LHC Q&A

I just read the "paper" and I think I'm going to be sick. These people are certainly going to destroy the Earth. Hawkins radiation doesn't exists. The quasar effect is more of a possibility than not. I think I'll sign off for awhile.

Revelation 20:11

"Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them."

...and there was no place found for them...

Originally posted by srsen
The tests being carried out by the LHC will prove NOTHING about the origins of our universe.

All it will do is prove one theory on the origins of our universe as possible.

Yes, that's a good way to put it. The frequent use of the Big-Bang analogy is mostly a way to relate to something people have heard before, and to make is sound cool. In reality, any particle physics progress from LHC data will merely tell us if the current standard extensions of the Big Bang theory, like inflation and matter/antimatter imbalance, are valid. If not, new extensions will be formulated.
In the end of the day, the whole concept of "proof" is not something that really has a place in theoretical physics. Unlike mathematicians, we don't start from axioms but from data. The best theory is always the simplest or most elegant model which fits the data. New data can either either support or contradict a theory, but it can never prove it. In the latter case, the theory needs to be modified or abandoned. In cases in which the theory is sufficiently well established, it can also be left as-is, with an added disclaimer that it is only a description that applies under certain conditions. This is for example what happened to Newtonian physics.

Which leads me to ask, why all this money and effort on something that, according to official statements, is made to "see what happens" and move forward in our understanding of matter and partical physics...

Because a sufficient number of people find those questions intriguing enough to convince a sufficient number of bureaucrats to supply the funding. I don't really have a better answer than that, except for the more philosophical angle I posted above.

Originally posted by atzmaz
what I would like to read is something from a legitimate scientist in this field who can comment on what if anything we should fear about the LHC.

There are two things that I can think of. The first is that there will be a major malfunction which seriously damages a lot of the equipment. There are no known scenarios that would lead to this, but it can't be ruled out entirely. Actually, a bad earthquake during a run might be enough, I'm not sure. They'd probably be able to rebuild it quite quickly and for a fraction of the cost, but it would be a serious setback nevertheless.
The second is that the results will lead to an unexpected new kind of WMD. Again, no known scenarios for this, but can't be ruled out. However, as it doesn't seem likely that any countries which don't already have nukes would be able to reproduce this, and as it doesn't really matter if a new weapon would be worse than one that's already sufficient to kill off everybody, this may not be too serious a concern either, in the end.

[edit on 11-9-2008 by TeraBlight]

psychadelic drugs are a very good way to explore reality, and they certainly satisfy that thirst for knowledge. 6 billion.... i feel the universe flow through me and i need no money for that. the world's gone mad.

Originally posted by StargateSG7
In the case of the LHC, we are injecting a hell of a lot of energy into a very small area so the actual energy output is in fact much, much more powerful than our sun over very short periods of time.

You're being just as misleading as you accuse the scientists of being. Protons are not the size of mosquitos, so the actual energy output remains miniscule.

We are playing with the basic binding forces of the Universe! Please note that it is the Stated Goal of the LHC program to REPLICATE the origins of matter

Indeed, that's the purpose of building the experiment. And you're right in saying that the physics are not entirely understood. I can only re-iterate once again: This does happen in nature all the time, so we know that whatever the consequences will be, they will be harmless.

On the positive side, finding mini black holes that dissipate quickly would allow us to possibly use the Hawking Radiation

That would be quite pointless, though. The dissipation energy will be less than the energy needed to power the accelerator, so it's a negative-sum game.

Originally posted by jmilla
Also, I was under the impression that the collider will in fact teach us more about nuclear fusion, which would be an incredible leap in technology.

I haven't heard that, but it may well be the case. Accelerator technology is quite specific, so I'm not sure how much of the technology directly applies to plasma confinement, but there is no doubt that building LHC has pushed the envelope in several fields which are indirectly relevant.

Originally posted by StargateSG7
So my suggestion is to start SLOWLY and increase energy levels at each experiment by a few tens of thousands of electron volts at a time and in two to three years of the slow but steady climb in energy levels, mine the LHC data streams for evidence of preliminary shock waves that indicate we might be nearing the Energy Wall that will blow us apart if we go past it.

While this may sound very sensible to a layperson, it makes no sense to me. None of the predicted runaway effects would be preceded by a warning, they would simply materialize once a barrier is crossed, so ramping up the energy slowly would not help. I'm not familiar with the "shock waves" you mention.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
I also found this cool and also quite educational rap video at YouTube, and thought this was the best place to post it.

The people involved seem to have become minor celebrities at CERN, see e.g. this video.

Originally posted by colz2000
can you please explain to me when in nature on earth have these particles smashed into each other at such high speeds, And if it does happen like you say, then does that mean mini black holes are popping up in front of our eyes all the time, but so fast we dont see them.

Cosmic rays are the main example. I imagine that there are violent processes in the sun that quite easily reach these energy levels as well, but I'm not positive about that, solar physics isn't my forte. And yes, it might indeed mean that black holes are popping up all the time. We have seen no evidence for this in studying cosmic rays, but since we don't exactly know what we're looking for, that may not mean much. Either way, as far as safety is concerned, it matters not. See above.

Also if it is true what you say then what is the force that shoots the particles around us at such high speed without the use of an LHC macine.

Cosmic rays are not particularly well understood yet, the next decade should see significant advances in this field. Currently, it is believed that energies up to 10^15 eV (that's a thousand times LHC energies) are the direct and indirect products of supernovae in our galaxies. Above that, it is speculated that supremely violent phenomena at galactic scales, fuelled by supermassive black holes (such as quasars) may be responsible, but the physics of intergalactic travel at such high energies are not well-understood.

does this mean you know the counterbalance to correct it if anything goes wrong, as nature may do.

Do not forget you have these things sealed, they are not in open air as in nature where a natural element may be to counterbalance any bad effect.

Interesting point. The only reply I have here is that any counterbalancing effect would have to be intrinsic to the atmosphere, which unlike cosmic rays is quite well-understood. Also, none of the predicted problematic products would be contained by the experiment but would quickly end up in the surrounding (natural) rock, so "sealed" is a misleading term here.

reply to post by TeraBlight


Hi TB, After all the reading up on the LHC that's been posted, I'm wondering why the collider is a built as opposing rings rather than opposing spirals

My question is this...at the current LHC project, after the injection of the protons into the main accelerator ring, they are boosted by a constant level of magnetic-flux to propel them to the required speeds for collision...BUT...if the accelerator were shaped as an inward concentric spiral and the same constant of magnetic-field applied, would the energy levels and therefore mass imparted to each proton per reducing circuit increase?

The analogy I'm trying to draw is based on a mechanical principle I recently read on the use of spirals as compressors for water...something like this:



So if you had two opposing spiral-accelerators and a collision-chamber positioned at a point of the where the two 'compressed' outputs meet, would that enable a far greater force to be applied than with the current ring-design??

Originally posted by Fromabove
But where in nature is there seen high energy cosmic rays focused in a tight oscillating super cunducting magnetically bound beam where it is sent smashing in 180% fashion into another beam of equivalent speed and focus. My point is this, Sunlight is harmless unless using a mgnifying glass. Light is harmless unless focused into a lasar beam.

The magnifying-glass analogy is appealing, but it's nevertheless quite inaccurate. Without focussing, the beams would simply pass through each other with no interaction whatsoever. One of the counterintuitive things in relativistic particle dynamics is that the faster a particle moves, the less likely it is to interact with another. The beams will be focussed in such a way that most of the beam crossings will result in either zero or one collisions. In fact, any double-collisions will result in useless physics data, as they cannot properly be analyzed, so all safety concerns aside this is simply a matter of economy. I think I remember that the worst case expected throughout the run of the experiment will involve less than ten simultaneous collisions. To reach ultra-high-energy cosmic ray levels, ten million simultaneous collisions would be required.

Secondly, is there even the slightest possibility of CERN making a black hole, and if so, is there a possibility that it could receive enough mass to grow if that mass is at the event horizon.

Again, yes, there is the possibility that black holes will be created. How slight it is depends on who you ask. And no, there is no way that it would be long-lived, because of the cosmic ray analogy and the simple observation that Earth has survived this long.

Originally posted by fleabit
They were being very cautious in regards to the issues they really feel they could have, but have practiced the shutdowns extensively above-ground, before the bits were even put into the tunnel.

Ah, that's good to hear. I'd be surprised if they were taking any chances with the equipment... still, there really are people at CERN like the Russian guy mentioned in the OP, so one never knows.

Originally posted by Fromabove
I just read the "paper" and I think I'm going to be sick. These people are certainly going to destroy the Earth. Hawkins radiation doesn't exists.

Looks like I failed.
I'd recommend you read a few of the CERN safety papers as well before making up your mind, though. Scientists are very good at making their arguments sound persuasive, no matter how far-fetched.

Originally posted by TeraBlight

What is enormous is not the energy itself but the energy density, since this amount is squeezed into a space many times smaller than a single atom. Yet another example - it's the energy set free when three heavy atoms and three heavy anti-atoms annihilate, but significantly more focussed than that.

Thanks. I realize now why all the fuss about such a minuscule energy.
You wrote on some post that studying LHC results can help to a better understanding of gravity, and this may lead to hyperspace/wormhole/time travel technologies.
From reading you, I get the same feeling as reading other scientists articles about LHC: you don't know what will happen, but you have some ideas on what you would like to happen, not only to its immediate consequences (ruling out or not Higgs particle) but also on a longer time period, as you stated with the sci-fi tech.
So the question is: how is Higgs-gravity-sci fi tech (the ones you mentioned) related, from your perspective? How are these things linked? What would be the "perfect" outcome of this experiment?

Originally posted by citizen smith
My question is this...at the current LHC project, after the injection of the protons into the main accelerator ring, they are boosted by a constant level of magnetic-flux to propel them to the required speeds for collision...BUT...if the accelerator were shaped as an inward concentric spiral and the same constant of magnetic-field applied, would the energy levels and therefore mass imparted to each proton per reducing circuit increase?

Ugh, a real physics question, I was afraid of that.

As a preliminary, there are real spiral accelerators, called cyclotrons. However, they work the other way 'round - the beam starts out in the middle and then spirals outward as it picks up energy.

There are a number of reasons why your idea wouldn't work for a high-energy accelerator.

• Firstly, it would be of no use. It works for water because water has internal pressure. The thermodynamics of protons in a vacuum are very different, and no compression effect would take place. Even if it did, it would merely move the bunches closer together, not accelerate the individual particles. This would serve no purpose.
  
  
• Secondly, ring accelerators need to be large to avoid an effect called synchrotron radiation. Basically, this is a mechanism by which relativistic particles lose energy when being deflected, by emitting high-energy photons. This loss needs to be constantly replaced by the driving field. Now, the larger the deflection, the more energy is radiated off. So, by the time the particles would get to the center of a spiral, they would actually be slowing down because they'd be losing energy faster than it can be replaced.
  
  
• Finally, there is a simple practical reason - you'd need to dig a much longer tunnel. Incidentally, the reason LHC has a circumference of 27 km is simply that there already was a tunnel of that length available. They simply took the previous accelerator (the LEP) out and put the LHC in, in an attempt to limit the cost somewhat.

Oh, and a tiny correction to what you posted - magnetic fields are merely used to deflect and focus the beam, the actual acceleration takes place in a (radio-frequency) electric field, in a region of the ring called the "kicker".

[edit on 11-9-2008 by TeraBlight]

Originally posted by TeraBlight

Originally posted by StargateSG7
In the case of the LHC, we are injecting a hell of a lot of energy into a very small area so the actual energy output is in fact much, much more powerful than our sun over very short periods of time.

You're being just as misleading as you accuse the scientists of being. Protons are not the size of mosquitos, so the actual energy output remains miniscule.

We are playing with the basic binding forces of the Universe! Please note that it is the Stated Goal of the LHC program to REPLICATE the origins of matter

Indeed, that's the purpose of building the experiment. And you're right in saying that the physics are not entirely understood. I can only re-iterate once again: This does happen in nature all the time, so we know that whatever the consequences will be, they will be harmless.

==========
High energy collisions happen ALL THE TIME in our universe
but NOT COMMONLY with the truly heavy elements such as the
Lead (Pb) or Gold (Au) that is contemplated with the LHC.

The cosmic ray collisions are mostly between helium and hydrogen
nuclei at a MUCH LOWER ENERGY DENSITY - i.e. a few collisions
at a time and not via the mechanism as the artificially pulsed beams
used by the LHC. The only natural body I can think of that replicates
what the LHC does is a Quasar (i.e. pulsing, fast spinning Neutron Star)
and I think we know what would happen when astral bodies get
too close to THAT type and level of energy expulsion!
==========

On the positive side, finding mini black holes that dissipate quickly would allow us to possibly use the Hawking Radiation

That would be quite pointless, though. The dissipation energy will be less than the energy needed to power the accelerator, so it's a negative-sum game.

==========
On a long-term basis the net sum game is kept up as you have said,
but Hawkling Radiation is an INTENSE expulsion of CONCENTRATED
energy in a violent manner which would be an IDEAL mechanism
for transformation into useful work SIMPLY BECAUSE of it's short-term
but predictable violence. The accretion of local matter and the initial
input energy required to startup a localized but stable micro-scopic
black hole creation mechanism is very similar to the concept of fusion
where a self-sustaining reaction can use locally introduced stable matter
to sustain further energy production.

The capture and tranformation of Hawking Radiation emissions into
simple heat or via direct conversion to unhindered electron flow
so as to create electricity could be harnessed on a stable and
predictable basis.

Our current problem is that we have no conceivable way to use the
high-energy input such as the 120 gigawatts used by the LHC to
initialize and then stabilize the continuous creation and destruction
of microscopic black holes which could eventually create a
much-greater-than production of the initial energy input
using mechanisms such as the accretion (i.e. feeding)
of stable local matter into the black hole and it's subsequent
transformation to other (Currently Unknown) states and emission
via Hawking Radiation.
==========

Originally posted by jmilla
Also, I was under the impression that the collider will in fact teach us more about nuclear fusion, which would be an incredible leap in technology.

I haven't heard that, but it may well be the case. Accelerator technology is quite specific, so I'm not sure how much of the technology directly applies to plasma confinement, but there is no doubt that building LHC has pushed the envelope in several fields which are indirectly relevant.

Originally posted by StargateSG7
So my suggestion is to start SLOWLY and increase energy levels at each experiment by a few tens of thousands of electron volts at a time and in two to three years of the slow but steady climb in energy levels, mine the LHC data streams for evidence of preliminary shock waves that indicate we might be nearing the Energy Wall that will blow us apart if we go past it.

While this may sound very sensible to a layperson, it makes no sense to me. None of the predicted runaway effects would be preceded by a warning, they would simply materialize once a barrier is crossed, so ramping up the energy slowly would not help. I'm not familiar with the "shock waves" you mention.

==========
I should be much more careful in my terminology as I was trying to use
an analogy from the world of aviation in the realm of high-energy physics
which is an incorrect thing to do without further explanantion
- Mucho Apologies!

As energy levels are increased, there ARE DETECTABLE perturbations
in local "space" and disturbances within the movement of the by-products
of a collision event that COULD be used to determine a
"Pattern of Increasing or Accelerating Change" that could indicate
that a watershed event horizon is being approached...

Just like you never know EXACTLY where the point-of-no-return
is within the localized gravity-well of a black hole is (i.e. it's event
horizon)...THERE IS such a thing as looking out for localized disturbances
in the surroundings than can be used to PREDICT a RANGE of energy
intensities where a watershed collision event could cause "Problems"
for the rest of us.

And to use an Aviation analogy again, I am personally disposed to
the PROBABILITY that we could hit a "Sound Barrier" within a specific
range of LHC collision energies that, while very destructive to the
unprepared, COULD be broken through so that "Supersonic Science"
could be realized...and like modern planes being able to break the
sound barrier for superfast travel, I SUSPECT that there is an
"Island of Stability" at certain LHC collision energy levels
that could be taken advantage of to produce significant
advances in basic science AND to provide shelter against
"Freak Storms" that could erupt when certain ciritical or
negative-to-us energy transformations are produced
within certain ranges of collision energy input/production.
==========

Originally posted by seb2882
From reading you, I get the same feeling as reading other scientists articles about LHC: you don't know what will happen, but you have some ideas on what you would like to happen, not only to its immediate consequences (ruling out or not Higgs particle) but also on a longer time period, as you stated with the sci-fi tech.

Well, I'm actually more of an astro- than a particle physicist, so the areas that interest me most are those that directly relate to cosmology - dark matter, one the one hand, and the more eccentric goals of the experiment, which have to do with symmetry breaking and hopefully will explain a lot about the processes that occurred in the early stages after the Big Bang, such as why there is more matter than antimatter and how the fundamental forces are related.
I guess most particle physicists, whether they admit it or not, are deep down hoping that the results will confirm the theories they themselves are working on. In that way, I'm a lot less invested.

how is Higgs-gravity-sci fi tech (the ones you mentioned) related, from your perspective? How are these things linked?

The link is simply that all of these sci-fi-techs require a deep understanding of gravity. LHC is bound to make contributions here: The Higgs-particle is the source of mass (aka "gravitational charge"), and while the energies won't be high enough to study the mediator particles of gravity (gravtions) directly, a better understanding of the other fundamental forces and, potentially, extra dimensions, would give us a lot of indirect information about this as well.

Originally posted by StargateSG7
High energy collisions happen ALL THE TIME in our universe
but NOT COMMONLY with the truly heavy elements such as the
Lead (Pb) or Gold (Au) that is contemplated with the LHC.

The nature of the colliders is irrelevant as far as particle production is concerned, as far as I know. The only thing that matters is the energy density deposited at the collision point, as you correctly state.
There is an aspect in which it matters, the quark-gluon-plasma stuff that RHIC was all about, but this has nothing to do with black hole production, does it?

The cosmic ray collisions are mostly between helium and hydrogen
nuclei at a MUCH LOWER ENERGY DENSITY - i.e. a few collisions
at a time and not via the mechanism as the artificially pulsed beams
used by the LHC.

The energy density solely depends on the energies of the colliders, which are commonly much higher in cosmic rays. Collision frequency is not relevant, each event is isolated from each other.

The only natural body I can think of that replicates
what the LHC does is a Quasar (i.e. pulsing, fast spinning Neutron Star)

Pulsar.

The accretion of local matter and the initial
input energy required to startup a localized but stable micro-scopic
black hole creation mechanism is very similar to the concept of fusion
where a self-sustaining reaction can use locally introduced stable matter
to sustain further energy production.

Ah, I misunderstood, sorry. Well, I have to say that that is a scenario that does frighten me indeed. Creating and feeding self-sustaining black holes that are gravitationally bound to this planet would be too risky to consider unless we have a mechanism to destroy them as well, if need be.

As energy levels are increased, there ARE DETECTABLE perturbations
in local "space" and disturbances within the movement of the by-products
of a collision event that COULD be used to determine a
"Pattern of Increasing or Accelerating Change" that could indicate
that a watershed event horizon is being approached...

As I said, I'm not familiar with this concept - which isn't surprising, I haven't followed quantum gravity at all recently. Could you point me to some papers that elaborate on this?

[edit on 11-9-2008 by TeraBlight]

Originally posted by TeraBlight

Originally posted by StargateSG7
In the case of the LHC, we are injecting a hell of a lot of energy into a very small area so the actual energy output is in fact much, much more powerful than our sun over very short periods of time.

You're being just as misleading as you accuse the scientists of being. Protons are not the size of mosquitos, so the actual energy output remains miniscule.

=====
You are confusing total energy output with ENERGY DENSITY.

To use an analogy, one gallon of water slowly poured on you using
a simple ice-cream bucket will NOT cause any harm to you!

That same one gallon of water pressured to 65,000 PSI and expelled
out of a small opening will will slice six inch steel in half!!!!!

Ergo...

7 Tera-Electron Volts is the amount of energy consumed/output
by a flying mosquito and can't harm you.

However 7 Tera-Electron Volts input into a stream of a few hundred
Lead nuclei and then collided with another beam of the same energy
produces an energy transformation in a VERY SMALL AREA that is
potentially cataclysmic in nature because you are BREAKING the
binding forces of basic matter such as QUARKS...You are NOT just doing
FISSION of atoms but FISSION of the BUILDING BLOCKS OF PROTONS
AND NEUTRONS which have ENOURMOUS BINDING STRENGTHS and
if you SNAP those bindings you can get some incredibly dangerous
energy transformation/production events that COULD
become runaway or cascading transformations into even
more fundamental (and currently unknown) states of matter.


=====

We are playing with the basic binding forces of the Universe! Please note that it is the Stated Goal of the LHC program to REPLICATE the origins of matter

Indeed, that's the purpose of building the experiment. And you're right in saying that the physics are not entirely understood. I can only re-iterate once again: This does happen in nature all the time, so we know that whatever the consequences will be, they will be harmless.

=======
As I have stated in an Earlier comment, those high-energy collisions
DO HAPPEN all the time in nature BUT using mostly light
Helium and Hydrogen nuclei and NOT pulsed beams of heavy
(and much more potentially energetic) Lead nuclei !!!!!

And those collision will NOT NECESSARILY (as admitted by the
LHC physicists themselves) be benign!

Again, the LHC scientists have stated it is UNLIKELY BUT NOT A ZERO
percent chance of a catastrophic event being initiated
by the LHC collision events.
=======

On the positive side, finding mini black holes that dissipate quickly would allow us to possibly use the Hawking Radiation

That would be quite pointless, though. The dissipation energy will be less than the energy needed to power the accelerator, so it's a negative-sum game.

========

Useful energy production could come from the stabilization
of a continous stream of mini-black hole
Creation/Hawking Emmisions/then Destruction Events
which MIGHT allow us to use STABLE local matter to feed
and use the energy from these constantly "Sparking" black holes
after an initial "Turn the Ignition" input of the 120 gigawatts such
as used by the LHC.

It's ONLY a a negative sum game over a LONG period of time
(i.e. Entropy Effects) since we would use "useless" local
matter to feed the black holes, we could then harness the
Hawking Radiation as useful HEAT ENERGY or even cause
and use a direct electron flow that MIGHT be created/initiated
by the Hawking Radiation emissions.

========

Originally posted by jmilla
Also, I was under the impression that the collider will in fact teach us more about nuclear fusion, which would be an incredible leap in technology.

I haven't heard that, but it may well be the case. Accelerator technology is quite specific, so I'm not sure how much of the technology directly applies to plasma confinement, but there is no doubt that building LHC has pushed the envelope in several fields which are indirectly relevant.

Originally posted by StargateSG7
So my suggestion is to start SLOWLY and increase energy levels at each experiment by a few tens of thousands of electron volts at a time and in two to three years of the slow but steady climb in energy levels, mine the LHC data streams for evidence of preliminary shock waves that indicate we might be nearing the Energy Wall that will blow us apart if we go past it.

While this may sound very sensible to a layperson, it makes no sense to me. None of the predicted runaway effects would be preceded by a warning, they would simply materialize once a barrier is crossed, so ramping up the energy slowly would not help. I'm not familiar with the "shock waves" you mention.

====
See my earlier comments in another post
====

reply to post by TeraBlight


The only natural body I can think of that replicates
what the LHC does is a Quasar (i.e. pulsing, fast spinning Neutron Star)

Pulsar.

SORRY YOU ARE CORRECT - IT IS a pulsar...weird how the eye plays
tricks oneself...I read my paragraph as Pulsar but wrote it as a Quasar
which is in fact a highly radio emissions active galactic core rather than
a spinning neutron star (Pulsar).

reply to post by StargateSG7


thanks.. im enjoying this thread very much.. and im finding the more I read about it.. the more im actually understanding... you explain it very well.. again.. thanks..

reply to post by TeraBlight


ORIGINAL QUOTE:
As energy levels are increased, there ARE DETECTABLE perturbations
in local "space" and disturbances within the movement of the by-products
of a collision event that COULD be used to determine a
"Pattern of Increasing or Accelerating Change" that could indicate
that a watershed event horizon is being approached...

---
As I said, I'm not familiar with this concept - which isn't surprising, I haven't followed quantum gravity at all recently. Could you point me to some papers that elaborate on this?

========

This is the best paper I could find where
I COULD INTERPRET THE DATA WITH SOME
SEMBLANCE OF LUCIDITY which explains
what I think could be used as a "Measuring Device"
to find possible danger points in high-energy collisions.

MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS PAPER
(WHICH MIGHT STILL BE WRONG OR MISUNDERSTOOD):

This paper explores that there could be disturbances created
at specific energies that basically changes the potential
inertia of particles as they travel through "vacuum" on
a non-linear basis - i.e. it's not just the gravity of other
"Objects" or other "Mass" that's changing the "speed" of
a particle or object through space but some other more
fundamental forces that are exerting some "pull" and
it is this disturbance in acceleration that can be measured
as a difference between the predicted rate of acceleration
of particles versus the observed rates of acceleration
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT the known principles/effects
of mass attraction (er...Gravity)
calculated at even Planck-length scales.

POSSIBLE USE AS A FAILURE POINT INDICATOR AT THE LHC:

When energy levels are increased on a linear basis, if the observed
particle/byproduct acceleration changes/distortions/disturbances happen
on a correspondingly NON-LINEAR (i.e. more random) basis, then
the more of a possibility that a fundamental limit or event horizon is
being approached as the by-products of a high-energy collision event
fly through local space/time.

TITLE AND LINK TO PAPER:
A Brief Summary (Ha!) of Electromagnetic Quantum Gravity

arxiv.org...

Originally posted by StargateSG7
A Brief Summary (Ha!) of Electromagnetic Quantum Gravity

I looked at the abstract and it mentions Cellular Automata theory - does the EMQG model rely on that?

I have to say that this is without doubt the best Discussion I have come across on ATS in about 6 months.
I is great to see that there are no hysterics, no were all going to die (Bar one or two) and only one reference to the Bible which has probably been used to back up 50 other Armageddon type scenarios in the past.
both the op and the main counterbalance as it were are educated subject matter experts(even if it may not be their direct field of work). They have put both positive and negative points across clearly, no shouting down of counter arguments, discussion on differences and valid links to valid informative sources of extra information.

Personally I have followed the activities of CERN and the LHC for some time and as a layman with I suppose a solid grounding in this area, I have generally sided on the main stream view that everything will be fine etc... any of the counter arguments I laughed off as daft and backed by some ulterior motive. From this thread I have a better understanding of the "Stop CERN" side (While still believing that we'll be all right).

Why can't more threads go like this instead of disintegrating into a slanging match. Well done lads I'm more determined to stay a part of ATS if discussions of this quality can occur once and a while.

how is this lhc going to help me?
if you say time travel possible in the future because of this well ok.

reply to post by TeraBlight


Please excuse my extreme ignorance. I'm not a physicist/astronomer, cosmologist/astrophysicist/mathematician. All I have to go on is what the 'associated press' tell me it's all about. THEIR interpretation of it all (as far as I can gather) is an attempt to 'mimic/recreate' the conditions prior to the 'Big Bang' in order to understand how 'things/particles/matter' collided and formed and created building blocks and produced (ultimately) all that we now see after millions/billions of years of evolutions/chance/random integration.
I guess what I'm struggling with (IF that is the reason behind the LHC)
Is that they are using apperatus to make these observations, which did not exist at the begining of time/the universe. It is not an accurate!
Regardless of whatever kind of equipment you're using to study, you can't use 'raw materials' to study something that by definition was not quantifiable/had no raw materials to define it to begin with! The goal posts have been moved! Your experiment has neat well defined perimetres, which is the very opposite of the subject! The perametres you are using to define 'said event' did not exist and are arguably invalid as guidelines. 'You can't make something out of nothing'. THAT is the mystery of the BIG BANG. So why are you using carefully constructed man made devices to do this?????