Creating "Sparks"

Discussion of the end of the world brought about by ultra high energy colliders.
oxodoes
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by oxodoes » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:57 pm

Chelle wrote:.. and these high energy collisions happen at about 25 km Up in the air, on top of the atmosphere, where it is pretty cold, not a lot of atmospheric pressure, the density of the air (matter) is very low, there is almost no gravity and its on the borderline of the open space. These aren't the same circumstances as in the lhc at all.
We have had this train of thought for several times now and many arguments have been made that this does not change the particle reactions. If this doesn't convince you consider that cosmic rays not only strike earth but are present everywhere. So if anything terrible would be created by high energy particles striking a dense target that they can not escape from neutron stars would only excist for a neglegible time. Yet we do see fast numbers of neutron stars.

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:09 pm

oxodoes wrote:So if anything terrible would be created by high energy particles striking a dense target that they can not escape from neutron stars would only excist for a neglegible time. Yet we do see fast numbers of neutron stars.
Check this out:
Chandra observations of RX J1856.5-3754 (a neutron star) and the pulsar in 3C58 suggest that the matter in these collapsed stars is even denser than nuclear matter, the most dense matter found on Earth. This raises the possibility that these stars are composed of free quarks or crystals of sub-nuclear particles, rather than neutrons. link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RX_J185635-3754
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

oxodoes
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by oxodoes » Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:13 pm

This article is out of date. New measurements have shown that it is only shining from its polar caps and the size had to be corrected making it no longer a candidate for a quark star. See reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208069

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:27 pm

oxodoes wrote:This article is out of date. New measurements have shown that it is only shining from its polar caps and the size had to be corrected making it no longer a candidate for a quark star. See reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208069
You are probably right, although there are some other more recent articles about strange quark stars:
In this paper we suggest that the newly formed neutron star at the center of SN1987A may undergo a phase transition after the neutrino trapping time scale (~10 s). Consequently the compact remnant of SN 1987A may be a strange quark star, which has a softer equation of state than that of neutron star matter. Such a phase transition can induce the stellar collapse and result in a large amplitude stellar oscillations.http://arxiv.org/abs/0902.0653
Anyway, cosmic-ray collisions on the outskirts of high energetic objects like a pulsar or a star, are not a good reference for proton collisions down here on the ground, within the atmospheric shield of our planet.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

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

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by Stephen » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:51 am

Do you think these strange quark stars were created as a result of cosmic rays collisions?

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chriwi » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:43 am

possibly, but more likely the Quarkstars are created by the collaps of a star leaving the mass what is too big for a Netronstar but not enough to form a black hole.
Interesting and scaring would be only the proof of existence of Quarkstars or blackholes with an overall mass which would normally only be enoug to form a Netronstar or even lower. In this case the question of their creation would arise, without this proof the asumption that they are only created by the collaps of a star is very sufficient.
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chriwi » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:54 am

In my opinion the one big question not answered to mysattisfaction in any saftyreport isthe following:

Its consence that cosmic rays hitting a stationary target leave debree with a high velocety also called high impulse compared to thesurroundiong matter.
Its also consence that the headoncollissions of the LHC leaves debree wich is rarely moving compared to the surrounding matter (low impulse).
Taken the unlikely case this debree in both cases contais something dangerous what would be destroyed by any further high impulse collision with the surrounding matter, but would grow by low impulse collisions.

To my knowlage non of the discussed cosmic ray examples cover this case, unfortunately exactly this is part of Ivans argumentation also I regard the rest of it as highly speculative.

Also the argumentation that high energy cosmic rays have no visible influence on neutronstars is not satisfactory taken the case that such captuered debree of a high impulse collision would cause a chainreaction ending up in a Neutronstar itself, cause this would not make a difference to a neutronstar but surely to a planet like earth.
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:12 am

Stephen wrote:Do you think these strange quark stars were created as a result of cosmic rays collisions?
I'm skeptical about these Strange-quark or Black-hole theories. In both cases it's all about gravity creating such elements. But gravity might have an external origin, caused by movement in an aether, like the Bernoulli's Principle keeps stuff into place (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-V9uJgKIrM), or how a tornado (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpP96pnX00w) sucks things up. So the force isn't purely governed from within, but a combination of factors; things closer to each other could create more turbulence and as a formation they can attract surrounding elements etc.

Also protons and neutrons seem to have the general property to only exist in trio's, so there must be a universal compositional law for this. There are actually 2 sorts of energy that is matter with a mass, and waves with a speed, everything in-between is a transition. It might be that a light particle within a wave is like a vortex in a stream which isn't necessarily turbulent.

So if a chain-reaction would happen, where jets of protons start smashing surrounding protons, it would be just a release of energy that would eventually reform into normal matter, no black-holes or a strange-quark-stars.

Note: Ever since Einstein's E=mc^2 and Minkowski's SpaceTime, the concept of aether has been abandoned, simply because Albert's formula made everything easier to calculate. Also the famous Michelson–Morley experiment failed to prove the way we thought aether would exist, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't exist in a different form, and actually the Higgs-field that has been postulated nowadays is some sort of an aether.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chriwi » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:19 am

actually the Higgs-field that has been postulated nowadays is some sort of an aether.
Thats also what I am thinking since I read about this Higgs-filed for the first time.
You are right that Einstein didn't disproof aether but only found a way to explain the observations without neccessaryly asuming the existance of an aether.
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:47 am

chriwi wrote:
actually the Higgs-field that has been postulated nowadays is some sort of an aether.
Thats also what I am thinking since I read about this Higgs-filed for the first time.
You are right that Einstein didn't disproof aether but only found a way to explain the observations without neccessaryly asuming the existance of an aether.
Yep, this comment below from the BAUT-forum explains it nicely, one could say Higg's is the new Aether. It makes me wonder how can you ever detect a drop of water in an ocean?
"The Higgs field is the stuff that gives all other particles a mass. Every particle in our universe "swims" through this Higgs field. Through this interaction every particle gets its mass. Different particles interact with the Higgs field with different strengths, hence some particles are heavier (have a larger mass) than others. (Some particles have no mass. They don't interact with the Higgs field; they don't feel the field.) It is the opposite of people swimming in water. As people float in water they "become" lighter. Depending on size, shape, etc, some people float better than others.

The Higgs field is not considered a force. It cannot accelerate particles, it doesn't transfer energy. However, it interacts universally with all particles (except the massless ones), providing their masses"

Maybe the most important thing to remember about the Higgs field is that it is theoretical. If the Higgs particle is not found but something similar to the "Higgs field" is found to exist instead, it might not ultimately be called the Higgs field or aether even if it is found to have similar characteristics to what you have described above.

Of the known entities, the Zero Point Field (ZPF) some might point out has similarities to an aether. The known entities within it are electron neutrinos, billions per square centimeter, cosmic rays, EM radiation, virtual particles, etc. Theoretical particles proposed to be also within the ZPF are dark matter, gravitons, Higgs particles, Planck particles, etc. Known energy within the field is EM radiation, zero point energy, etc. and the names of theoretical energy within it are Dark Energy, the Hubble flow, quintessence, the cosmological constant, gravity waves, quantum wave state, quantum foam, etc. If some of these theoretical entities are proven they will probably come up with a different name other than aether unless this medium also was shown to be the "carrier" of EM radiation, which was the original concept for the theoretical aether as described in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I know it's not the same as what Ether was once believed to be... but if the Higgs field is discovered, would that give some validation to the old Ether theory and if not, why?

I think validation to the old theory would only occur if it is shown to be the carrier of EM radiation, although similarities could always be pointed out if they exist.

Also, aren't there some ether theories still floating around out there?

There are a number of mainstream aether-type theories out there, the more well-known ones are discussed in the link below. There seemingly are thousands of what could be called "still active" ATM aether theories, some old and some new judging from what I've seen on the net.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

Dark matter and Dark Energy are probably the most well known of what-could-be-called modern aether-type theories. source: http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-99285.html
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chriwi » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:14 am

please dont ignore mycreation of new sparks.
bye

chriwi

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

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by Stephen » Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:55 am

chriwi wrote:In my opinion the one big question not answered to mysattisfaction in any saftyreport isthe following:

Its consence that cosmic rays hitting a stationary target leave debree with a high velocety also called high impulse compared to thesurroundiong matter.
Its also consence that the headoncollissions of the LHC leaves debree wich is rarely moving compared to the surrounding matter (low impulse).
Taken the unlikely case this debree in both cases contais something dangerous what would be destroyed by any further high impulse collision with the surrounding matter, but would grow by low impulse collisions.

To my knowlage non of the discussed cosmic ray examples cover this case, unfortunately exactly this is part of Ivans argumentation also I regard the rest of it as highly speculative.

Also the argumentation that high energy cosmic rays have no visible influence on neutronstars is not satisfactory taken the case that such captuered debree of a high impulse collision would cause a chainreaction ending up in a Neutronstar itself, cause this would not make a difference to a neutronstar but surely to a planet like earth.
This particular question makes me really nervous. Cosmic rays have been constantly used to demonstrate the safety of the LHC, but what if scientists misunderstand the influences of cosmic rays collisions on stars?

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 721
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:20 am

chriwi wrote:please dont ignore mycreation of new sparks.
I have, but there are a few things I don't understand:
It's consent that cosmic rays hitting a stationary target leave debris with a high velocity also called high impulse compared to the surrounding matter.
Its also consent that the head-on collisions of the LHC leaves debris which is rarely moving compared to the surrounding matter (low impulse).
I don't see the difference, cosmic-ray collisions have the same debris as in the lhc. Only for the lhc there is a far higher collision frequency at one place.
Taken the unlikely case that the debris in both cases contains something dangerous that would be destroyed by any further high impulse collision with the surrounding matter, but would grow by low impulse collisions.
Are you referring with "something dangerous ... that would grow" to micro-black-holes or strangelets? If so, that is something different than sparks flying around, causing the destruction of high energized nuclei who release their energy and target surrounding nuclei.
Last edited by chelle on Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

Kasuha
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by Kasuha » Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:24 am

chriwi wrote:In my opinion the one big question not answered to mysattisfaction in any saftyreport isthe following:

Its consence that cosmic rays hitting a stationary target leave debree with a high velocety also called high impulse compared to thesurroundiong matter.
Its also consence that the headoncollissions of the LHC leaves debree wich is rarely moving compared to the surrounding matter (low impulse).
Taken the unlikely case this debree in both cases contais something dangerous what would be destroyed by any further high impulse collision with the surrounding matter, but would grow by low impulse collisions.

To my knowlage non of the discussed cosmic ray examples cover this case, unfortunately exactly this is part of Ivans argumentation also I regard the rest of it as highly speculative.

Also the argumentation that high energy cosmic rays have no visible influence on neutronstars is not satisfactory taken the case that such captuered debree of a high impulse collision would cause a chainreaction ending up in a Neutronstar itself, cause this would not make a difference to a neutronstar but surely to a planet like earth.
The answer is there, although it's not obvious. These are two most used arguments:
1/ in LHC, the collision is stationary
2/ in LHC there are energetic beams that will 'dump' into anything that pops into existence and only make things worse

Now imagine what exactly happens when a cosmic ray particle strikes earth. It creates some debris that moves at about half the energy (still pretty close to speed of light) towards Earth. But there is a whole LOT of another particles in its way, way more than what is in LHC's beam. The resulting debree dips into this soup and keeps colliding with it with much higher chances for collisions than with LHC beam. Each collision also slows it down (on average the kinetic energy is halved with each collision) until it finally stops. It may stop in the atmosphere or inside earth but there is no way it could actually pass through.
Even if a stable miniature black hole can be created - it would slow down with each particle it consumes. The only chance for it to pass through earth would be if it was not able to swallow any particles - but in that case we really don't need to worry about it whatever speed it has. Maybe neutrinos are miniature stable black holes too?
Earth is very effective particle decelerator.

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chriwi » Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:25 pm

my Idea is that the debree of the first collission may contain something watever it is what will only grow in case other particles will interact with it with a rather small momentum, which would be the case fore the headoncollissions of the LHC, but on the other hand is so unstabele that it would be destroyed easyly by any forther high momentum impact like all the other particles of athmosphere or the solid earth would be for a debree moving still with half of the energy of a cosmic ray.
In this idea I am not very specific what this dangerous growing object might be like or how it is produced, important is only the Idea that there might be anything like that and that it has the property of growing only by mild impact but being destroyed by high momentum impact.

An effect reminding a little of this idea is the reaction in a litewater-nuclear-reacto, there is a chainreaction as long as there is water which slos down the neutrons to thermal neutrons that they can be captured by the uranium nuclei, as soon as the water is gone only fast neutrons will be left which cannot be cought by any nuclei of thr rather small critical mass, so the reaction will stop.
bye

chriwi

Post Reply