CERN outlines plan for 100km circumference supercollider - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Berkin;43841691]I seriously doubt that CERN is in the business of creating super-weapons capable of wiping out all life in the universe.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Berkin;43841691]I seriously doubt that CERN is in the business of creating super-weapons capable of wiping out all life in the universe.[/QUOTE] Not if we are in a false quantum vacuum and trigger the event. Which would also make the Halo rings look like firecrackers. [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;43842934]what would happen if you built a particle accelerator in a straight line, left the far end open, and pointed it at stuff why don't scientists do this instead[/QUOTE] The most expensive ant-killing method in the world.

[QUOTE=acds;43846476]The most expensive ant-killing method in the world.[/QUOTE] Even more than drowning them in printer ink?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] HORIZON 2020 isn't gonna be used for just this, it'll partially fund this new construction. The programme is for ALL the R&D in the EU, and there's a lot of stuff going on or planned to be constructed. For example there's also the ELI project (Extreme Light Infrastructure, 3 research buildings to be built in 3 different countries, one of the buildings to have the MOST powerful laser in the world) that's started construction from EU funds. Don't worry about the EU, if there's anything this union is doing right (not saying that the union is bad) is that it properly invests in science.

[QUOTE=ionuttzu;43846598]HORIZON 2020 isn't gonna be used for just this, it'll partially fund this new construction. The programme is for ALL the R&D in the EU, and there's a lot of stuff going on or planned to be constructed. For example there's also the ELI project (Extreme Light Infrastructure, 3 research buildings to be built in 3 different countries, one of the buildings to have the MOST powerful laser in the world) that's started construction from EU funds. Don't worry about the EU, if there's anything this union is doing right (not saying that the union is bad) is that it properly invests in science.[/QUOTE] How much more powerful, compared to the NIF?

[QUOTE=booster;43847255]How much more powerful, compared to the NIF?[/QUOTE] [quote]The three new lasers – one each in the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Romania – are set to be completed by 2015. Each will fire pulses that reach a power of 10 petawatts[/quote] [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] The one in Romania will be bigger, but I can't find specifics [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [quote]The pulses will last only about 1.5 x 10-14 seconds, less than a tenth the time it takes light to cross the diameter of a human hair. Because the pulses are so short, they contain orders of magnitude less energy than the laser pulses at the National Ignition Facility in California, which last 2.0 x 10-8 seconds. But during that flickering instant, the Extreme Light Infrastructure pulses will deliver 20 times the power of NIF's.[/quote]

I hope they can one day re-create the Oh-My-God particle. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle[/url] A single sub atomic particle that has the kinetic energy of a baseball going 100km/h, now that's scary. I guess we're lucky they don't interact with matter that often or else people's heads would be exploding randomly out on the streets.

Just do it inside the entire planet! :v:

[QUOTE=Sableye;43842498]they make psychedelic artwork [t]http://www.collidingparticles.com/contact/images/contact_bg.jpg[/t] [editline]8th February 2014[/editline] [t]http://spacecollective.org/userdata/diF6AS1e/1199309120/buddhabrotA3003.jpg[/t] [t]http://www.phaidon.com/resource/014-1.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] Those are not from CERN, or the LHC, they're cloud chamber photographs - basically the charged particles zoom through and ionize anything they hit, which creates a little bit of mist. So you can actually see the paths taken by the particles, and how they interact. Cloud chambers are a hell of a lot smaller, easier, cheaper, and considerably less useful for finding any particles that we don't already know - pretty much because you have to wait for one to come along and interact, which can be extremely rare, and you can only see charged particles. Neutral ones won't leave any visible tracks. In CERN the detection is all kind of electronic - there are thousands (maybe millions, can't remember) of small plates, which generate a charge when a particle goes through them. They're all in layers, surrounding the detector where the particles collide. If you look at which plates triggered (had a particle hit them), then you can determine what path the particle had, what speed and charge, that sort of thing. Then you can determine the type of particles created in a collision. [B](Edit: Extra info)[/B] The advantage of the LHC is we can generate weird particles through the collisions, although they're still very rare. You might be able to see in the picture below, top left: "run/event: 194108/564234000" (I think). Literally hundreds of millions of collisions. Very fast computers are used to decide which collisions to store, because there is far too much information to store all of them. Basically it's all done by computers, but you still get pretty (computer generated) pictures: [t]http://cms.web.cern.ch/sites/cms.web.cern.ch/files/styles/news_item_featured/public/field/image/gammagamma_run194108_evt564224000_ispy_3d-annotated-2.png?itok=h9LDKAKJ[/t] And also some hilarious graphs: [t]http://www.pd.infn.it/%7Edorigo/susy_penetration.jpg[/t] [URL="http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/plot_week_how_susy_got_scrd_lhc-119422"]The article it came from, which explains it[/URL] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43843639]Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in the science, but I have a difficult time understanding what you can do with a 100km collider that you can't do with the LHC, especially now that the LHC's power is being doubled. I mean, 80 billion euros is a shit ton of money to spend on science that will give us a few more lines in a Wiki entry about subatomic particles. I believe in basic research, sure, but it's not like the LHC's findings have affected the world in any tangible way. At least NASA gives us cool pictures and velcro. Now, if you're going to use it for mass production of antimatter, then we can talk![/QUOTE] When I went to see CERN, they made a big point about the billions spent: By their calculation, the various technologies and techniques learnt, released through spin-offs and companies, have generated enough money for economies that they've basically broken even with the money spent.

[QUOTE=Adeptus;43846464]I'd wish they'd throw those 80 billion at fusion energy projects instead. Not saying CERN and the LHC haven't proved to be useful; yet still I see comercially viable fusion much more useful today.[/QUOTE] I don't think throwing money at fusion research would achieve much, the issue is more with materials and keeping the thing going than science at this point. We've also got 2 experimental reactors being built (ITER and the Wendelstein 7-X), and the NIF is working on their own types of reaction too. Edit: I'm hoping the Wendelstein 7-X comes out ahead, purely for the design. Looks like a very complicated piece of machinery that got sat on by a giant.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;43847559]I hope they can one day re-create the Oh-My-God particle. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh-My-God_particle[/url] A single sub atomic particle that has the kinetic energy of a baseball going 100km/h, now that's scary. I guess we're lucky they don't interact with matter that often or else people's heads would be exploding randomly out on the streets.[/QUOTE] The ring would probably have to be unimaginably huge.

[quote] When I went to see CERN, they made a big point about the billions spent: By their calculation, the various technologies and techniques learnt, released through spin-offs and companies, have generated enough money for economies that they've basically broken even with the money spent.[/QUOTE] I'd actually like to hear more about that. It's not that I have any problem with science for the sake of science, far from it. I just balk a little at the $100 billion+ price tag. You could do a LOT of other science with that kind of money. The ISS, all told, cost somewhere around that much. That's the lion's share of a Mars mission. There is a distinct chance you could cure cancer with an investment like that. Not all science spending needs to be on applied science, but I do think we should prioritize certain things over others. Especially when we already have the LHC. It's only been operating for a couple years and somehow it's already useless and a bigger one needs to be built? I am really not saying particle physics is in any way bad or unworthy of funding, but it does sometimes seem like a disproportionate amount of money gets spent on it. Especially when particle physics seems to have a fairly low chance of producing tangible results for anyone outside of the physics community. Again, totally not against science at all, but given the choice between a Mars mission and another particle accelerator, I'll pick a Mars program every time.

[QUOTE=Falubii;43853685]The ring would probably have to be unimaginably huge.[/QUOTE] Yeah, like - according to the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray"]wikipedia article[/URL] - quasars, or a black hole.

[QUOTE=Falubii;43853685]The ring would probably have to be unimaginably huge.[/QUOTE] Yeah, considering its energy was only, oh, about 6 orders of magnitude higher than this ridiculously large proposed accelerator's collisions would be.

[QUOTE=Mingebox;43844594]Antimatter sounds like a pretty stupid method generation power.[/QUOTE] That and technically wouldn't the specific anti-matter in question need to be basically magnetic and stored in a complete reverse polarity magnetic vacuum container? Since, you know, anti-matter and matter doesn't mix well together. I honestly can't think of any other way to keep anti-matter stored.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;43853879]I'd actually like to hear more about that. It's not that I have any problem with science for the sake of science, far from it. I just balk a little at the $100 billion+ price tag. You could do a LOT of other science with that kind of money. The ISS, all told, cost somewhere around that much. That's the lion's share of a Mars mission. There is a distinct chance you could cure cancer with an investment like that. Not all science spending needs to be on applied science, but I do think we should prioritize certain things over others. Especially when we already have the LHC. It's only been operating for a couple years and somehow it's already useless and a bigger one needs to be built? I am really not saying particle physics is in any way bad or unworthy of funding, but it does sometimes seem like a disproportionate amount of money gets spent on it. Especially when particle physics seems to have a fairly low chance of producing tangible results for anyone outside of the physics community. Again, totally not against science at all, but given the choice between a Mars mission and another particle accelerator, I'll pick a Mars program every time.[/QUOTE] Particle physics is kind of the cool science to be in at the moment, which is at least partly why it gets so much funding. I'm definitely of the opinion that learning how and why we exist in the universe is worth spending a fraction of the US yearly military budget on, but obviously that's a different issue. And it's a bit much to say it's useless, like it says in the article they're really just preparing for the future. The thing with particle physics is you need higher and higher energies to actually find predicted particles, so the price tag is unfortunately unavoidable for progression. Besides, you should see the LHC - I would almost put it on a par with the ISS as far as human engineering achievements go. It's awe-inspiring. And about the return-of-investment thing, it is fascinating - might do some research at another time, but for now I've got another unrelated essay that's due in 12 hours that needs doing :v: An easy one though, is modern computing and the internet - it's well known that they owe a lot to the requirements of CERN and other big science projects which needed to process and disseminate a lot of information.

I'm sort of confused as to why it is believed that particle accelerators could somehow create black holes. From my understanding, black holes are stars that have gained so much mass that light no longer can escape its gravitation. How can there be "mini black holes"?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43842732]We gotta discover and harness tachyons. If sci-fi taught me anything, it's that they can do anything you want them to.[/QUOTE] well we need to invent the transtator first allowing us to harness the awesome power of subspace before we can use tachyons [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=paul simon;43854169]I'm sort of confused as to why it is believed that particle accelerators could somehow create black holes. From my understanding, black holes are stars that have gained so much mass that light no longer can escape its gravitation. How can there be "mini black holes"?[/QUOTE] well they do create black holes, where antiprotons and protons collide it generates a very infinitesimally small black hole that collapses back in on itself [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=draugur;43853932] I honestly can't think of any other way to keep anti-matter stored.[/QUOTE] theres a theory that rotating asteroids from the early periods of the solar system might have trapped anti-matter and also you realise that we are capable of generating massive magnetic fields with the LHC, more than enough to keep anti-matter secured

So I don't know about micro black holes, but in researching wikipedia looking for information on what people think could happen in high-energy particle physics I found stuff about a false vacuum, which (as I vaguely comprehend to mean) is a theoretical state of the universe which is unstable, and could decay into something more stable with less energy. Or something. Basically there was this fucking cheery quote: [QUOTE] The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it. However, one could always draw stoic comfort from the possibility that perhaps in the course of time the new vacuum would sustain, if not life as we know it, at least some structures capable of knowing joy. This possibility has now been eliminated. Sidney Coleman & F. de Luccia [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=paul simon;43854169]I'm sort of confused as to why it is believed that particle accelerators could somehow create black holes. From my understanding, black holes are stars that have gained so much mass that light no longer can escape its gravitation. How can there be "mini black holes"?[/QUOTE] In theory you could have a black hole of any size so long as enough matter is compacted into a small enough space. A pebble could be reduced to a blackhole if you could compact all of that matter down to a radius smaller than the Schwarzchild radius for the mass of that pebble.

[QUOTE=paul simon;43854169]I'm sort of confused as to why it is believed that particle accelerators could somehow create black holes. From my understanding, black holes are stars that have gained so much mass that light no longer can escape its gravitation. How can there be "mini black holes"?[/QUOTE] A black hole is not necessarily a star, it is any matter and energy compressed into a small enough space that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Kind of. That's an oversimplification but it illustrates the idea well. [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;43854218]well they do create black holes, where antiprotons and protons collide it generates a very infinitesimally small black hole that collapses back in on itself[/QUOTE] The LHC is not going to create black holes unless there are large extra dimensions (which is unlikely).

[QUOTE=Bradyns;43841570][IMG]http://www.co-optimus.com/images/upload/image/2009/halo-ring.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] Now I want to play Halo 1. :buddy:

[QUOTE=sltungle;43854442]In theory you could have a black hole of any size so long as enough matter is compacted into a small enough space. A pebble could be reduced to a blackhole if you could compact all of that matter down to a radius smaller than the Schwarzchild radius for the mass of that pebble.[/QUOTE] Not true. The smallest possible black hole is on the order of the Planck mass, assuming no large extra dimensions.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43846423]well if you pointed it at people you'd probably get something like this going on [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski[/url] depending on what's being accelerated[/QUOTE] that's metal as fuck

[URL="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87415/are-there-moments-in-particle-collision-experiments-where-the-particle-beam-is-i/87429#87429"]I've always been puzzled about the details of that experiment, so I asked a question about it on Stack Exchange[/URL]

[QUOTE=Number-41;43858326][URL="http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/87415/are-there-moments-in-particle-collision-experiments-where-the-particle-beam-is-i/87429#87429"]I've always been puzzled about the details of that experiment, so I asked a question about it on Stack Exchange[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm watchin u on SE now

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43854478]A black hole is not necessarily a star, it is any matter and energy compressed into a small enough space that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Kind of. That's an oversimplification but it illustrates the idea well. [/QUOTE] So even at the quantum scale, you can get a gravitational field strong enough to trap other particles? (Does that require the large extra dimensions theory?) Or does a black hole at that scale attract particles through other forces as well?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43858713]I'm watchin u on SE now[/QUOTE] fite me, /u/johnnymo1

[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;43841440]Get it closer to the speed of light, it's a diminishing returns kinda thing (You need more and more energy to accelerate them)[/QUOTE] But the speed doesn't matter, the energy does. This is due to the mass energy equivalence (E=mc^2) and so higher energies means you get more mass to play about with in your collision products, giving us new physics. [editline]10th February 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Zenreon117;43841656]Why don't they connect the two and make a "#8"[/QUOTE] They do, the particles are injected from the old collider into the new bigger one.

I'm starting to suspect the actual benefit of building these things, seeing as the LHC took so many years to build and all they have to show for is some tangled up theory about a single god damned particle. And now they wanna build even bigger one?

[QUOTE=Kljunas;43844797][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator#Linear_particle_accelerators[/url] [editline]9th February 2014[/editline] Basically a linear accelerator has to be insanely long to match the speed of a circular one (because the particles can just keep being accelerated in the circle for as long as you want)[/QUOTE] But you don't get any Synchrotron radiation in a linear collider, so you can more reasonably accelerate electrons to high energies, with electrons we can probe specific energies, so we can determine more properties of the Higgs for example if we had a large linear collider.