Creating "Sparks"

Discussion of the end of the world brought about by ultra high energy colliders.
Post Reply
User avatar
photino
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by photino » Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:03 pm

And if you ad a sparky energy like a proton beam, you might start a process where it or any other solid matter, turns again into a gas. And like you describe above; the process of an explosion might happen
Welll like I said, there can only be an "explosion" if there is a suitable reaction of some sort, and none has been proposed. If there was such a reaction the universe would likely no longer exist as we know it, because it is FULL of "sparks".
This I don't understand:
- 3 quarks are held together by a strong force
- if you want to remove one you need to apply force
- it (a quark I assume) will roll back down thx to a (gravitational) force
I meant the ball in the bowl as an analogy:
The ball in the bowl rolls down due to gravity.
The quarks settle down together forming a proton due to the strong force.
-->> that doesn't mean there is an "inner strength"
You speak 3 times of forces holding the quarks together but there isn't an inner-strength? ...
The LHC will do the opposite - the collision energy allows the quarks inside the protons to move apart.
and thus release the energy of the binding, no?
I think this is where your confusion is coming from. The binding energy is the energy you have to *add* from the outside to *undo* the binding. The strong force "holds the quark together" because if you try to pull out a quark, you will feel the force, and acting against it costs energy. When you're in the lowest energy state, no force is acting by definition (otherwise the state would change, wouldn't it?).

Obviously all this is pretty simplified (the strong force is a weird beast, and then there's quantum mechanics), but I hope you get the idea.
and what about the weak force?
Sure, it's around, but it's not the key force here. Rule of thumb: the weak force is important when leptons (e.g. electrons) are involved.
"the mass of an atomic nucleus is less than the total mass of the protons and neutrons that make it up, but this is only true after the energy (work) of binding has been removed"
Energy of separated constituents = Energy of bound state (nucleus) + Binding energy. The binding energy is the work you had to *put in* to do the separating (against the binding forces), it's not "contained" in the bound state. It's also the energy *released* when you form the bound state.

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 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 9:26 pm

Iwould suggest 2 things for this thread:

1. leave out the black hole and magnetic hole stuff here, because it is discussed in other therads.

2. dont rule out anything as rediulous and only scaring, when we want to discuss an idea we should take at least the possibility serious and should use only physical and mathematical reasons to proove it wrong or unlikely.

beye

Christian
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:15 pm

photino wrote:Energy of separated constituents = Energy of bound state (nucleus) + Binding energy. The binding energy is the work you had to *put in* to do the separating (against the binding forces), it's not "contained" in the bound state. It's also the energy *released* when you form the bound state.
Ok, I'm still not getting it, anyhow I still have Don Lincoln's book laying around that I stopped reading halfway because I thought it was better as a layman, to first understand Galilei, Newton, Maxwell, ... and physics in general before moving on to particle physics, I was planing to pick it up again in a week or two, so for now I'm actually not adding any value to this discussion without the necessary knowledge.

Anyway ...

If I may give it a go at understanding; the situation that you describe seems to be one of 3 magnet-like attracting objects, that when you kick hard on it something get kicked out of it having the same velocity force as you needed to kick it out it, along with the magnetic force holding them together, just like when you lift up a simple weight, the force you use is more or less the opposite to that weight you lift and thus the same amount.

What I always thought was that the binding of the 3 quarks, the strong-force I presume, was similar to ice-skaters holding hands, and spinning around, and when you would break the bond that they would be catapulted. Thus the input force could differ a lot to the explosion-force of the 3-quark-composition.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
photino
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by photino » Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:07 pm

Yes your magnet-like analogy is pretty good if I understand you correctly. To make it simpler just think of a pair of disc-like magnets, I'm sure you've played with some. Snapped together you have a bound state. It's pretty stable. To separate the magnets again takes energy. That's the binding energy. When they start out separated and you let them snap together the binding energy is released (some of it as heat, some of it as a sound wave...)

The ice-skater thing is misleading because the spinning ice-skaters are not in their lowest energy state. The linked arms between the skaters are like stretched springs (you can feel this in your arm sockets ;) To stretch a spring takes a force, else it retracts to the lowest energy state. In this case the force comes from the rotation. (You could also say the system of 2 skaters has nonzero angular momentum, whereas the lowest energy state of 2 skaters has zero angular momentum ;)
Another way to put this is that the spinning 2-skater system can decay into a pair of skaters moving apart at speed :) but still no energy has magically appeared, it's just the energy you've initially put in to get spinning.
So if the proton really was like spinning ice-skaters we would see lots of proton decays happening. But we don't.
Last edited by photino on Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Harbles
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:22 pm
Location: Mississauga, Ontario. Canada

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by Harbles » Thu Jan 28, 2010 11:54 pm


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 Jan 29, 2010 7:54 am

Since nuclear fission is possible, due to an assymetrie between the strong-force and the electro/weak-force (for short distances the strong force is stronger for longer distances electro/weak is stronger and for very large distances gravity even exeeed electro/weak). Fission works in that way that neutrons and protons in a nucleus are rumbled in a way that their distance overcomes the critical distance where electro/weak- exeeds strong-force thus the repelling electrowaek force will tear the nucleus apart.
Such an effect is also thinkable for protons instead of the nucleus and quarks insted of the protons and neutrons, since also strong-force holds the quarks together and since the quarks are also charged particles where 2 of them have the same charge there is also a repelling electro/weak-force trying to tear the proton apart (for the neutron it even works but also without chainreaction).
There are only 2 facts what make such an scensrio very unlikely:
1. other then in the nucleus where there are only positive and neutral charged particles (protons and neutrons) in the protons (and also in the neutrons) there are positive aqnd negative charged quarks together only in the neutron theese charges total to 0 units (2/3 + 2*(-1/3)=0) and in the proton they total to +1 unit (2*(2/3)+(-1/3)=3/3=1). Thus there are not only repelling electroweak-forces but always also electro/weak-forces pulling the particles together what in my eyes even without the strong force should be as stable as atoms and ions alway containing positiv and negative charges in some relationship.

2. for fission the energy relesed by one decaying atom is far less than the energy contained in the restmass of the atom (only about 1/1000 of the energyas far as I know), but the energy to trigger the decay of the next atom is also much less than its restmass, so a chainreaction is possible. There is as stated above no mechanism which releasesmore energy by any chemicalor physical process than is contained in the restmass of the particlestaking part, usually it is rather much less. There is also no known effect to trigger the decay of a proton or a neutron in such a way that all its restmassenergy is released using only energys smaller than the restmass of one of theese particles, even energys much larger than the restmass of the proton did not yet trigger a spontanious decay of a proton. Sure the LHC is build to destroy protons by their collission, but such a destruction of a proton up to now never resulted in energys large4 enoug to destruct other protons, even if there is an avalange (like when cosmic particles hit the athmosphere) the energy becoms less in every step and the avalange stops after a very short time.

Also the analogy of the balloon and the needle doesn't work here:
If you have a room full of balloons and destroy one with a needle the distruction of this one balloon will never trigger the pontanious distractuion of othr balloons.

But we always have to keep in mind even the scientists who build the LHC hoping for finding something which nobody can even think of up to now, somthing beyond the standard modle. If not it will become very boring for them after they find the higgs and proven the standard modell for correct there is nothing left to do for them if that is all and nothing beyond. So everyone hopes for something newbeyond the standard modell, but nobody can even guess what it will be and for everything nobody knows there is always an equal chance to find something dangerous or bad as for finding somthing helpful, that is just part of the game. Unfortunately there is also no other way to find out if something is harmful than to just look for it and try to reduce the consequences. Teh only alternative to that is to say: "This is it! we better not look for anything new any longer because it could be harmful.".
If there is anyreason for living just enjoying and not looking for anythin new could not be mine.
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Jan 29, 2010 9:45 am

Thx for the feedback, still a lot for me to learn and "ORION111" those links are great, they also seem to have a bunch of other educational videos, such as on quantum mechanics: http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/videos2.php it sure is going to keep me busy for the coming weeks, I guess until the end of this nuclear winter :dance:

Although still one thing I would like to come back to; a question already posed a few times, relevant to this:
chriwi wrote:Sure the LHC is build to destroy protons by their collision, but such a destruction of a proton up to now never resulted in energies large4 enough to destruct other protons, even if there is an avalange (like when cosmic particles hit the atmosphere) the energy becomes less in every step and the avalange stops after a very short time.
here it is again:
I guess it might come down to the question; do protons have a weak spot? That when being hit with enough force at the right angle, makes them release all their inbound energy. Thus making them appear as Ultra-high energy cosmic rays, while they are actually just regular cosmic-ray-particles? And if the LHC might be able to hit this spot, than isn't there the possibility of a chain reaction ...

referring to :
... as stated on the wiki page: Unsolved problems in physics: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high?
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
photino
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by photino » Fri Jan 29, 2010 10:38 am

ORION wrote:2. Read about color confinement - its amazing.
Definitely! :thumbup:
Now you've understood binding energy, move on to this. Should clarify some things.
Chelle wrote:I guess it might come down to the question; do protons have a weak spot? That when being hit with enough force at the right angle, makes them release all their inbound energy. Thus making them appear as Ultra-high energy cosmic rays, while they are actually just regular cosmic-ray-particles?
I already answered this above:
Photino wrote:The "weak spot" idea doesn't really work because we know there are no secret "hidden reserves" of energy that can be unlocked from a proton, because of Einstein's formula E = m c^2. It implies that we can find out the absolute maximum of the energy that can possibly be released from a proton - simply by weighing it.

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 Jan 29, 2010 11:30 am

also the wiki-page for Ultra-high energy cosmic rays doesn't state any proces which would violate the theory of conservation of mass + energy and the general theory of relativity. Taken both of them a particle cannot contain more energy than implied by its mass (restmas + relativistic-mass) and therby also cannot be transformed into something with higher energy+mass with out adding the missing mass+energy at the same time. since a proton even in LHC is only an equivalent of a normal or weak cosmic ray it cannot be transformed into somthing like a Ultra-high energy cosmic ray containing much more energy than the LHC-Proton before without adding the missing energy+mass.
And even Ultra-high energy cosmic rays did not show any unstopable avanlncheeffects when they hit the atmosphere until now. Since the proposed Ultra-high energy cosmic ray-partickle caused by protondistruction in the right way had such a high energy (velocity) that it cannot be considdered at rest compared to the earth and therby would also not have any other effects on the earth or biosphere than the natural Ultra-high energy cosmic rays.
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Jan 29, 2010 1:23 pm

chriwi wrote:also the wiki-page for Ultra-high energy cosmic rays doesn't state any process which would violate the theory of conservation of mass + energy and the general theory of relativity. Taken both of them a particle cannot contain more energy than implied by its mass (rest-mass + relativistic-mass) and thereby also cannot be transformed into something with higher energy+mass with out adding the missing mass+energy at the same time.
That's more or less the same as "Photino" said:
Photino wrote:because of Einstein's formula E = m c^2. It implies that we can find out the absolute maximum of the energy that can possibly be released from a proton - simply by weighing it.
But than I come back to the second part of that question:
What's possibly going on, that the results measured aren't in line with Special relativity?
chriwi wrote:since a proton even in LHC is only an equivalent of a normal or weak cosmic ray
The scheme of things:
Cosmic rays: 10^7 eV to 10^10 eV
Man-made: 10^12 to 10^13 eV
OMG Cosmic rays: 3 x 10^20 eV

There is a leap of 30 billion from normal rays to ultra high, and the LHC is about 100 to 1000 times above the norm.
chriwi wrote:it cannot be transformed into something like a Ultra-high energy cosmic ray containing much more energy than the LHC-Proton before without adding the missing energy+mass.
Theoretically not.
chriwi wrote:And even Ultra-high energy cosmic rays did not show any unstoppable avalanche-effects when they hit the atmosphere until now.
These collisions happen on top of the atmosphere, and have miles and miles through thin air and space to avalanche into smaller parts, not so on, or in the ground.
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 Jan 29, 2010 1:45 pm

Even if the origin of theese ultra high energy rays is not known there is no evidence at all that theyhave to violate general relativety or the conservation of energy+mass. The limit is not postulated for the creation of such rays but rather for the transport over long distances, even in the wiki-article you quoted ther are several possibilities mentiond why thous particles might have such an high energy when they hit earths athmosphere, but non of htem mentioned that they might be created from only one Particle with a much lower enrgy+mass, one possibility mentioned is rather that they are a decayproduct of much heavyer unknown particles but not of exploding protons.

If the Athmosphere and the first coming thin air is the problem, so why did the moon or anyother bodyes without an athmosphere did not already explode when they were hit by such ultra high energy rays?

beye

Chrisitan
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm

chriwi wrote:If the Atmosphere and the first coming thin air is the problem, so why did the moon or any-other bodies without an atmosphere did not already explode when they were hit by such ultra high energy rays?
Normal collisions happen one at a time, in contrast to the beams of the LHC, and shooting beams far within the earths atmosphere is an unnatural event. Every planet has it's atmosphere, shielding of it's surface, and it can loose the energy of heavy collisions into space. Just like the explosion of an atomic-bomb on top of the atmosphere would have no effect, in contrast to a place where there is air-pressure, that's why terrorists often set their bombs of in busses.

Regarding the moon, it is covered with Regolith and has no atmospheric pressure. Note:
"Astronauts have reported that the dust from the surface felt like snow and smelled like spent gunpowder."source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon#Regolith
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 Jan 29, 2010 2:39 pm

so what is the point about the Regolith, you cannot tell me that you belive that a nuclear explosion on top of the Regolith would not have any on earth visable inpact on the moon or do you belive some of the Regolith was produced by ultra high energetic cosmic rays?

beye

Christian
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chelle
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:32 am
Location: XL - BXL - B

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by chelle » Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:26 pm

chriwi wrote:so what is the point about the Regolith, you cannot tell me that you belive that a nuclear explosion on top of the Regolith would not have any on earth visable inpact on the moon or do you belive some of the Regolith was produced by ultra high energetic cosmic rays?
I believe that the impact of a nuclear bomb on the moon would be a fraction of that on earth. Hence the impact of one ultra high cosmic ray onto the ultra fine dusted surface, that covers the moon, would be neglectable. There is also nothing more left to set to fire, and every piece of rock that get's hit is reduced to this dust, perhaps there was in the past more structure on that moon but all is reduced to dust.

The Regolith is also like the material in a fire extinguisher; superfine powder which is more effective that water:
The first fire extinguisher of which there is any record was patented in England in 1723 by Ambrose Godfrey, a celebrated chemist. It consisted of a cask of fire-extinguishing liquid containing a pewter chamber of gunpowder.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher

Overall I think my point was quite clear; that it is a death to dust reduced completely burned up place, in contrast to our vibrant planet.
Dance, even if you have nowhere to do it but your own living room.
Wear Sunscreen by Baz Luhrmann - Mary Schmich

User avatar
March_Hare
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:09 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Creating "Sparks"

Post by March_Hare » Fri Jan 29, 2010 6:01 pm

I'm not sure how important this is for the discussion (and sorry if I sidetrack) but I'd like to make a few observations:

1. Can you define "impact"?
In what sense would a 20 megaton explosion on Earth be different from the same bomb (20 mT) exploding on the moon? If you mean blast, remember that blast is a trivial way of measuring things because the moon has no atmosphere.

2. I don't think there'd be any fires to put out on the moon (no free oxygen to burn).

3. Fire is not the main thing that "makes" an atomic explosion; neither fission nor fusion bombs rely on fire (= chemical reaction). They rely on fission or fusion and on the energies released when that happens.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
~Douglas Adams

Post Reply