LHC portal

Hello!
i have one question, in the safety paper says that cosmic rays are more energetic than particles on the lhc, but i read this on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high ... cosmic_ray

"The energy of this particle is some 40 million times that of the highest energy protons that have been produced in any terrestrial particle accelerator. However, only a small fraction of this energy would be available for an interaction with a proton or neutron on Earth, with most of the energy remaining in the form of kinetic energy of the products of the interaction.[citation needed] The effective energy available for such a collision is the square root of double the product of the particle's energy and the mass energy of the proton, which for this particle gives 7.5×1014 eV, roughly 50 times the collision energy of the Large Hadron Collider."

this is only for Proton collision with 14Tev? or it counts Pb+Pb collisions with 1148Tev too?

Hi,

DarkDaniel wrote:this is only for Proton collision with 14Tev? or it counts Pb+Pb collisions with 1148Tev too?

What's your point regarding the 1148Tev? because for the lhc:

"When reactivated in early 2015, the LHC will operate with an energy of 13 TeV, almost double its current maximum energy." ) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

I Googled that number and it only shows up in this paper:

http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/docs/cos ... y-ions.pdf

which is bogus, with a reference to this paper:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf (7,7 Mb)

Where there is no mention of that number, it says in the abstract:

"It is designed to collide proton beams with a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV ..."

cheers,

m.

chelle wrote:Hi,

DarkDaniel wrote:this is only for Proton collision with 14Tev? or it counts Pb+Pb collisions with 1148Tev too?

What's your point regarding the 1148Tev? because for the lhc:

"When reactivated in early 2015, the LHC will operate with an energy of 13 TeV, almost double its current maximum energy." ) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

I Googled that number and it only shows up in this paper:

http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/docs/cos ... y-ions.pdf

which is bogus, with a reference to this paper:

https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf (7,7 Mb)

Where there is no mention of that number, it says in the abstract:

"It is designed to collide proton beams with a centre-of-mass energy of 14 TeV ..."

cheers,

m.

hey is www.lhcsafetyreview.org a fearmongering website?

draph91 wrote:hey is http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org a fearmongering website?

I can't advise you on that ... I'm pretty biased

Maybe you could do a topic with a list of all the fearmongering-sites out there.

I've done a quick search and the ones I knew don't seem to be very active anymore ... although there must be one ... can't remember the name, mh.

I still have a mailing list of about 34 people that I was member of in 2009, you could give them a call if you're interested, send me a pm and I'll pass it on.

Makes me wonder if the couple of us hanging around here, have been the only ones that kept our ears to the ground. Surely some of them will rise from the grave ... once the machine starts to ring and waking them up from the dead.

cheers,

m.

chelle wrote:Surely some of them will rise from the grave ... once the machine starts to ring and waking them up from the dead.

Hey Hey ... The dead are rising!!

Today I got an email ...

PRESS RELEASE “LHC-KRITIK”/”LHC-CRITIQUE” http://www.lhc-concern.info

CERN-Critics: LHC restart would have been a sad day for science and humanity

(This press release is already published in a German magazine here: http://www.oekonews.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1097987 Please excuse any possible small non native speaker failures in a rather quick translation.)

These days, CERN planned to restart the world’s biggest particle collider, the so-called “Big Bang Machine” LHC at CERN. After a hundreds of Million Euros upgrade of the world’s biggest machine, CERN plans to smash particles at double the energies than before. This poses certain eventally small (?), but unpredictable catastrophic risks to planet Earth.

Basically the same group of critics, including Professors and Doctors, that was filing a law suit against CERN in the US and Europe, still opposes the restart for basically the same reasons. Dangers of: (“Micro”-)Black Holes, Strangelets, Vacuum Bubbles, etc., etc. are of course and maybe will forever be -still in discussion. No specific improvements concerning the safety assessment of the LHC have been conducted by CERN or anybody meanwhile. There is still no proper and really independent risk assessment (the 'LSAG-report' has been done by CERN itself) - and the science of risk research is still not really involved in the issue. This is a scientific and political scandal and that’s why the intended restart would have been a sad day for science and humanity.

The scientific network “LHC-Critique” speaks for a stop of any public sponsorship of gigantomanic particle colliders.

Just to demonstrate how speculative this research is: Even CERN has to admit, that the so called “Higgs Boson” was discovered - only “probably”. Very probably, mankind will never find any use for the “Higgs Boson”. Here we are not talking about the use of collider technology in medical concerns. It could be a minor, but very improbable advantage for mankind to comprehend the Big Bang one day. But it would surely be fatal – how the Atomic Age has already demonstrated - to know how to handle this or other extreme phenomena in the universe.

Within the next Billions of years, mankind would have enough problems without CERN.

A new paper by our partner “Heavy Ion Alert” is attached. http://www.heavyionalert.org/
Background documents provided by our partner “LHC Safety Review”: http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/
More info at the LHC-Kritik/LHC-Critique website: http://www.LHC-concern.info

Best regards:
LHC-Kritik/LHC-Critique
http://www.LHC-concern.info

chelle wrote:

chelle wrote:Surely some of them will rise from the grave ... once the machine starts to ring and waking them up from the dead.

Hey Hey ... The dead are rising!!

Today I got an email ...

PRESS RELEASE “LHC-KRITIK”/”LHC-CRITIQUE” http://www.lhc-concern.info

CERN-Critics: LHC restart would have been a sad day for science and humanity

(This press release is already published in a German magazine here: http://www.oekonews.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1097987 Please excuse any possible small non native speaker failures in a rather quick translation.)

These days, CERN planned to restart the world’s biggest particle collider, the so-called “Big Bang Machine” LHC at CERN. After a hundreds of Million Euros upgrade of the world’s biggest machine, CERN plans to smash particles at double the energies than before. This poses certain eventally small (?), but unpredictable catastrophic risks to planet Earth.

Basically the same group of critics, including Professors and Doctors, that was filing a law suit against CERN in the US and Europe, still opposes the restart for basically the same reasons. Dangers of: (“Micro”-)Black Holes, Strangelets, Vacuum Bubbles, etc., etc. are of course and maybe will forever be -still in discussion. No specific improvements concerning the safety assessment of the LHC have been conducted by CERN or anybody meanwhile. There is still no proper and really independent risk assessment (the 'LSAG-report' has been done by CERN itself) - and the science of risk research is still not really involved in the issue. This is a scientific and political scandal and that’s why the intended restart would have been a sad day for science and humanity.

The scientific network “LHC-Critique” speaks for a stop of any public sponsorship of gigantomanic particle colliders.

Just to demonstrate how speculative this research is: Even CERN has to admit, that the so called “Higgs Boson” was discovered - only “probably”. Very probably, mankind will never find any use for the “Higgs Boson”. Here we are not talking about the use of collider technology in medical concerns. It could be a minor, but very improbable advantage for mankind to comprehend the Big Bang one day. But it would surely be fatal – how the Atomic Age has already demonstrated - to know how to handle this or other extreme phenomena in the universe.

Within the next Billions of years, mankind would have enough problems without CERN.

A new paper by our partner “Heavy Ion Alert” is attached. http://www.heavyionalert.org/
Background documents provided by our partner “LHC Safety Review”: http://www.lhcsafetyreview.org/
More info at the LHC-Kritik/LHC-Critique website: http://www.LHC-concern.info

Best regards:
LHC-Kritik/LHC-Critique
http://www.LHC-concern.info

oh Chelle, you troll

draph91 wrote: oh Chelle, you troll

Isn't it great ... I love to see the Underground Resistance coming back to life!

I'm also working on my theory ... working with specialists from all over the globe ... hope to get it up and running in a month or two, can't wait ... w00t!

cheers,

m.

p.s. Always look out for the GENESIS EFFECT*



* Matter is reorganised ... where life already exists ... it would destroy such life!

chelle wrote:

draph91 wrote: oh Chelle, you troll

Isn't it great ... I love to see the Underground Resistance coming back to life!

I'm also working on my theory ... working with specialists from all over the globe ... hope to get it up and running in a month or two, can't wait ... w00t!

cheers,

m.

p.s. Always look out for the GENESIS EFFECT*



* Matter is reorganised ... where life already exists ... it would destroy such life!

I'm convinced you don't take this seriously and I love it but don't be going too far

Dear DarkDaniel, dear people
No bogus at all about the 1`148 TeV, LHCsafetyreviev is serious and so its papers. Please search 1.15 PeV, which is 1`150 TeV (more exactly is 1`148 TeV) here:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf
Usually, only the energy per nucleon is mentioned but for the whole Pb-Pb collisions it`s 1`148 TeV, which could have consequences for the vacuum risk, because heavy ion collisions (with a still high energy per nucleon but many more nucleon-nucleon interactions per collision) could be more suitable to induce large, expanding vacuum bubbles and a vacuum transition, see Hut & Rees "How stable is our vacuum?".
Please check the LHC-critical groups at facebook too, there are some interesting issues.
Thank you and all the best. Peace!

checkityourself wrote:Dear DarkDaniel, dear people
No bogus at all about the 1`148 TeV, LHCsafetyreviev is serious and so its papers. Please search 1.15 PeV, which is 1`150 TeV (more exactly is 1`148 TeV) here:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf
Usually, only the energy per nucleon is mentioned but for the whole Pb-Pb collisions it`s 1`148 TeV, which could have consequences for the vacuum risk, because heavy ion collisions (with a still high energy per nucleon but many more nucleon-nucleon interactions per collision) could be more suitable to induce large, expanding vacuum bubbles and a vacuum transition, see Hut & Rees "How stable is our vacuum?".
Please check the LHC-critical groups at facebook too, there are some interesting issues.
Thank you and all the best. Peace!

then why aren't they working at CERN?!

checkityourself wrote:Dear DarkDaniel, dear people
No bogus at all about the 1`148 TeV, LHCsafetyreviev is serious and so its papers. Please search 1.15 PeV, which is 1`150 TeV (more exactly is 1`148 TeV) here:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf
Usually, only the energy per nucleon is mentioned but for the whole Pb-Pb collisions it`s 1`148 TeV, which could have consequences for the vacuum risk, because heavy ion collisions (with a still high energy per nucleon but many more nucleon-nucleon interactions per collision) could be more suitable to induce large, expanding vacuum bubbles and a vacuum transition, see Hut & Rees "How stable is our vacuum?".
Please check the LHC-critical groups at facebook too, there are some interesting issues.
Thank you and all the best. Peace!

I'm hardly a physics expert but even I can tell this is twaddle. Treating the energy levels of each component of a lead nuclei as a unified component is no more valid than adding up all the energies of the protons in a bunch.

DCWhitworth wrote:

checkityourself wrote:Dear DarkDaniel, dear people
No bogus at all about the 1`148 TeV, LHCsafetyreviev is serious and so its papers. Please search 1.15 PeV, which is 1`150 TeV (more exactly is 1`148 TeV) here:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf
Usually, only the energy per nucleon is mentioned but for the whole Pb-Pb collisions it`s 1`148 TeV, which could have consequences for the vacuum risk, because heavy ion collisions (with a still high energy per nucleon but many more nucleon-nucleon interactions per collision) could be more suitable to induce large, expanding vacuum bubbles and a vacuum transition, see Hut & Rees "How stable is our vacuum?".
Please check the LHC-critical groups at facebook too, there are some interesting issues.
Thank you and all the best. Peace!

I'm hardly a physics expert but even I can tell this is twaddle. Treating the energy levels of each component of a lead nuclei as a unified component is no more valid than adding up all the energies of the protons in a bunch.

if they know so much, why aren't they working at CERN?!

draph91 wrote:

DCWhitworth wrote:

checkityourself wrote:Dear DarkDaniel, dear people
No bogus at all about the 1`148 TeV, LHCsafetyreviev is serious and so its papers. Please search 1.15 PeV, which is 1`150 TeV (more exactly is 1`148 TeV) here:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1129806/file ... s08001.pdf
Usually, only the energy per nucleon is mentioned but for the whole Pb-Pb collisions it`s 1`148 TeV, which could have consequences for the vacuum risk, because heavy ion collisions (with a still high energy per nucleon but many more nucleon-nucleon interactions per collision) could be more suitable to induce large, expanding vacuum bubbles and a vacuum transition, see Hut & Rees "How stable is our vacuum?".
Please check the LHC-critical groups at facebook too, there are some interesting issues.
Thank you and all the best. Peace!

I'm hardly a physics expert but even I can tell this is twaddle. Treating the energy levels of each component of a lead nuclei as a unified component is no more valid than adding up all the energies of the protons in a bunch.

if they know so much, why aren't they working at CERN?!

Because of the global conspiracy to exclude them from mainstream science of course, don't you remember ?

Or aren't we supposed to mention that ?

DCWhitworth wrote:

draph91 wrote:
if they know so much, why aren't they working at CERN?!

Because of the global conspiracy to exclude them from mainstream science of course, don't you remember ?

Or aren't we supposed to mention that ?

It's not that they know so much, the problem is that CERN doesn't know more, hence the experiments.

The fact is that particle research is a multi-billion euro industry, they aren't going to hire someone who's says to shut it down. You could compare it to smoking and the multi billion tobacco industry, for which it was completely clear that it was hazardous, still it took years to turn around the perception, an ironic thing is that even now a lot of doctors in the field of healthcare smoke, knowing that it will kill them. They just can't quit and need to feel that thrill, the same goes for high energy particle research, there's an enormous drive to just keep on going.

You know I keep on hitting the same nail, that Frequency & Density might be an issue, and that the only thing that is missing in the safety report, is the fact that the luminosity and density is much higher in the LHC than for Cosmic ray collisions in the open air by a factor of 10^9, although this number of course depends on your frame of reference, but physicists only keep a narrow focus and look at it as 'well-isolated events'. I don't think this is scientifically correct.

Take for instance, in Superfluid vacuum theory the vacuum is viewed as a Superfluid or as a Bose–Einstein condensate.

The question here is, when creating Higgs Bosons or any other matter would these events give rise to some smaller ripples within this superfluid? And how far/long could these waves travel and how fast? Would normal matter (Electrons, Protons) traveling through this Superfluid give rise to any vibrations? Are there some references for this kind of action in 'normal' superfluids? So in relation to the LHC, how far do/would high-energy particle collisions spread-out within the Medium?

And when you look at Bosenova events in BEC where matter "implodes and shrinks beyond detection and then suddenly explode" when the magnetic field in which the BEC is located is changed.

This takes us to the question if Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray's (UHECR) might be something like a Bosenova ... an event in the Higgs Field Superfluid whereby a High-energy cosmic ray collision causes an energetic disturbance within the Superfluid that triggers a wider disruption of a whole atom or molecule ... in the sense of shaking a group of protons apart with one initial blast, ripples that travel within the Higgs Field Superfluid and shake nearby protons apart: shockwave.

And those UHECR's are taken as a the main reference for saying that everything is safe at the LHC.

Now this brings us back to your question "if they know so much, why aren't they working at CERN?!", well would you hire or give credentials to someone that could by making such an assumption slow down your occupation and put a hold/stop on scientific research, not knowing if he/she's telling a lie or the truth because no one knows enough at this point? ... or do you prefer taking the risk and be just a tiny little bit ignorant and quietly taking little steps forward as we have always done?

Well your comparison with smoking doesn't really work. In the early days no one really thought smoking was especially dangerous. Yes there were a few who thought ill of it - King James I for instance - "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse".

There is a long tradition of doom preachers on virtually any boundary pushing exercise humanity has tried ("You'll fall off the edge of the world","Humans will suffocate above 25 mph","A steamship can't carry enough coal to cross the Atlantic"), but they're almost never based on correct factual information

Indeed I'd suggest the motivation to ignore evidence in order to maintain and/or enhance their own position is much more prevalent with the doom sayers. They seek the oxygen of publicity and there is a gullible media all primed to circulate and boost such things. That's how we ended up in all this mess with vaccines.