a collection of non-interacting fermions.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Mailo
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 7:42 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Mailo » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:17 pm

The link you gave speaks of a BEC of magnons. A magnon is not an atom, but an excitation state of the electrons in an atom. The bosenova experiment dealt with a BEC of atoms, which needs 10^-7K.
And no, an atom is still an atom even if it is part of a BEC. A BEC is created by cooling down a cloud of atoms until you get the phase transition to BEC, but you still have the same bunch of atoms, just with different behaviors.
The "bosenova" described was just an unexpected drifting apart of these atoms when changing magnetic fields (which are needed to keep the atoms bottled up during cooling). I still don't see any type of connection between BEC and dangers at the LHC, or the LHC itself.
Sidequestion: Where are the atoms that make up the BEC supposed come from anyhow in the vacuum of the beampipe? Keep in mind you cannot get a BEC from any atom.

Ignore my comments you did not understand, I found out LHCb uses a different track reconstruction strategy than HERA-b. See this link.
Basically all detectors only "see" single points in space when a particle goes through a detector layer at that point. The LHCb track reconstruction software apparently starts out at the collision point and works towards the back of the detector (on the image from left to right) trying to connect the dots.

And yes, you can calculate the conservation of momentum for any kind of collision/particle production.

@Magnetic trap: I'm not quite sure what you mean by "subnuclear BEC". Which particles exactly share quantum states in that case?
Also, the BEC of magnons at room temperature Chelle mentioned in his post doesn't seem to fit the distinction "atomic or subnuclear" ... which category would you attach it to?

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:26 pm

MagneticTrap wrote: The probability to die in air plain catastrophe is about 0.000001. Yesterday about a hundred of authorities of Poland had died near Smolensk.

The probability to explode the Earth by creation of droplet of BEC or FDC at LHC is about 0.5.
The tradegy in Poland is very saddening. It reminds me why I hate airplanes. However, what is your basis for saying the probability of us dying by the LHC is 0.5? I was under the impression that you lowered your probabilities.

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1498
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by CharmQuark » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:42 pm

I think Ivan is just having what i call aftershocks :) he will be fine in time but maybe it would be be if we don't keep feeding him if you get my drift?

Ivan you are doing well, you have a good job, a family and you have us ;) please don't get back into old habits we have an island to go to remember :thumbup:

Em
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 757
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: O - FL - B - EU - W

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chelle » Sun Apr 11, 2010 1:53 pm

Mailo wrote:The link you gave speaks of a BEC of magnons. A magnon is not an atom, but an excitation state of the electrons in an atom. The bosenova experiment dealt with a BEC of atoms, which needs 10^-7K.
True, and in both case the result of the experiment was BEC.
Mailo wrote:And no, an atom is still an atom even if it is part of a BEC. A BEC is created by cooling down a cloud of atoms until you get the phase transition to BEC, but you still have the same bunch of atoms, just with different behaviors.
No. In the case of "ice" you can say it is "water" because it are water-molecules, but in this case the composition of the atoms is changed into something new; Bose-Einstein Condensate, made out of bosons.
Mailo wrote:The "bosenova" described was just an unexpected drifting apart of these atoms when changing magnetic fields (which are needed to keep the atoms bottled up during cooling). I still don't see any type of connection between BEC and dangers at the LHC, or the LHC itself. Sidequestion: Where are the atoms that make up the BEC supposed come from anyhow in the vacuum of the beampipe? Keep in mind you cannot get a BEC from any atom.
Parts of the detector could be converted into BEC, I have given some sort of explanation in one of the "end of the world" topics, check it out: viewtopic.php?p=5003#p5003
Mailo wrote:And yes, you can calculate the conservation of momentum for any kind of collision/particle production.
if I may bring up fictitious forces and Separating non-inertial from inertial reference frames I would like to quote this bit of information from one of those two wiki-page:

Thus, measurement of the tension in the string identifies the inertial frame: it is the one where the tension in the string provides exactly the centripetal force demanded by the motion as it is observed in that frame, and not a different value. That is, the inertial frame is the one where the fictitious forces vanish.
So much for Fictitious forces due to rotation. However, for linear acceleration, Newton expressed the idea of undetectability of straight-line accelerations held in common: If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will continue to move among themselves, after the same manner as if they had been urged by no such forces. (link)

So the energy of linear flying particles before and after collisions is according to Newton not easy to measure.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Post Reply