CERN test magnet reaches 13.5 tesla

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
They aren't going to be satisfied at CERN till they blow something up. Well, that is all right I suppose, they will be the first ones to go...then nobody will get crazy with that technology again...Who am I trying to fool, scientists rarely learn from their mistakes, they just hide the cause..




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

unb3k44n7

Aleister
I have no idea what it means


Thank you for your important, personal contribution on a topic that you know nothing about.


Hey, don't shoot the messenger.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

C1assified
reply to post by boncho
 


Blowing up Universes, Not planets.. Then thinking Every thing is connected.. And I Mean AND I Have Had a few beers,


This is why they don't let the guys at cern have a few beers before operating the lhc.

They think they'll blow up the universe with things that come out of the sun every second.

Oo
edit on 18-11-2013 by winofiend because: god damned autocoerect auto croect au spell checking nerd...



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


The prediction was, if I remember right, that a black hole would have an evaporation period of 10^-22 seconds and the travel period to the outside of the magnetic bubble would be 10^-17 seconds providing in quantum terms, ample time for the black hole to "evaporate."

But here's the problem.... Blacks holes don't evaporate apparently according to Stephen Hawking's retraction/revision of his theory of black hole evaporation through split particle (positron/electron - antimatter/matter) annihilation within the black hole event horizon.

Apparently the original theory went sort of... due to particle acceleration at the event horizon, particles would split into their matter/anti-matter pairs. The anti-matter particle would fall into the black hole and the matter particle would radiate outside the event horizon. The anti-matter particle would annihilate a particle in the black hole, thereby reducing its mass, ergo "evaporation." But, what happens to the energy from the particle annihilation? Considering the tidal forces and unknown physics within a black hole it is very possible that the energy released will recombine into matter, thereby effectively increasing the mass of the black hole.

So... things that make you go hmmm, before someone says oops.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 11/18.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


"would only last for the briefest time",,,ONLY FOR those within, the resonance Field.

it was all about perspective.

edit on 11/18/2013 by BobAthome because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Looks like it just going to be an upgrade for the collider, it will probably just create many more in and out black holes.

I'm guessing one tesla is that much more magnetically stronger.

31.869 µT (3.1 × 10−5 T) – strength of Earth's magnetic field at 0° latitude, 0° longitude
5 mT – the strength of a typical refrigerator magnet
0.3 T – the strength of solar sunspots
1.25 T – magnetic field intensity at the surface of a neodymium magnet
1 T to 2.4 T – coil gap of a typical loudspeaker magnet
1.5 T to 3 T – strength of medical magnetic resonance imaging systems in practice, experimentally up to 17 T[9]
4 T – strength of the superconducting magnet built around the CMS detector at CERN[10]
8 T – the strength of LHC magnets.
13 T – strength of ITER fusion reactor[11]
16 T – magnetic field strength required to levitate a frog,[12] per the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics.[13]
Wikipedia "Tesla(Unit)

Since Im assuming it just more permeable material were it can use up more amperage. Maybe at a 100 Teslas they will have a baby black hole, which will grow very rapidly probably.:



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Aleister
reply to post by boncho
 


How it's worded it says it's a record for CERN, not a world record.


Indeed. My apologies. The article was speaking about worldwide projects, and the OP was specifically about CERN. Seems I got confuzeled.
edit on 19-11-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:50 AM
link   

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by Aleister
 


The prediction was, if I remember right, that a black hole would have an evaporation period of 10^-22 seconds and the travel period to the outside of the magnetic bubble would be 10^-17 seconds providing in quantum terms, ample time for the black hole to "evaporate."

But here's the problem.... Blacks holes don't evaporate apparently according to Stephen Hawking's retraction/revision of his theory of black hole evaporation through split particle (positron/electron - antimatter/matter) annihilation within the black hole event horizon.

Apparently the original theory went sort of... due to particle acceleration at the event horizon, particles would split into their matter/anti-matter pairs. The anti-matter particle would fall into the black hole and the matter particle would radiate outside the event horizon. The anti-matter particle would annihilate a particle in the black hole, thereby reducing its mass, ergo "evaporation." But, what happens to the energy from the particle annihilation? Considering the tidal forces and unknown physics within a black hole it is very possible that the energy released will recombine into matter, thereby effectively increasing the mass of the black hole.

So... things that make you go hmmm, before someone says oops.

Cheers - Dave
edit on 11/18.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)


Or perhaps, alternatively, the energy from the particle annihilation may be ejected as jets.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Lets take a step back shall we...

The black whole production theory was brought to light to the media and general public when a biologist read a string theory paper and the only take home message he could understand was... "High energy collisions can lead to black holes" Now let me get one thing straight here. I am a particle physicist, I don't pretend to understand deep biology frontiers research, and I sure as hell wont pretend to understand a string theory paper either. So exactly how much of this paper he understood was probably at the 0.5% level.

Now there are some obvious things we can do here.

1) String theory is not proven, thus the contents of a theory paper should be understood as highly speculative.
2) Observationally the generation of black holes has not been seen
3) Cosmic ray primaries hit the upper atmosphere at insanely high energies compared to the LHC, the earth is not showered with 511keV gammas nor is it getting destroyed by blackholes at a rate of about 1 per second.

So logically this whole black hole thing should just be put to rest



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

ErosA433
3) Cosmic ray primaries hit the upper atmosphere at insanely high energies compared to the LHC, the earth is not showered with 511keV gammas nor is it getting destroyed by blackholes at a rate of about 1 per second.
True. This video makes a direct comparison of the energy levels of cosmic rays versus the LHC and claims the cosmic ray energy level mystery has been solved, but I'm skeptical and then they even admit at the end it hasn't been completely solved yet:

Cosmic Rays Mystery Solved - Sixty Symbols


Everyone worried about black holes at CERN should watch that video. He says at full bore CERN protons may have 7TeV, but cosmic ray protons may have 300,000,000 TeV. Some difference, eh? CERN can't hold a candle to that.


So logically this whole black hole thing should just be put to rest
True, but then where will we get our doom porn?



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:44 AM
link   
We don't have to worry about CERN's experimenting turning into a black hole...except maybe for money.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Again, money... moot argument.

It was funded by 100 something counties and cost about $20billion over a period of about 15 years to build. That sounds expensive but actually it really is not.

Examples,

If in the US people drank 20% less beer and donated that money to a slush fund, in 1 year they would have enough to build another LHC.
If in the US the tax benefits given to religious organizations was removed. The tax bill for the Catholic church alone would give you enough money in one year to build 3 and a bit LHCs.
If the women in the US didn't buy lipgloss or some other pointless cosmetic items that they 'need' It would take only it stands somewhere close to building 1 and a half LHCs a year.
Even the hollywood film industry brings in (PER YEAR) 5 times as much as what it costs to build the LHC

There are many many more expensive and more pointless things that you can spend your taxpayers money on, Scientists are never the ones driving around in sports cars, wearing flashy clothes and acting like a bunch of celebrity airheads...So try again...



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheLight
 


I suppose anything has a probability ratio until it does not, but any actual ejecta from a black hole would have to exceed the speed of light by a substantial margin, at least from our vantage point within classical (virtual) reality. In that case the amount of mass exiting a black hole would require more energy than is contained in the entire universe (as a finite system). So from a classical reality probabilistic standpoint, not very probable. However in relative terms, if time dilation is occurring across the event horizon, let's use a 90% slowdown, then a black hole might be able to achieve a relational ejecta speed of 900% the speed of light. There are always possibilities and probabilities until they become zero ;-)

Cheers - Dave



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle
I suppose anything has a probability ratio until it does not, but any actual ejecta from a black hole would have to exceed the speed of light by a substantial margin, at least from our vantage point within classical (virtual) reality.
The Hawking Radiation theory does not involve faster than light velocities of anything, not even apparently, because the radiation doesn't come from the black hole itself.

Hawking radiation

This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.

A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
Since the particle that escapes is outside the event horizon, there is no requirement for it to travel faster than light to escape, but what actually ends up escaping are photons with a frequency distribution something like blackbody radiation, and the photons of course travel at the speed of light and have no trouble escaping the black hole's gravity if they are emitted outside the event horizon traveling away from the black hole.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

unb3k44n7

Aleister
I have no idea what it means


Thank you for your important, personal contribution on a topic that you know nothing about.


And yours was better how? Thanks for your unimportant contribution of a useless post on ATS.

Back on topic...I find this very interesting. Been keeping up on all things CERN for a while.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I imagine Tesla must be rolling over in his grave.

First 'they' were afraid of his experiments...

Now they're naming one of the strongest forces known to man after him?

They must be confident with the findings his stolen papers produced?

Sorry if not relevant to discussion.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

bobs_uruncle
I suppose anything has a probability ratio until it does not, but any actual ejecta from a black hole would have to exceed the speed of light by a substantial margin, at least from our vantage point within classical (virtual) reality.
The Hawking Radiation theory does not involve faster than light velocities of anything, not even apparently, because the radiation doesn't come from the black hole itself.

Hawking radiation

This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[11] As the particle-antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles takes away some of the mass of the black hole.


I agree that is the theory, but I have yet to see a model that proves that or any empirical data from a physical experiment. Still "jets" were mentioned, I simply responded in probabilities.



A slightly more precise, but still much simplified, view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle-antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole whilst the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). By this process, the black hole loses mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle.
Since the particle that escapes is outside the event horizon, there is no requirement for it to travel faster than light to escape, but what actually ends up escaping are photons with a frequency distribution something like blackbody radiation, and the photons of course travel at the speed of light and have no trouble escaping the black hole's gravity if they are emitted outside the event horizon traveling away from the black hole.


Yes and due to the black holes' hopefully dynamic magnetic field, the most probable "jet" vector would be the poles. Still, someone has to prove to me that an antiparticle/particle pair created outside the black hole's event horizon somehow takes away the black hole's gravity. Even if the antiparticle "falls into" the black hole and a particle annihilation occurs, the energy remains within the black hole which means no NET change. And if you use the excuse that one annihilates the other so there is a loss of mass but no energy produced, then you had better start reworking years of particle/antiparticle research in the area of the energy produced by opposing particle annihilation. You might want to rewrite a few conservation and mass/energy conversion laws as well, just for starters. Actually, that might be a bit refreshing ;-)

I'll show you my fusion reactor if you'll show me yours LOL

Cheers - Dave
edit on 11/19.2013 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join