It's algebra, x=yC is the same as y=x/C . However the concept I was trying to show involves the fundamental laws of conservation of mass and energy. The original "god" particle would have had the combined mass of the universe as well as the combined energy of the universe(in the form of potential energy rather than kinetic). The particle they wish to create would have the combined mass of 2 protons and the added potential energy of their previous kinetic energies(velocities). These resultant particles are expected to "instantaneously" decay in the form of high velocity(kinetic energy) subatomic particles that will then be detected by their equipment. Should something unusual happen most notably the expected decay not occur, then the high density particle CERN is actively trying to create, could actually begin capturing other protons striking it due to the difference in masses. In an elastic collision between 2 masses they bouce away. However in a non-elastic collision between 2 objects they merge. Combine the vectors translate the velocity etc.. But if an object of higher mass at "rest" is struck by a smaller mass in motion the resultant velocity of the new mass will be greatly reduced depending on the ratio of the previous ones.
CERN wants to create a particle with a larger mass and density, they want to do this in a non-elastic collision.
Again people I'm just playing devil's advocate, I am not suggesting or infering that this will occur. I'm just trying to discuss the disparity between what CERN is actively trying to do versus what their safety report uses as examples for why it's "harmless".

Yes you can manipulate the equation that way.Which you failed at doing when you claimed the collisions in the LHC are fundamentally different from the ones in the cosmos because of lower energy and higher mass.

Pippin, a clarification on my previous post:
The first sentence was poorly placed. The part about the products of collision moving out of the collision zone was in reference to particle accelerators like the LHC.


No, they aren't. They are trying to verify the existence of the Higgs boson, which is thought to be responsible, roughly speaking, for the phenomenon of mass and much of the structure of matter (hence being termed the "God particle"), but is not itself observable by instruments at low energies. This involves energy densities that existed shortly after the big bang, but which also occur and are exceeded all the time in cosmic ray collisions.


The mass available to black holes produced from these collisions is 14923 proton masses, from two 14 TeV protons colliding. There are also clusters of interacting collisions from lead nuclei massing about a million proton masses in total, or a bit under 5000 lead nuclear masses. Aside from being a bit short of "several billion heavy lead ions", lead nuclei under these conditions are merely loosely bound bunches of 82 protons and 125 neutrons, at a couple TeV each, and spread out too far to collapse into a single black hole. Given the size of the particles vs. the size of the beams and distance between them, this is the only way to get large numbers of interactions in a single collision. There's too much room and the colliding particles are too tiny for things to "pile up".


They are, and it is, because they do. You seem to persistently think of cosmic rays as something different in some way from the protons in these accelerators. The only difference is that proton and ion collisions occur in nature at higher energies than we're likely to ever reach on Earth.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...smic_rays.html

I don't dispute the difference in energy levels, I dispute the difference in mass.

The HEAO Heavy Nuclei Experiment, launched in 1979, collected only about 100 cosmic rays between element 75 and element 87 (the group of elements that includes platinum, mercury, and lead), in almost a year and a half of flight, and it was much bigger than most scientific instruments flown by NASA today.

Thats a far cry from colliding several billion heavy lead ions in a contained area in a matter of seconds. What they will be doing does not "occur in nature all the time".

Didn't you just agree that mass and energy are equivalent as e = mc² says? Now why are you trying to differentiate them once again. You are playing a really bad Devil's Advocate here.Keanu Reeve's job is safe

No Einstein claimed they were proportionally equivalent, I just showed that the algebraic equations e=mC^2 and m=e/C^2 are equivalent.

I'm still trying to demonstrate the difference between the mission statement of CERN and the safety statement of CERN. It's very easy for the people here to rip me, but none of you seem to have looked at both the mission statement and safety statement in relation to each other. I started my posts clearly stating that I am not an expert or even remotely close to one. So those of you with better science backgrounds can easily shred me. Go look at CERN's site, see what they are doing, read their safety statements and compare that to the actual experiments being performed. I am not comparing any alarmists sites to CERN, I am comparing CERN to CERN.

Now your claiming Einstein was wrong? Then why aren't you posting this in ATM?

Lepton, why not take the time to read CERN's information? You've spent plenty of time shredding me. CERN are trying to identify the Higgs Bosun, the particle which assigns mass to all other particles, while comparing their experiments to "2 mosquitos bumping into each other". CERN are attempting to "unravel" real space to discover possible 5th, 6th and 7th dimensions. CERN are hoping to have objects phase out or have new objects phase in. This is all directly from their website and their mission statement, not from any bizarre fantasies I am creating in my head.

The alarmist view is a fantasy created in their own minds and if your playing devil's advocate it has been created in your mind too. That is independent of what CERN said. Fact is CERN made a statement for no other reason than to appease the alarmists that do not understand the science nor ever will unless they stop playing chicken little and read a text about science AND listen to the many real scientists that gave answers about the safety of the LHC. CERN did not and would not issue a statement with the intent on teaching particle physics.

Ok I give up, I'll be in my backyard smashing 2 mosquitos together. According to CERN that should release the same amount of energy so I can study the quarks and gluons produced without all that bother of building a collider.
I just don't understand, I haven't been directing anyone to UFOSareReal.com or ENDoftheWORLD.net, it's just too much for some people to go to www.cern.ch and read what the actual scientists running the actual experiments say they are hoping to accomplish. It's oh so much easier to just giggle and post "you're an idiot".

The resultant velocity will still be enormous. If such a triple collision occurred, two protons producing a black hole that manages to fully absorb a third proton, the result would have the net momentum of the 7 TeV third proton, the opposing momenta of the first two having canceled out.

Some napkin calculations:
Total energy of a relativistic particle:
E = (m*c^2)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Velocity of a relativistic particle of given rest mass and energy:
v = sqrt((1 - (c^2*m/E)^2)*c^2)
Momentum from mass and velocity:
p = m*v/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)
Velocity from momentum and rest mass:
v = sqrt((p/m)^2/(1 + (p/m)^2/c^2))


Velocity of a 7 TeV proton: 299792455 m/s (very, very nearly c)
Momentum of said proton: 3.5e-15 m*kg/s

I'm unsure of exactly how to incorporate relativistic mass, so I'll just assume the resulting black hole has a mass of 21 TeV, all 3 7-TeV protons, which will be a high estimate...it can't be higher than that without violating conservation of mass and energy. I'll round it up to 45000 proton masses. It's ugly, but the Google calculator can handle it, so I won't bother simplifying:
sqrt(((3.5e-15 m*kg/s)/(45000*mass of a proton))^2/(1 + ((3.5e-15 m*kg/s)/(45000*mass of a proton))^2/c^2))

46 million m/s. 15% c, and over 4 thousand times Earth escape velocity.


It's not a confined area, and yes, these collisions, and far more violent ones, do happen all the time in nature.


In spite of being meters across and having imperfect detection, it identified about 100 of them over the course of a year and a half. "Only"? Consider how many collisions that means for all the stellar bodies in the sky, over billions of years.

cjameshuff, thanks for an informed reply. I'm all for that. I am not certain about some of the things I post, so I try to get my information correct. I was shaky on what exactly a cosmic ray is and composed of, so I went to NASA's site. I wasn't that close on what I thought the Higg's Bosun is , so I went back to CERN's site so that I could get that right. When I am wrong I totally appreciate when someone corrects me and provides substantive information to correct me so that I can learn and improve my knowledge. I do not appreciate when someone says "no you're an idiot" without taking the time to find out the answers themselves and then relay them to me. We aren't on an elementary school playground arguing whether Superman could beat Flash in a race. We are discussing the safety of experiments that have never been performed in an attempt to understand the fundamental building blocks and creation of both the known and unknown universe around us.
Cheers and keep bringing it on!

Not with me... Maximilian struck absolute horror into me

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

This part is true. That's the point of the safety studies, and that whatever they do would already be happening in nature anyway.

They eagerly anticipate an event that the LHC was not designed for, and is considered to be extremely unlikely?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

let's hope so

Like create quasistable black holes that are in a dynamic equilibrium where mass inflow is exactly balanced by Hawking radiation and that are converting matter to radiation within white dwarfs at the rate of 60 million teraWatts--hardly enough to be detectable within a white dwarf, but enough to render the Earth uninhabitable (Plaga 2008, 6)???

Read the article--it's quite short. They use phrases like "particularly promising", "a neat and efficient lead", "spectacular consequence", "black hole factory", "very good opportunities", "promising avenues", "the black holes formed may be excellent intermediate states for highlighting new particles", and "It would be quite neat and certainly surprising that a measurement of the cosmological constant in the bulk should come from the LHC!". Not your typically dry science prose. These people want to create black holes. The only other way to describe the tone of the article other than "eager anticipation" would be "totally sarcastic", or "irrationally exuberant", and surely you're not suggesting that--they are CERN, after all!

As for whether the LHC is designed for producing black holes or not, it's not that I was avoiding your question, it's just that I didn't know what you were asking for, or where you were going with it. But now that you've given me a clue, it seems that you think that there could have been more than one design for the LHC: e.g., one designed to produce black holes, and one that was specifically designed to not produce black holes in order to be safe. But I don't think that's the case; that is, they are just trying to put together 14 TeV, and then to let the particles fall where they may. Hence my confusion. If black holes can form at 14 TeV, then the LHC is designed to produce black holes to my way of thinking. That is, I don't think you could change the design of the LHC in order to be more efficient at producing black holes than it already is (or not) without jacking up the energy level--please correct me if I'm wrong!

I guess you could say that what it was "designed" for is relative to the most popular theory is; but then again, if we already know the truth, there wouldn't be much point in building the thing.

I hope that clarifies things, but if not, feel free to let me know!

I find that hard to believe. You made this assertion:

And I previously asked that you provide references to support your statement.

Yes, it makes clear that you can't support your claim. The LHC was not designed to make black holes.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Dude,
What is your point?

That I'm an idiot who need not be taken seriously? Or do you actually have something substantive to say: for example, that the LHC was specifically designed not to produce black holes in order to make it safer, or perhaps that 14 TeV black holes are theoretically impossible to produce within the LHC???

My point was merely that it's designed to produce 14 TeV particles--is it not? You want a link for that? If there are 14 TeV black holes, then to say "The LHC was designed to produce 14 TeV black holes" is pretty much a tautology, isn't it? The fact is that some plausible, consistent, indeed "natural" (CERN's word--as in non ad hoc) theories predict 14 TeV black holes. These theories are considered to be "promising avenues" by at least some CERN scientists. I consider that support for my little off-topic side claim that really has little to do with much of anything--which is I am left wondering why you keep harping on it.

To tell the whole truth, one reason I was reluctant to answer your little question--besides neither understanding what you meant nor understanding it's relevance--was the suspicion that you were leading me by the nose as a lead-in to launch an ad hominem attack against me! If I was wrong about that, I apologize in advance. . . .

Ok deep breath and relax everyone. I will post a set of quotes, all of these are directly taken from CERN's website in relation to blackholes.

Astronomical black holes are much heavier than anything that could be produced at the LHC.
According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects.
Although stable microscopic black holes are not expected in theory, study of the consequences of their production by cosmic rays shows that they would be harmless.
Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth.
The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.

Einstein's theory rules out blackholes, speculative theory suggests the possibility and CERN accepts that assertion. Problem: Last time I checked Einsteins theory was also speculative that's why its called Einstein's "Theory" , not Einstein's "Law".

And OMG I was actually on base with one of my previous posts, should a blackhole be created by CERN it could remain on earth, not go shooting off into space, by their own words. I still think those poo-pooing and yelling Alarmist! haven't taken the time to read Cern's own material. I tried to maintain the context of the above direct quotes however pretty please see them in full context at the link below.
Remember people the topic of this thread is "Large Hadron Colliders a Danger?" not "I like chocolate ice cream so if you don't you're an idiot!" Therefor we should be having an honest discussion concerning the possible dangers involved, not flaming posters and attacking each other.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

Now as to some of their other exciting and oh so safe stuff I had previously posted.

High-energy experiments could prise open the inconspicuous dimensions just enough to allow particles to move between the normal 3D world and other dimensions. This could be manifest in the sudden disappearance of a particle into a hidden dimension, or the unexpected appearance of a particle in an experiment. Who knows where such a discovery could lead!

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/...nsions-en.html

Still not worried? Pretty tame stuff?

Collisions in the LHC will generate temperatures more than 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun. Physicists hope that under these conditions, the protons and neutrons will 'melt', freeing the quarks from their bonds with the gluons. This should create a state of matter called quark-gluon plasma, which probably existed just after the Big Bang when the Universe was still extremely hot.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/ALICE-en.html

That I expect you to support your claims.

Then why didn't you say that instead of claiming it was designed to produce black holes?

It seems unlikely to me that you didn't understand why I asked a rather obvious question about a wild claim. It seems more likely you were trying not to answer because you knew you couldn't support your claim.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

No, and it keeps coming down to the fact that these high energy collisions happen naturally.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Van Rijn,
that's why everything I just posted comes directly from CERN, none of that material is anything I made up. However having fully read the publicly available material on the known LHC experiments, it is my opinion that they are indeed hoping to create a black hole or similar space/time/5th/6th/7th-dimension anomaly.

I am very excited about all this work, but the topic of this thread again is: "is it dangerous?" and I am convinced by CERN's own material, that it is very very dangerous.

"No it won't , no it won't"
For goodness sakes I just took the time to review your posts to this thread, you added absolutely nothing to the discussion. Just repeatedly said no it won't, prove it, I asked you a question, prove it......

Try providing some documentation yourself. How about showing me where on our planet heat sources equal to 100,000x the interior of the sun occur? How about unlocking your secret knowledge of internal CERN documents detailing their decisions to specifically not create a blackhole? It's funny seeing your invisible elf signature but we don't need that to be your only input to a serious discussion.

I do support my claims, Van. E.g., I cited chapter and verse on Praga's claim that stable black holes could exist within white dwarfs without destroying them (here's the link for you again).

If you read the LSAG-Report, you'll see it doesn't mention this possibility at all.

BTW, Praga's Section 5 gives an independent reason to believe that the astrophysical safety guarantee might not be all it's cracked up to be:

Care to comment on those "wild claims"?

seems the Doomsayers are winning.

Indeed, one could say it was designed to probe the 5th and 6th and 7th dimensions, and that the hoped for evidence for such dimensions are the miniblack holes themselves!

I must say the that the safety report comes off as very disingenuous, with all the talk about mosquitos and absolutes, when there are in fact uncertainties in the assumptions they use to prove that there's nothing to worry about. Uncertainty in ==> Uncertainty out. Not to mention that it does not even discuss Plaga's ideas at all.

And one thing that's been utterly lacking in this discussion is an alternatives analysis. That's something you have to do if you want to drain a couple of acres in the US, but apparently in the EU, when the whole world is potentially at risk there's no alternatives analysis. Why build this thing on Earth at all? Why not put it on Pluto? Or at least on Mars! That would be a great impetus for some real manned exploration! Even the Moon would be better than Earth, but I still wouldn't recommend it. Actually there are some NEO asteroids that require less delta-v to get to than the Moon. They would be perfect!

Nobody's explained yet what the big hurry is all about.

Unfortunately. . . .

This has nothing to do with your claim that the LHC was designed to produce black holes. However, here's a response to Praga:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...808.4087v1.pdf

discussing his errors.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser