But nothing went actually FTL or even at "c" There was a fault. That fault was realised. And as I said earlier, just not realised earlier enough to stop the sensationalistic journalistic headlines.
Wagner's original distortion was that the OPERA collaboration result was announced by LHC scientists. This is an easily debunked distortion. Bad reporting of others doesn't excuse your continued bad reporting. CERN provided facilities to the OPERA collaboration to talk about what they found, but was not the instigator of the press storm. CERN provided an aimed neutrino beam generated from the SPS and related timing data to the OPERA team but was not responsible for understanding the OPERA detector, detecting the time of arrival or comparing the timing data. The press release is all about OPERA as the doer and CERN was just the location of the OPERA-initiated press storm. The original slides make it clear OPERA is distinct from CERN. http://press.web.cern.ch/press-rele...anomaly-flight-time-neutrinos-cern-gran-sasso https://indico.cern.ch/event/155620/material/slides/0.pdf Contemporary press accounts also identify the OPERA collaboration as the speaker, CERN's main auditorium as the location of the announcement and none make the howler of attributing the experiment to the LHC which at no point was involved. http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/bre...nt-sees-neutrinos-seem-to-beat-speed-of-light http://www.newscientist.com/article...ht-neutrino-claim-bolstered.html#.VSMSAGaVhII http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/22/us-science-light-idUSTRE78L4FH20110922 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15017484 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/science/24speed.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...n-or-mistake/2011/09/23/gIQArpJzqK_story.html Like many crackpots, Wagner doesn't understand human collaboration and organizations. He couldn't even share a podium with Luis Sancho in civilized manner. CERN is not the LHC, the LHC is buildings and equipment owned by CERN. The ATLAS and CMS detectors associated with the LHC have separate teams, because understanding the behavior of one detector is not equivalent to understanding the other. The OPERA detector was over 700 km away, in a country not shared by the LHC, and also had it's own organization of scientists responsible for noticing that the essential timing cable wasn't properly connected. With 700 km of separation and dissimilar staff and organizations, the manner in which OPERA staff and CERN staff collaborated was in an attenuated manner.
As in presenting lawsuits on specious grounds, repeatedly? Take your own medicine and shut up about the taste.
I maybe risking the displeasure of some, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! by including all, but I'm reasonably sure all scientific minded folk are welcoming the restart up of the LHC, and the potential future discoveries.
I knew Wagner would latch on to that comment. LOL. Apparently he didn't learn anything. He's trying to use this thread to spew the same crackpot nonsense. What says it all for him is he didn't file the lawsuit.
The courts probably know him and laugh. Privately, of course. They wouldn't want him to sue them for defamation of something he doesn't possess.
Rpenner, this is just plain silly (which is typical of your ad hominems). You seem to believe I am unaware of the fact that there are various components of the LHC Complex, and various groups working in support of each component. Here is how it is organized: LHC ORGANIZATION The proton source for the LHC complex is a simple bottle of hydrogen gas. An electric field is used to strip hydrogen atoms of their electrons to yield protons. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators Linac 2, the first accelerator in the chain of the LHC complex, accelerates the protons to the energy of 50 MeV. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/linear-accelerator-2 That beam is then injected into the Proton Synchrotron Booster (PSB), which accelerates the protons to 1.4 GeV. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/proton-synchrotron-booster That beam is then injected into the Proton Synchrotron (PS), which pushes the beam to 25 GeV. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/proton-synchrotron (As an aside, for lead ions, the Low Energy Ion Ring (LEIR) receives long pulses of lead ions from Linear accelerator 3 (Linac 3) and transforms them into the short, dense bunches suitable for injection into the LHC proper.) http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/low-energy-ion-ring The protons are then sent to the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) where they are accelerated to 450 GeV. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators/super-proton-synchrotron Those protons are then transferred to two beam pipes of the LHC. The beam in one pipe circulates clockwise while the other beam circulates counter-clockwise. The two beams circulate for many hours inside the LHC beam pipes under normal operating conditions. The two beams can be brought into collision inside four detectors – ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb – where the total energy at the collision point is equal to 13 TeV in Earth’s reference frame, if the LHC beams are accelerated to their maximum energy of 6.5 TeV. RHIC ORGANIZATION This organization is very similar to, for example, the RHIC in Brookhaven, Long Island, New York. There, Gold ions begin their travels in the Electron Beam Ion Source accelerator. The Gold ions then travel to the small, circular Booster where, with each pass, they are accelerated to higher energy. From the Booster, Gold ions travel to the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS) that then injects the beams via a beamline into the two rings of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC). In RHIC, the beams get a final boost in energy. After acceleration to top speed, the ions can circulate inside the rings for hours. RHIC’s 2.4 mile ring has six intersection points where its two rings of accelerating magnets cross, allowing the particle beams to collide. Unlike the LHC, the RHIC has curved sections (semi-circular) and straight sections in the ring. The straight sections are where the collisions take place and where the detectors are located. http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/complex.asp FERMILAB ORGANIZATION Another accelerator complex of similar complexity is the Fermilab Accelerator Complex in Batavia, Illinois. The radio-frequency quadrupole accelerator (RFQ) is the starting point for Fermilab's chain of accelerators. The 11-foot-long accelerator takes a low-energy proton beam from an ion source, accelerates and "bunches" it into separate packets of particles, and injects it into Fermilab's linear accelerator, or Linac, accelerating the beam from 35 keV to 0.75 MeV. The Linac is a roughly 500-foot straight accelerator that brings proton beams up to energies of about 400 MeV. The Linac injects proton beams into the Fermilab Booster, accelerating through its approximately 1,500-foot-circumference ring to an energy of 8 GeV. From there, the proton beam is injected into the Recycler, a staging area for proton beams after they exit the Booster. Once beam enters the Recycler, a 2-mile-circumference ring, it is "slip stacked" – combined into batches of protons to form a more intense beam. Once that is done, the proton beam enters the Main Injector, on top of which the Recycler sits. The Main Injector, situated directly beneath the Recycler in the same tunnel and two miles around, ramps up proton beam from the Recycler from 8 GeV to 120 GeV. http://www.fnal.gov/pub/science/particle-accelerators/accelerator-complex.html How strangelets are created, and what they do after they are created, is not a settled question. http://www.heavyionalert.org/docs/CERNContradictions.pdf A good overview of strangelet properties is detailed here: http://phys.scichina.com:8083/sciGe/fileup/PDF/14yg1304.pdf None of this absolutely excludes an exothermic strangelet reaction with normal matter. As for Dick Penner’s claim that OPERA is not part of CERN/LHC, it uses a component of the LHC Complex (SPS), and was approved by the CERN Council in 1999 for construction in support. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN_Neutrinos_to_Gran_Sasso (waiting for the toadish responses Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! )
Well if it's from "heavyionalert.org" then it must be credible and not scaremongering. I'm sure that's a totally unbiased website with no ulterior motive whatsoever. Just like that other totally trustworthy site, answersingenesis, amirite?
None of these is a description of a human collaboration or human organization. It's important when discussing volitional activities and human collaboration to be able to distinguish people and organizations of people from organizations of buildings and hardware. See http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.hid.78717/gov.uscourts.hid.78717.15.0.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/15801 http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.hid.78717/gov.uscourts.hid.78717.18.0.pdf Indeed, even the question of if the laws of this universe allow metastable stranglets with A < 2 million exist is not settled. But the hadron and nuclear output of RHIC/LHC-style fireballs are consistent with a thermal model that means these are terrible tools for exploring A > 8 nuclei. You lack the background to realize that this is just one hypothetical model of strangelets, far removed from quantum mechanical considerations of decay. To the extent that this is supposedly a good model of strangelets, Figure 6 says under all parametrizations considered and for all A<10000, the strangelet is positively charged. Well, yes, that's exactly what's excluded since said strangelet is electrostatically repelled from normal nuclear matter. CNGS was a project physically housed at CERN and operated by CERN staff. But your tertiary source does not support the idea that the OPERA experiment is run by CERN staff. See http://proj-cngs.web.cern.ch/proj-cngs/Download/CNGSDGVE/cngsdgve.pdf Moreover, a majority of the CNGS construction costs (more than 68%) originated outside the CERN budget, because CERN was paying for LHC and the main beneficiary of CNGS would be the experiments in Grand Sasso, not a part of CERN. Operationally, CNGS is a pitcher and OPERA and the rest of the Grand Sasso apparatus are catchers, separated by 730 km and international borders. Sure the OPERA experiment only works if both sides are, but that's also how TVs work, and the broadcaster is not responsible for the activities of the television viewer. // Edited to remove stray run-on hyperlink
And you know this how? Your 'guess' might be quite incorrect. Low-Z normal nuclei have a fusion potential, often called a "well" potential. A Deuterium nucleus and a Tritium nucleus will spontaneously fuse if their electrons are replaced with muons, as the nuclei draw much closer together, and the spontaneous fusion potential is much greater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion In normal matter, the nuclei are sufficiently far apart that they will not normally spontaneously fuse, except possibly very rarely (<<10^-23/second possibility, as you'd have to wait a considerable amount of time for a liter of water to show a single spontaneous fusion). The fusion potential of strangelets with normal matter is theorized to be much greater; i.e. a deeper well. Exactly how close together they have to be in order to spontaneously fuse is not known. The fusion potential with normal matter might very well be comparable to muon-induced fusion, but at the distances of normal electron 1s orbitals (as for D-T electron covalent bonding) in which therefore the positive coulomb barrier is not a barrier to spontaneous strangelet fusion. If so, this completely erodes your claim of safety. Further, the article shows that while positive strangelets are more likely to be produced, negative stable strangelets are also possible, completely eroding your claim of safety, as they would be attracted to positive normal nuclei. Moreover, this is a novel area of theoretical research, and one might well expect more insight in the future about this.
Since "said stranglet" was the thermodynamic model contained in the paper you supplied, "said stranglet" is going to be positive and any nuclear matter it fuses with will be positive, so there is no risk of a dangerously runaway exothermic strangelet reaction, according to the model you yourself advocated as generally applicable. Since the nature of SQM and strangelets has only tenuous connection with astrophysical and particle physics observations, there are a large number of as-yet untested models of unknown applicability to our universe. But to the extent you which to adopt the cited paper, Figure 6 dooms your cause.
Why would it even matter if the LHC was producing collisions that exist in nature? Black Holes exist naturally in nature, and no one really knows if they all formed from massive stars going supernova or not... There is only indirect evidence of the supper-massive black holes that have been discovered.
I'm sorry, but I am totally confused. I've read somewhere that the apparent hypothetical barrier for a "bag of strangelets" is at 10 TeV, then I read that they are more likely to be produced at lower energy levels, and then I read that Strangelets have already been discovered. This just sounds like crazy amounts of misinformation. Does " https://cerntruth.wordpress.com/ " have any actual substance behind it? It has all these graphs that I am 98% sure were created in MS Paint but why would anyone take the time to create this elaborate of a hoax? From what else I have read, the apparent destruction of the world by mBH is proven impossible, yet strangelet creation and danger is MORE THAN LIKELY not possible and not IMPOSSIBLE.
Stranger than danger. have you not taken on board that we observe particles, or rather the results of these particles colliding with our atmosphere, at energies that must make the LHC somewhat modest in comparison: nature does LHC stuff all the time, and the universe is still here? Do you really understand why the LHC was built, and what the real fuss is all about? Well, do yah?
I concede that, and it is well documented and observed, however self admittedly by CERN there is a possibility of strangelets regardless, is there not? That is what Im asking someone to assess, and by someone I am most certainly not referring to you. Rpenner seems to be the most knowledgeable and Walter Wagner seems to be offering counter points.
A hypothetical Santa Claus is distinct from a hypothetical dangerous Santa Claus which is distinct from a hypothetical Santa Claus that was responsible for US presidential assassinations. Just as "Santa Claus" means different things to people who hold different models of a red suited man with no fixed address so people who write about strangelets in scientific journal differ radically from the fearmonger sites.
Judging from Eric Penrose, Wagner and a few others claim for it to be, it is the possibility that Strangelet could convert regular matter into strange matter. This process would hypothetically continue till all matter is converted. Like I have said numerous times before I am not well versed in this subject matter. It is interesting to have Walter Wagner here with someone as educated as Rpenner debating, but I do see just a lot of personal attacks from some without any actual substance. Albeit the fact that no substance seems to be coming from a lot of doomsayers, the only math that I have seen be offered is from Otto and he seems to be a raving lunatic and I believe some one name UbaVonTuba and Rpenner smashed his math to bits in a previous forum.
So the strangelets mentioned in various scientific articles are not related to the hypothetical dangerous ones? Does the article Walter Wagner and I both actually posted carry any actual weight? Is it an actual scientifically based paper? http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0612253.pdf
