Re:More than scientific learning
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
will the doomsayers ever learn for the next time?
Well, they still haven't made the black hole yet. Just wait. When you get sucked in don't come crying to me. I'll be many, many light years away.
A Black hole in normal terms occurs when a Star has no more fuel to burn. By definition of all that "is" from an atomic perspective nothing can have more MASS than it begins with, and nothing can in essence have less than the MASS it starts with, therefore everything must either Expel extra MASS or Retrieve. Star's do this by means of Gravity.
If you specifically freeze a 1 inch cube of water in a larger container and remove that ice to some other place it will still contain the same amount of water that was frozen.
Now, with respect to the container that contained the water in the first place if you compared this to a sun and the ice cube the energy or "stuff" that it has emitted. Let's say that our container which was originally full but now no longer has this 1 inch cube of ice as per our theory must receive the ice back, it would do this with Gravity, but once it get's it back it would not pull any more matter in.
This is exactly how Black holes work, the star will have spent it's hundreds of Billions of years burning away, expelling energy and "Star Stuff" around the known universe. When it has all burnt up it will collapse in itself and form a black hole which will basically try to get everything back.
What people don't realize here is that the Gravitational pull that the Black Hole has is no more than it had when it was a Star. Therefore if a planet orbits a star at a distance far enough not to be consumed when it gets to it's Largest size during it's journey, then when that Star turns into a Black hole it will stay exactly where it is.
What does this mean for the LHC? Let's say each of the protons which are being collided together have a mass of 1 unit, and therefore a Gravitational pull of 1 unit. As these protons exist prior to being fired through the accelerator(s) they are not forming black holes are they? NO. Once they are fired at Next to the Speed of Light, they will collide, and if enough energy is used in this process the Proton's may split, releasing Quarks, the quarks may then bind with other quarks and form heavier particles, but overall you will not have any more mass or therefore gravitational pull in the area of collision than you had before the collision occurred.
Back on the normal Black hole for a sec, What about when the Black hole gets all it's matter back?
Some theorize the black hole would start over again as a star due to extreme density and energy created by the Gravity pulling so much in, others theorize similar to this but with an implosion that simply causes everything to just Expel resulting in a collapse of the gravitational field and thus releasing anything held in that gravitational pull to simply drift off into space - so look out in future for any low-flying planets.
Either way, this is something no-one has seen in our lifetime or at least not properly identified as happening (with respect to black holes at least) and more than likely will never happen. Due to the ferocity with which stars expel their energy and matter and the infinite (and growing) space that space itself is comprised of it will take a Black hole an almost infinite amount of time to retrieve all of it's "stuff" back. There is simply not enough Energy and Matter reaching black holes from other Stars. Oddly enough stars themselves receive more energy and matter from other stars when they are stars than when they become black holes. Which means if you transferred this to our LHC, in theory we should all be fearing them not turning it on, because those protons that are in Oprah Winfrey's Backside have more chance of sucking us all in than the Black holes they may produce as a result of a collision - and that's a Fact!
Re:Will you ever learn?
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
If disaster movies have taught us anything, it is that only when the party is over and everyone is a little tipsy, the problems will arise.
At that point, one lowly scientist (possible of Asian origin) will still be working in his office - despite regular calls of 'Hu! It's all fine, come out here and have some champagne'. He shouts out 'In a minute, I'm just checking something' Then to himself 'This is wrong. This is all wrong. Planck's constant shouldn't be varying like that.'
And then it all goes wrong.
Jeez, were you born yesterday!
Mark my words... come Friday, we'll all be eating black holes for breakfast with lashings of superheated strange milk.
Ahh yes, but have you ever seen a "disaster movie" where they are all celebrating, it's ten minutes in to the movie the geek is checking his figures saying "...It's all wrong, this can't be right..." the eerie music is reaching it's crecendo as we see the party goers going crazy with the doof-doof music...Back to the geek...eerie music as he looks over at the reactor site...then...."..Oh no wait I had the decimal point wrong." the reactor buzzes normally he goes off to the party, credit roll. Movie over. $120 million dollars, Jeff Bridges and 15 minutes at the Box office.
With the way I see so many real theories and facts absolutely Mutilated in movies I would almost pay to see a 10 minute "Near Disaster Movie"
(5 points for anyone who gets my Jeff Bridges reference.)
Re:research to application life cycle
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
When I was an undergraduate studying mathematics one of the most intriguing comments made by a professor was
Cutting edge mathematics takes about 50 years to find its way into physics, from there it takes about 25 years to find its way into engineering.
With the advent of the LHC and other amazing advances, like easy access to substantial computing power, do you think that this still holds true? By this, I mean do you think that life cycle times will shorten, or will they remain the same because even though these advances are being made, they are at higher, or very specific level, and as such, they will not be able to be developed into applications as quickly?
Thoughts?
I think with this particular question it has a close relation to the way our kids are learning these days. I got my first computer (excluding the Atari) when I was about 9 (1984). My Son got his first computer when he was 6 he is now 12, my Daughter - now 6, got her first computer when she was 3.
Not only is there more information available to kids these days but in general they are smarter - that is just evolution (sorry any creationists out there), so there should IMHO be a shortening of the time-frames within the 'development curve.' Although fundamentally it will still maintain it's same almost linear relationship. Don't forget back when the LHC was first conceived 50 years ago a computer with as much power as the laptop I am writing this from would have been almost as big as one of the Collectors constructions in the LHC. Back then it took 10 years to halve the size and get the same processing power. Yet even though my processor is only 3 months old it will have a doubled big brother in just as many months.
So in another 10 years you will see development in such a way that it will take perhaps less than 1 month to double processing power, and as a result the things we scientists can process with respect to Theoretical models will take less and less time. So if someone says "I would like to go to the moon instantaneously" we can feed all possible data into whatever software we have developed to work out how to do it based on all known variants and we could get an answer quite quickly.
Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and the Mathematics therein was first brought to the worlds attention in 1905, but it wasn't until Las Alamos nearly 4 decades later that his equations were put to the test.
Slashdot Mirror
will the doomsayers ever learn for the next time?
Well, they still haven't made the black hole yet. Just wait. When you get sucked in don't come crying to me. I'll be many, many light years away.
A Black hole in normal terms occurs when a Star has no more fuel to burn. By definition of all that "is" from an atomic perspective nothing can have more MASS than it begins with, and nothing can in essence have less than the MASS it starts with, therefore everything must either Expel extra MASS or Retrieve. Star's do this by means of Gravity.
If you specifically freeze a 1 inch cube of water in a larger container and remove that ice to some other place it will still contain the same amount of water that was frozen.
Now, with respect to the container that contained the water in the first place if you compared this to a sun and the ice cube the energy or "stuff" that it has emitted. Let's say that our container which was originally full but now no longer has this 1 inch cube of ice as per our theory must receive the ice back, it would do this with Gravity, but once it get's it back it would not pull any more matter in.
This is exactly how Black holes work, the star will have spent it's hundreds of Billions of years burning away, expelling energy and "Star Stuff" around the known universe. When it has all burnt up it will collapse in itself and form a black hole which will basically try to get everything back.
What people don't realize here is that the Gravitational pull that the Black Hole has is no more than it had when it was a Star. Therefore if a planet orbits a star at a distance far enough not to be consumed when it gets to it's Largest size during it's journey, then when that Star turns into a Black hole it will stay exactly where it is.
What does this mean for the LHC? Let's say each of the protons which are being collided together have a mass of 1 unit, and therefore a Gravitational pull of 1 unit. As these protons exist prior to being fired through the accelerator(s) they are not forming black holes are they? NO. Once they are fired at Next to the Speed of Light, they will collide, and if enough energy is used in this process the Proton's may split, releasing Quarks, the quarks may then bind with other quarks and form heavier particles, but overall you will not have any more mass or therefore gravitational pull in the area of collision than you had before the collision occurred.
Back on the normal Black hole for a sec, What about when the Black hole gets all it's matter back?
Some theorize the black hole would start over again as a star due to extreme density and energy created by the Gravity pulling so much in, others theorize similar to this but with an implosion that simply causes everything to just Expel resulting in a collapse of the gravitational field and thus releasing anything held in that gravitational pull to simply drift off into space - so look out in future for any low-flying planets.
Either way, this is something no-one has seen in our lifetime or at least not properly identified as happening (with respect to black holes at least) and more than likely will never happen. Due to the ferocity with which stars expel their energy and matter and the infinite (and growing) space that space itself is comprised of it will take a Black hole an almost infinite amount of time to retrieve all of it's "stuff" back. There is simply not enough Energy and Matter reaching black holes from other Stars. Oddly enough stars themselves receive more energy and matter from other stars when they are stars than when they become black holes. Which means if you transferred this to our LHC, in theory we should all be fearing them not turning it on, because those protons that are in Oprah Winfrey's Backside have more chance of sucking us all in than the Black holes they may produce as a result of a collision - and that's a Fact!
If disaster movies have taught us anything, it is that only when the party is over and everyone is a little tipsy, the problems will arise.
At that point, one lowly scientist (possible of Asian origin) will still be working in his office - despite regular calls of 'Hu! It's all fine, come out here and have some champagne'. He shouts out 'In a minute, I'm just checking something' Then to himself 'This is wrong. This is all wrong. Planck's constant shouldn't be varying like that.'
And then it all goes wrong.
Jeez, were you born yesterday!
Mark my words... come Friday, we'll all be eating black holes for breakfast with lashings of superheated strange milk.
Ahh yes, but have you ever seen a "disaster movie" where they are all celebrating, it's ten minutes in to the movie the geek is checking his figures saying "...It's all wrong, this can't be right..." the eerie music is reaching it's crecendo as we see the party goers going crazy with the doof-doof music...Back to the geek...eerie music as he looks over at the reactor site...then...."..Oh no wait I had the decimal point wrong." the reactor buzzes normally he goes off to the party, credit roll. Movie over. $120 million dollars, Jeff Bridges and 15 minutes at the Box office. With the way I see so many real theories and facts absolutely Mutilated in movies I would almost pay to see a 10 minute "Near Disaster Movie" (5 points for anyone who gets my Jeff Bridges reference.)
When I was an undergraduate studying mathematics one of the most intriguing comments made by a professor was Cutting edge mathematics takes about 50 years to find its way into physics, from there it takes about 25 years to find its way into engineering. With the advent of the LHC and other amazing advances, like easy access to substantial computing power, do you think that this still holds true? By this, I mean do you think that life cycle times will shorten, or will they remain the same because even though these advances are being made, they are at higher, or very specific level, and as such, they will not be able to be developed into applications as quickly?
Thoughts?
I think with this particular question it has a close relation to the way our kids are learning these days. I got my first computer (excluding the Atari) when I was about 9 (1984). My Son got his first computer when he was 6 he is now 12, my Daughter - now 6, got her first computer when she was 3. Not only is there more information available to kids these days but in general they are smarter - that is just evolution (sorry any creationists out there), so there should IMHO be a shortening of the time-frames within the 'development curve.' Although fundamentally it will still maintain it's same almost linear relationship. Don't forget back when the LHC was first conceived 50 years ago a computer with as much power as the laptop I am writing this from would have been almost as big as one of the Collectors constructions in the LHC. Back then it took 10 years to halve the size and get the same processing power. Yet even though my processor is only 3 months old it will have a doubled big brother in just as many months. So in another 10 years you will see development in such a way that it will take perhaps less than 1 month to double processing power, and as a result the things we scientists can process with respect to Theoretical models will take less and less time. So if someone says "I would like to go to the moon instantaneously" we can feed all possible data into whatever software we have developed to work out how to do it based on all known variants and we could get an answer quite quickly. Einstein's theory of Special Relativity and the Mathematics therein was first brought to the worlds attention in 1905, but it wasn't until Las Alamos nearly 4 decades later that his equations were put to the test.