It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Large Hadron Collider to start again

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by prevenge
 


Found this:

The first beams of particles will be fired around the LHC's 17-mile ring in September and the first collisions will follow about a month later

Source

Also, form LHC site:

Underground, the magnets are being interconnected, and new systems installed to prevent similar incidents happening again. The LHC is scheduled to restart in the autumn, and to run continuously until sufficient data have been accumulated for the LHC experiments to announce their first results.

Source

However, i expect they are making preliminary actions now with super-cooling etc, as they need to boot it up in the summer because of the extortionate electricity costs and France won't be too happy in the Winter


[edit on 6-6-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]

[edit on 6-6-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


Thanks for the explanation, could you also explain your 'stagnation' theory? Also for this theory to be correct one would have to assume that dark matter has been around since the Big Bang, and thus that black holes have been spewing this dark matter since that time, which causes some informational problems unless you are speculating a hyperspatial source of dark matter?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


Thanks for the explanation, could you also explain your 'stagnation' theory? Also for this theory to be correct one would have to assume that dark matter has been around since the Big Bang, and thus that black holes have been spewing this dark matter since that time, which causes some informational problems unless you are speculating a hyperspatial source of dark matter?


I believe there are many dimensions to energy that carry electro-magnetic energy from point A to B. In fact, there may be superluminal waves that permeate free space and it is the interaction between these FTL waves and the microscopic quantum waves (that we perceive as matter) which creates the forces we don't yet understand, hence the LHC to detect the Higgs-Boson.



Astronomers cannot detect dark matter directly because it emits no light or radiation. Its presence, though, can be inferred from the way galaxies rotate: their stars move so fast they would fly apart if they were not being held together by the gravitational attraction of some unseen material. Such observations have established this dark material makes up about 80-85% of the Universe that is matter.

BBC

I suppose you can think of light as having mass and NASA have postulated on things like solar sails for spacecraft as a next generation propulsion. As light exists in one realm of the EM spectrum, then i don't see it's not possible to hypothesise EM energies outside of the spectrum, that as yet we can't measure, because of their infinitesimal frequencies; perhaps this could be a superluminal wave or hyperspatial sources of dark matter.

There's something called the Cherenkov Effect, where light slows down as it passes through dense materials like water and a sonic boom kind of phenomenon is formed, much like the sound barrier. A charged particle then travels FTL and a blue glow appears; this is what they use for neutrino detection.

I've only just started to research this stuff, so forgive the fluffiness. I'm itching to create a thread on why gravity is just an EM pressure wave from space and how UFO's utilise these superluminal waves with EM.

Edit: "explain your 'stagnation' theory". I suppose standing waves form between neutrino waves (gravity) and matter waves; the quantum wavelets that exist in all nature that make up matter.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by PrisonerOfSociety]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I think advanced alien races are watching and sabotaging this experiment for our own good and theirs. If that is the case it will never run.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by contemplator
 


On the contrary, just like in the film 2001:Space Odyssey, when we have the technology to travel to the moon and start to mine it and reveal a black monolith that emits a signal to Jupiter, thus alerting other civilisations to our technological readiness; then i believe the LHC may be an alarm call for disclosure, not from our g'ments, but from the cloaked aliens wondering our skies.

We are ready to evolve to the next step; just as long as we don't blow ourselves up



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
reply to post by contemplator
 


On the contrary, just like in the film 2001:Space Odyssey, when we have the technology to travel to the moon and start to mine it and reveal a black monolith that emits a signal to Jupiter, thus alerting other civilizations to our technological readiness; then i believe the LHC may be an alarm call for disclosure, not from our g'ments, but from the cloaked aliens wondering our skies.

We are ready to evolve to the next step; just as long as we don't blow ourselves up


Would you consider the LHC as being a homing beacon of sorts to signal to extraterrestrial intelligence that we are ready to make contact and join the intergalactic community? I have been thinking about that.

With the discoveries made by this experiment wouldn't it be possible for time travel maybe not today but years down the road. Therefore, as a result, one day we may be able to participate in inter-stellar travel by bending space and time. I know this sounds science fiction but with the discoveries from this project does anyone think of it as probable?

Oh yeah, can someone explain to me this phenomenon called Strangelets, I've heard that these can be created as a result of the experiments at Cern. I'm no physicist but I find it to be interesting. Thanks


[edit on 6-6-2009 by Jakes51]

[edit on 6-6-2009 by Jakes51]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Jakes51
 




Would you consider the LHC as being a homing beacon of sorts to signal to extraterrestrial intelligence that we are ready to make contact and join the intergalactic community?


I'm sure we are not alone and the petri dish we live in, is ready for reassortment, to coin a swine flu analogy


As Agent Smith in the Matrix says, "human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet". Perhaps the LHC will be a vaccination, albeit a needle that's 17 miles long






With the discoveries made by this experiment wouldn't it be possible for time travel maybe not today but years down the road. Therefore, as a result, one day we may be able to participate in inter-stellar travel by bending space and time. I know this sounds science fiction but with the discoveries from this project does anyone think of it as probable?


I think time is just a manifestation of mankind. Perhaps scientists will dream up more imaginary particles such as chronotons or timitons; they do for everything else they don't understand.



Oh yeah, can someone explain to me this phenomenon called Strangelets, I've heard that these can be created as a result of the experiments at Cern.


Here's a video by Dr. Walter L. Wagner, a physicist & botonist, who thinks the LHC should be shut down. He's a doom and gloomer so thought it appropriate for ATS


He speaks of strangelets @3.07secs...




posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Theoretical physicist in Oxford, England are working on a theory of time that states that time is "quantum pixels" and as we progress ahead the pixels form as the information from the 'past' is transmitted. Kinda far out but it is something new. I too think physicist go overboard sometimes trying to come up with a particle for everything, when really they don't know much about the very force they are making a particle for to begin with.


Stranglets


A strangelet is a hypothetical particle consisting of a bound state of roughly equal numbers of up, down, and strange quarks. Its size would be a minimum of a few femtometers across (with the mass of a light nucleus). Once the size becomes macroscopic (on the order of meters across), such an object is usually called a quark star or "strange star" rather than a strangelet. An equivalent description is that a strangelet is a small fragment of strange matter. The term "strangelet" originates with E. Farhi and R. Jaffe.[1] Strangelets have been suggested as a dark matter candidate [2].


en.wikipedia.org...

The six 'flavors' of quarks are up, down, top, bottom, strange(ness), and charm

The three colors are green, blue, and red.

All those relate to is type of quark (charge) and the sub categories(colors) of the 'flavors', both terms are arbitrary. The color system has played a large part in the advancements of QCD (Quantum Chromodynamics), which as managed to unify EM, Strong, and Weak forces.........Gravity still eludes them though. Each color has a 'anti-color', the color is only a sub category of flavors which basically is nothing more than a term used to define spin, charge, and compatebility of interacting quarks. Below is two images showing examples of the color system courtesy of wikipedia.org.



We see here three quarks interacting via the strong force INSIDE of a Hadron , which is a Proton or Nuetron.




Here we see the interactions of color and anti-color charges and the resulting particles.

 


Prisoner of Society:

Interesting theory and thanks for explaining it in more detail for me.


[edit on 6/7/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Everyone, thanks for your answers to my questions, I really appreciate it. You cleared up a lot questions I was having and thanks for presenting the sources.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Why is one up blue and the other red, they should have the exact same color should they not? Is the red up then changed for a red down in a neutron? Something about that whole setup seems off.

[edit on 7-6-2009 by Eitimzevinten]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   
It's going to get worse than that.

Paul Dirac demonstrated that you could "coerce" the local vacuum into containing not only positive energies/positive probabilities, but also negative energies/negative probabilities.

A glimpse of this ability to literally/directly engineer physical reality scared scientists in the 1920's and 1930's to the point they dropped the matter.

They basically and arbitrarily ripped out negative energy in the teachings. Clever. But counterproductive. Guess what?

It's baaaaack.

The Soviets were using elements of this by coercing an "unhappening" of the lattice bonds of titanium enabling "pouring" titanium at room temperature for the hulls of their submarines. Pause for a short period, and the vacuum assumes normalcy as the Dirac sea negative energy holes are filled by random electrons enabling the vacuum to return to normal and the lattice bonds to renew.

Either we have a lot of catching up to do, or the Russians are decades ahead of the rest of the West.

So we're going searching for this particle. And what are we going to do with it when we find it?

E-bay?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Eitimzevinten
 


If you notice the two 'up' quarks and the one 'down' quark (specified by the U and D) you can see that the charge is 1/2 spin. The colors can not all be the same color (as far as I know), the colors have to compliment each other, if you have the same color they will repel each other, similar to a magnet. For example.... If you have a open system where one quark was lost in a interaction from say a blue ,blue, green and you lost the green quark you could take a red and blue quark to equal the charge and spin of the lost green, thus the two combined become the lost green. I can not say any of this with absolute certainty because particle physics is very complex and I have not completed that course yet. Although I am pretty sure I got that right you might want to check.


[edit on 6/8/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


That idea had to be arrived at under a false assumption of some kind. So then there are 18 types of quarks (the original 6 and their "color") and an additional 18 anti-quarks. For some reason, I have a hard time believing they have witnessed any type of measureable difference (spin, charge, etc.) in quarks of different "color".

If they have to "compliment" each other, that means that any hadron's composition is dependent upon the first two quarks. If you have a blue up and a red down, then either a green up or a green down completes your particle. They list it as if there is no preferential attraction to either an up or down (both green) yet the final quark drastically alters the final products charge.That would also mean that any particles charge is a cumulative charge from its three components and that doesn't make sense either. So does that mean which ever one it comes in contact with first determines the final product? You can't possibly make a system of force exchanges to get a remotely accurate guess of how that would happen.

Which brings me to my main problem with quantum physics, its just a bunch of probability and statistics. If you have something down to a probability, then you don't know the whole story. We could predict weather to 100% accuracy if we had several instruments in the atmosphere taking numerous additional measurements. They would cost a lot more and it'd be stupid to invest more money into a process thats as accurate as it needs to be. Gravity isn't a probability, it happens 100% of the time when the conditions that call for it are present. I can't support an idea that projects a probability on how many gravitons are "evaporated" out of different types of matter and into various "other" dimensions so the gravitational pull of object A is greater than the gravitational pull of object B. Denser objects have greater pull. Not because there is a greater curve in "space-time" or because there is some arbitrary particle in different amounts in different objects. It is simply because there is more of a force at work. The emphasis really needs to shift away from particle physics if we are to get anywhere. Hopefully the colliders work for a long enough time so that unquestionable proof of the lack of either a graviton or higgs boson in any physical particle that could ever be conceived is found.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Eitimzevinten]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join