|
reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 03:28 PM by buddhasystem
|
Originally posted by jimmyx
it's always been strange to me, what underlying "reason" there was to build the LHC. to spend billions of dollars, to employ highly educated
engineers spending tens of thousands of man hours, and the fact that there is already colliders out there providing valuable insight into the makeup
of the quantum world, just to satisfy some physicists curiosity, is not logical or reasonable, without expecting some sort of astounding, and most of
all, profitable benefit. "always follow the money" has been my first line of research into the "WHY" of anything.
As a career engineer who worked on a number of projects, including experiments on LEP and now the LHC, I can assure you that your intuition here is
wrong.
In some select cases fundamental knowledge can be turned into a technology and turn profit. In most cases, it just enriches our understanding of the
Universe which is (as in Mastercard commercial) - priceless. It'll pay off over the period of maybe thousands of years, so it's just not a
"business model" as you describe it.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 19-10-2009 @ 08:32 PM by talon
|
ok this is a bit off the wall here but i have what you could call a loose idea on this.
the collider fires the particals at close to the speed of light, when they collide they are ment to fire of there hix boson so that they can observe
them, this would mean they no longer have mass! if thats the case then they may no longer be restricted by the theory of relativity as mass if kinda
the key component for that. this combined with there collission speed and the energy released from the collission could posably push them past the
zero point and over the speed of light, they have no mass so will they slow down?
The common theory on time travel is that it could be done if you could go faster than light, its already been proven that time slows the faster you go
so could time go backwards if you travel past the speed of light?
If the particals go past the speed of light and traveled back in time then when the collider is switched on in the past (relative to the first
sucsesful collision) then it may result in slowing them down to sub light speed and bringing them back into normal time, this results in the collider
having more particals bouncing around inside it than its ment to and thus results in it braking down.
So its possable any time travel may be by acident, its just a part of nature we are yet to understand, wich is why they built the thing in the first
place..
it also means that in the future there are some scientists wondering where there particals have gone  lol
all ideas are welcome!
I also agree with bud, if you can find it you can observe it, then control it maybe, think of what could be done if you could change the mass of an
object by removing or monipulating its hix particals, could it be developed into a new form of propulsion? faster than light travel? or making a space
craft the size of a cruss ship but as light as a 747. even anti gravaty devices that somehow push against other masses
[edit on 19-10-2009 by talon]
yes i know iv said hix and not higg's but its almost 3am and i cant be botherd to go change it
[edit on 19-10-2009 by talon]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 11:23 AM by jmotley
|
Originally posted by failedsquare
reply to post by jmotley
Perhaps after the point the paradox is formed that reality would be "destroyed" in that it could no longer continue so it would cease.
I have no real basis for this opinion but i believe there is sort of a compartmentalization of realities for just that sort of situation. It is
presumed that for each choice or event there are alternate realities which stem from it for every possible outcome. So the realities which are stopped
simply stop and those which had different outcomes continue.
I can agree to that but, In the ones that continue there would have been no need for this partical to come back and try to stop it's own discovery,
because it would not have been discoved. Like I stated earlier is the grandfather paradox all over. I would sooner believe that some other force is
stopping us from discovering this partical. This is just a theory but it could very well be some ET that does what this partical is capible of and
knows that we as a specias are not ready.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 12:21 PM by Psyzygy
|
What came first, the LHC or the Higgs Boson?
(One day, a bird that wasn't a chicken laid an egg from which a chicken emerged  )
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 21-10-2009 @ 02:51 PM by timetravel_1
|
I've got an interesting question for all of you.
Would removing or altering the mass of a particle nullify it's standard rate of travel through space-time?
Time and gravity is perceived due to the curvature of space-time from either a large mass or a large quantity of energy and in removing the mass
from a particle or creating the higgs boson are we making it relatively improbable to track its course through space-time in comparison to our own?
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 02:01 PM by PYak1234
|
Someone above sort of implied "That its ONLY a very small particle, What harm could it do?"
Check out the chain reaction of a nuclear weapon, then times that by 100 and maybe this is why some other "influence" is trying to "sabotage" the
Hadron Collider.
For all we dumb humans know, creating this, then firing particles at near speed of light in opposite direction sounds disastrous to me and I'm just a
lay man. WHY can't they find something less destructive to play with.
Here's to hoping they get back to things that can't blow all Earthly existence to kingdom come. Oh and things that don't cost Billions of $ to
fail. Bloody Idiots.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 03:49 PM by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
|
reply to post by talon
erm... Sounds good to me. Although, if they have no mass when they 'eventually' travel back then they wont really exist in their original form. And
arnt they ment to be mini black holes? That'll collase in on their selfs? Thus making them sortta like some non-existing, ephemeral particle. Which
is basically the suspected outcome, the particle wont sustain its self for long.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 22-10-2009 @ 10:40 PM by ahnggk
|
Originally posted by PYak1234
For all we dumb humans know, creating this, then firing particles at near speed of light in opposite direction sounds disastrous to me and I'm just a
lay man. WHY can't they find something less destructive to play with.
You'll be surprised that what happens in our upper atmosphere can reach particle energies much much higher than LHC can! I'm talking of this:
en.wikipedia.org...
Well who knows still... Such particle colliding with air molecules may not be as harmful as the same particle colliding with a special concoction of
matter/particles.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 01:35 AM by wmd_2008
|
Lets see its the largest most complex machine man has made and its not working properly the reason given its being tampered with from the
future
I bet half the folk working on it could never program their video to record
only kidding its teething problems it should be expected!
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 02:00 AM by LucidDreamer85
|
Originally posted by kingoftheworld
I don't think thats very likely. I mean we are talking a single particle here not an actual thinking living breathing person. Furthermore i believe
it creates a paradox, because it would prove its own exsistence by letting us know it doesn't want us to discover it.
That depends on how you view size and the significance of size....
Some undetectable to us could be able to destroy us and we wouldn't even know....just because it's small does not make it not powerful.
It is an interesting theory, and I'm glad they are at least putting it out there.
Who are we to judge anything we don't really know about ???
|
copyright & usage
|
|
AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.
|
reply posted on 26-10-2009 @ 04:25 AM by AllSeeingI
|
Ok.... now I have seen the "BACK TO THE FUTURE" and TERMINATOR movies countless times.... so based on this I feel I am an expert on time travel
theory.
My thought is that IF someone was trying to SABOTAGE the project, why not just go BACK IN TIME to the first IDEA of the project... sabotage the bus
carrying the scientists on the way to the first meeting to discuss this project.
Based on this logic I assume the problems are related to the MASSIVE complexity of the project and the 'breaking-new-ground aspect' of the science.
GOING WHERE NO ONE HAS GONE BEFORE... you usually stub your toe in the dark quite a few times along the way.
[edit on (10/26/09) by AllSeeingI]
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 29-10-2009 @ 07:33 AM by SquirrelNutz
|
Just now seeing this on Colbert (Hilarious)
|
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 6-11-2009 @ 02:40 PM by Grimorian
|
Don't know if anyone saw this yet...
Source
The Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator, just cannot catch a break. First, a coolant leak destroyed some of the
magnets that guide the energy beam. Then LHC officials postponed the restart of the machine to add additional safety features. Now, a bird dropping a
piece of bread on a section of the accelerator has, according to the Register, shut down the whole operation.
The bird dropped some bread on a section of outdoor machinery, eventually leading to significant over heating in parts of the accelerator. The LHC was
not operational at the time of the incident, but the spike produced so much heat that had the beam been on, automatic failsafes would have shut down
the machine.
This incident won't delay the reactivation of the facility later this month, but exposes yet another vulnerability of the what might be the most
complex machine ever built. With freak accident after freak accident piling up over at CERN, the idea of time traveling particles returning from the
future to prevent their own discovery is beginning to seem less and less far fetched.
|
copyright & usage
|
 |