In regards to 'false vacuum decay' scenario, one crucial consideration has not previously been brought up. In contrast to the three fundamental forces of QFT, gravity does not have the gauge freedom they do. Meaning that absolute and not just relative energies and potentials count - especially on cosmological scales. The very fact that observed accelerated expansion has the tiny value it does, combined with the QFT requirement any vacuum energy density is matched by an equal but opposite sign pressure, automatically implies our current vacuum energy density must be within ~ 6.91 × 10−27 kg/m^3 of absolutely zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy . I could go on to fit that into the consensus bubble nucleation & growth criteria, but it would be largely wasted on loudmouths, spiteful snipers, and trolls who have no interest in learning or disseminating actual physics but only in derision and bitter criticism of their self-made enemies. Suffice to say when such criteria is combined with the above it leaves no sensible grounds for any fear of 'false vacuum decay' by any conceivable combination of energy density, volume, and duration of such. As for the number 3 fear introduced by hahnaz - strange matter catastrophe, I would rate it as vastly greater than either mBH or vacuum decay scenarios, but still very small: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet
Of course it is problematic to relate non-equilibrium collision energies, of which √s is an important measure, with a well-defined temperature with a distribution of energies, measured in K or eV via Boltzmann's constant. For the record, in which scientific publication, on what page, in what year, did you point this out? That's a false dichotomy in that the adjective "harmless" doesn't have the corresponding antonym on the other side. Instead of reasoned, principled, fact based argument, you feed fear, uncertainty and doubt. Cars are recalled. Published scientific papers are occasionally retracted but more often merely rebutted. The actual history of Wilczek's July 1999 proposed scenario seems to be rebutted by independent papers: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910471 (originally submitted to Nature in August 1999 and published in Phys. Letters B in December 1999; Authors chose to "systematically impose exaggeratedly weak observational constraints, thereby overestimating the danger.") http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9910333 (originally drafted in October 1999 with one paragraph based on the above, which the authors originally described as "a specially constructed and rather unphysical model" aka FUD-magic, but the paper has a whole lot of other strangelet physics and reasons to believe the RHIC is safe that Wagner ignores; later drafts in May and July of 2000 would; also, Wilczek is a co-author ) Your pop-science source does not support your claim. The article and scientific papers backing it are about baryons, not low-Z nuclei. Bad lawyers cite cases when the cases don't say what was needed to make the argument; good lawyers (and judges) actually check claims by reading the reference. RHIC did announce that hypertritons with a lifetime on the order of 200 ps = 0.2 ns were produced. Since Z=1, that is pushing the bounds of low-Z. http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.2030 The article contains as background a collection of known hypernuclei in figure 1, none of which is a "dangerous strangelet." A pop-science press release was also made: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2010/03/04/star-discovers/ A better way to describe this is that QGP fireballs expand at zero pressure until they freeze-out near 160 MeV into hadrons, including baryons, anti-baryons and the rare nucleus. That's where we get the primordial isotopic composition of our universe from. The universe, RHIC and LHC all freeze out the same way and while the fireballs are of different sizes, the probability of producing nuclei is low and flat. Singlely strange nuclei are theoretically and experimentally suppressed by the ratio of hyperon to proton production, which is related to the relative paucity of strange quarks at freeze-out temperatures. Figure 5 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.2995.pdf demonstrates that low-energy fireballs are more efficient at making hypernuclei. You lack the background to be able to parse the reasoning used to develop the complex detector packages at the LHC. Not the LHC. OPERA. Facts matter to the intellectually honest. The neutrino source was not the LHC, but rather the 450 GeV SPS which normally supplies protons to the LHC, but is much older, dating back to 1976. http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897v1 (oops!) http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1276 Strange matter, if possible, is most likely found in the guts of neutron stars where it is certainly benign. Why would you search for evidence of just benign strange matter and ignore dangerous strange matter? That's because dangerous strange matter if it was something that could be made would be super trivial to notice and plenty should have been left over from the Big Bang.
Thanks for the explanation above. As simple as it seems.., now.., I had not thought of the production of QGP in the LHC, in that context. One more piece of a puzzle I had missed, which contributed to my earlier confussion. Thanks again!
"An atom containing, for example, one proton and one neutron (each with a baryon number of 1) has a baryon number of 2." http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/54531/baryon The point being made was that strange matter of Z = 1 has been made (and yes, there is the reference you cited too); and higher Z strange matter might be made if more strange quarks are created by higher energy collisions (a nucleus with at least 2 strange quarks, and 4 or more other quarks). Some theorists have suggested the change from short-lived (highly radioactive) to stable occurs at much lower Z than originally anticipated. There is much theory regarding higher-Z strange matter. e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/0954-3899/36/2/025011/pdf/0954-3899_36_2_025011.pdf What is not known is how it will interact with normal matter. Earlier safety assurances relied on a positive charge. Some theory suggests negative charge strangelets are possible. Further, even positive charge strangelets might overcome the coulomb barrier because of the deeper well potential for fusion.
Yes, I am aware it was the OPERA detector people. They are closely associated with the CERN/LHC people, working in conjunction with them. Sorry if you don't like me lumping them together for brevity's sake. There was a whole thread on that back then, on which I posted extensively, in which that was detailed.
Somewhat true, at times, brucep. Therefore, personally, I would have used the word "sometimes" instead of the word "always". BTW, there are many Posters/Members of/on this site that use a myriad of methods to cover up/hide "... their lack of scholarship on a subject."!!!
You should relax, the LHC is not going to destroy the earth or end the universe, that occurs in the future and is the result of an accident by the Tralfamadorians.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/faster-than-light-neutrinos-conundrum-solved.112585/ 1 post by Wagner http://www.sciforums.com/threads/an-elegant-explanation-of-the-opera-ftl-results.111113/ 1 post by Wagner http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-speed-of-light-may-have-been-broken.110051/ ~28 posts by Wagner, who early on argues via contextomy that John Ellis is calling for an overturning of physics based on an article that says the opposite. When that claim is demolished simply by quoting the source, the claim is abandoned without apology. Later, Wagner's 50%-50% principle is endorsed again by him.
As I recall the team that presented the data on superluminal did not proclaim 'new physics'. They presented the results from the experiment with the explicit intent of asking for further study and insight into this strange result. The team later verified a flaw in their experiment. Your statement that, "Of course, we've seen LHC scientists jump on a bandwagon before, in their quest for 'new physics'", is therefore showing you have comprehension problems or that you are deliberately showing intelectual dishonesty.
They were looking for others to replicate their experiment. "We look forward to independent measurement from other experiments." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15017484 You don't do that if you think you've made a technical error, but just haven't found it. They did the cya thing of saying 'we can't find our mistake' so we think it's new physics. Otherwise, why publish? And, yes, it is CERN scientists, associated with LHC and OPERA, according to the articles. I did not check names to see if any were directly also with the LHC. A few of the OPERA group had sense enough not to put their name on the article. Specifically retracted themselves from associating themselves with the publication. Why was that?
They probably thought that is very unlikely that the nuetrinos were actually superluminal so did not want to be associated with findings that they assumed were flawed. Why do you think it was? You really need to calm down, the sky is not falling .
Yes, they put reason first. But most did not, and published they believed in superluminal neutrinos, while inviting others to find their mistake (which happened).
LOL. Wagner was trying to present himself as having made a stand for all humankind. He has no real scientific argument. Just his crank scientifically illiterate perspective. He tried to scew the OPERA experiment to include the entire CERN experimental team. OPERA used bad judgement in publicly asking. They should have presented results in a paper and that would have triggered further testing by different experiments. In their excitement they used bad judgement. In my opinion. Some folks got fired.
How does any of this bullshit justify the illiterate nonsense you were thinking about filing a lawsuit about? The problem for you is the science is over your head and you proved it publicly.
They published experimental results. Not what they 'believed' in. You're just slinging bullshit Wagner to cover up your mistakes wrt the experiments at the LHC. This is a discussion that is a bit more factual than your version. http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.htm rpenner has all the facts on your case. Let me get this straight. What you're doing in this thread is drumming up hashed over bullshit to support the OP present fears about the experiments at the LHC.
They published that their experimental results showed superluminal neutrinos. They did not; the actual results showed c or slower neutrinos. Rather than recognizing they had an error, they published their calculations that included the error, asserting they believed they had superluminal neutrinos, and to have others look for confirming experiments, with a few wiser souls not including their names on the paper. As a result the top two resigned, and I believe others have left too. Likewise, CERN started backpedaling from its earlier announcement, as per the below: "NEWS: Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos (Probably) Don't Exist CERN had no official comment on the resignations, distancing itself from the OPERA experiment despite its central role in publicizing the original results. Physics World reported that a press officer for the lab — who refused to be identified — emphasized that OPERA was "not a CERN collaboration" since it "only sends (OPERA) a beam of neutrinos." Frankly, it's a rather shocking development, at least to those outside the immediate community. (Perhaps taking a page from the political strategists' playbook, the bombshell was dropped on a Friday afternoon, leaving reporters scrambling to learn more over the weekend.) Faster, Neutrinos, Go, Go! The Einstein-defying neutrinos were observed in an experiment that sent a laser-like beam of neutrinos from CERN (European Centre for Nuclear Research) in Switzerland to the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy. When the initial analysis was completed, the neutrinos were clocked zipping along at 300,006 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second — i.e., slightly faster than the speed of light." http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.htm Hey, I don't make this stuff up, even if you don't like it.
