Leaked CERN documents state LHC has 70% chances to produce strangelets on 11/9

reply to post by theAymen


Except we know what the LHC does. It does the same thing as every other particle collider, collide particles. It just does it with more energy. We know what to expect and what not to expect based on the fact that higher energy collisions occur in our atmosphere on a regular basis. The goal of the LHC and other colliders is to replicate these collision, except we know where the collisions happen and when they happen so we can measure them and their products. That's it. They're goal is to allow us to measure an otherwise unmeasurable natural occurrence.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by theAymen

 

I didn't comment on what the LHC can or cannot do. Maybe you didn't notice that because you were so busy coming up with your snappy retort.

snappy retort....cheer up mate.

i look at ur avatar and think...is that u?...

did you here the lhc will nbe turned off in 2012...

Relax everyone, this has happened before-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bebd9c3c4f19.jpg[/atsimg]

Awesome pic by the way. The top part looks good, and as you scan down it literally descends into insanity.

look at this quote i found:

'According to those internal documents CERN has been lying for years to the press and in the suits, since it always affirmed that it won’t produce the ultra-dangerous, ultradense ‘strangelets’, the liquid explosive made of up, down and strange quarks, responsible of the ice-9 reactions that cause supernovas (below’s graph).

In those documents CERN affirms there is a 65-70% of chances of producing negative strangelets, which according to standard science on strangelets today, will provoke the ice-9 reaction (name taken from Cat and Cradle’s book in which a physicist destroys the world throwing a new type of water that freezes the planet, since an ice-9 reaction will condensate the planet in a 15 kilometers ultra-dense strange star).`

ice 9 baby yeaaa

Um

How is it the second page and no one's pointed out the ridiculousness of the claim that supernovas are caused by ice-9 reactions?

Alright, first off: Ice-9 is a wholly fictional variant of the water molecule created by a scientist in the fiction novel Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. It was spawned entirely in Vonnegut's mind. It's more stable than normal water, and when it comes into contact with normal water immediately transforms that water into Ice-9. obviously, this would create a chain reaction which would pretty much freeze the world.

Strangelets are a hypothetical partical which, if they accreted enough, would become stable and might do essentially the same thing, except to all matter rather than just to water.

But the supernova thing is completely out of left field. So far as I understand our understanding of supernovas, this kind of hypothetical/fictional matter has absolutely NOTHING to do with supernovas. Supernovas are created by the collapse of a star to a hyperdense material that cannot collapse any further, so explodes violently. It only could transform other things in the sense that it could vaporize them into energy.

Originally posted by Solasis


But the supernova thing is completely out of left field. So far as I understand our understanding of supernovas, this kind of hypothetical/fictional matter has absolutely NOTHING to do with supernovas. Supernovas are created by the collapse of a star to a hyperdense material that cannot collapse any further, so explodes violently. It only could transform other things in the sense that it could vaporize them into energy.

i did say it was a quote from someone else.

personally i dont get it lol...but smashing particles together..when they connect....isnt that a micro supernova

Originally posted by theAymen
smashing particles together..when they connect....isnt that a micro supernova

No. No it's not. It really, really isn't.

reply to post by booda


Can we get a calendar on ATS to keep track of all the different dates the world is going to end?

And another for all the dates for first contact/full disclosure?

There's been so many in the last couple of weeks I'm totally losing track!

reply to post by KILL_DOGG


best taking everything with a pinch of salt.....we've already died several hundred times.....

Originally posted by Signals
Relax everyone, this has happened before-

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bebd9c3c4f19.jpg[/atsimg]

That's fantastic, thanks for sharing that, very funny, unless..

To be honest, it's got me a little concerned, and my concern involves the scientists fixation regarding entropy and the arrow (or error) of time. In other words, the absolute simplicity, at the end of complexity, where life may be defined in terms of negentropy and a fractal growth process - is death, although I suppose since anything is possible, through death, there can be..resurrection?

But the notion of creating strange or dark matter on earth - isn't that risky? From what I've researched, an up/down and strange quark or what they're calling (in anticipation) a "squark", these particles can EASILY combine to form a stable form of dark matter, which would be more stable than iron, and thus, would immediately fall to the center of the earth, and from there... well it wouldn't be like the Horizon Oil spill that's for sure, a dark matter "spill" cannot be retrieved.

If there is even a very very small likelihood of this kind of reaction happening, then by God, why would they be so reckless..?

It worries me, but I do still have my faith. The spirit tells me this would simply be the final judgement, and the formation, quite literally, of a new heaven and a new earth.

Not much time to prepare by some estimates however..

This may sound a little crazy, at first, but it has occured to me, from a type of allegorical, symbolic, synchronistic interpretation of recent events with respect to the Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf, that one interpretation could be that of a type of warning, to avoid at all cost a Dark Matter "spill" occuring at the event horizon of this experiment, there are similarities, with the exception that any dark matter spill, beyond the event horizon cannot be plugged, or retrieved. I read it as a type of warning, as a meaningful coincidence, at least that's one rather far out way of looking at it, reading between the lines of the signs, so to speak..

just sharing something that popped to mind.. for whatever its worth, call me crazy if you will I don't care.

They will find the existence of the Higg-Boson from this experiment; or strong direction to its discovery?

Fascinating discovery, won't you agree?

Many simultaneous "light-bulbs" will "go-off" in many physicists' heads on this one.

Almost there...

reply to post by trekwebmaster


And if in the process, they create dark matter here on earth, if the simultaneous production of up, down and strange quarks (squarks they're calling them in anticipation of their arrival) forms strangelets, which would become the most stable element on the planet, what then..?

It's a deep horizon that's for sure, but is it worth looking into..?

If there's ANY change of an "accident" I don't think they should go ahead with it.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


A few corrections:

A "squark" is a completely different hypothetical object than both "strange matter" and anything that could be made of normal quarks. A squark is a hypothetical much larger partner to the quark -- it would itself be an elementary particle, and thus made of the same kinds of things as quarks.

Strange matter and Dark matter are two different things. We don't know what Dark Matter is, and we don't know if Strange Matter ever occurs. Perhaps some hold the theory that dark matter is strange matter; it's not an established fact that they are identical by a longshot.

"element" is yet another separate concept from "form of matter." If strange matter took over, "elements" as we know them would become irrelavent to our planet. It would not replace iron and nickel and carbon -- it would replace the protons and neutrons and electrons which make those elements up.

If we never took risks we wouldn't get anywhere.

Oppenheimer sincerely believed that even testing the nuclear bomb would set the earth's atmosphere ablaze, and kill everyone on the planet.. We all know how it ended up, now. Hell, even if something really really bad happened, we'd all have no idea.. "Hey, look at the pretty colo....BAM"

reply to post by Syyth007

No.

Edward Teller had considered the idea that a nuclear chain reaction involving fusion of atmospheric nitrogen could be triggered. Oppenheimer examined the possibility and, with other physicists, found that such a reaction was not possible. They were right.

reply to post by booda


This is just stupid.

Last I checked planet Earth was, well, a planet.

So how exactly is a particle that might be produced in the LHC going to create a super-nova? A super-nova requires a star, doesn't it? It seems physically impossible and downright silly for particles to create a super-nova out of a planet.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


Well, in their defense, I think they really just meant a "super-nova-like reaction" rather than an actual super-nova. Which, apparently, these people think just means a very large explosion. So a little less of their defense...