Building it has not been a secret. Its been well covered in the news. Many
mysteries in this universe still undiscovered. But the big and most
serious
question of them all......What Does This Have To Do With Letterman?
"Doomsday Machine?" <seelinks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:zF3Tj.240884$pM4.181124@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole
Generator)
> Unknown Planetary Risk To Create BIG BANG
>
> French Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator)
> Old Dying Physicists want to go out with a BIG BANG
>
> What are we talking about?
>
> Many helpful Links and Video links at end of post.
>
> http://lhcconcerns.com/
>
> In May of 2008 the largest, most expensive scientific experiment, The
> Large
> Hadron Collider will be completed. This mechanical behemoth located
along
> the French and Swiss border with a total estimated cir***ference of 17
> miles
> will be the most powerful particle accelerator in existence. The
principal
> behind a particle accelerator is that by speeding up the smallest
elements
> of matter and then colliding them together that they can be broken down
> further into even smaller fundamental particles, just as Atoms were once
> thought to be the smallest units, so then were Quarks(Up and Down),
> Electrons, and Protons discovered.
>
> The Large Hadron Collide is hoped to discover what is referred to as the
> "Higgs Boson". Although a theoretical scalar particle theorized by Peter
> Higgs in 1974, it is actually a member of the standard model, and it is
> believed that the Higgs Boson is what gives matter "mass". To achieve
the
> observation of the Higgs Boson, the LHC will be sma****ng these Hadrons
> (specifically Protons) together at speeds almost unimaginable to the
> average
> person, at near c( .99999999 % the speed of light).
>
> To quantify the types of collisions, it must be pointed out that two
beams
> will be set to collide with each other, each beam of protons contains
> roughly 2,800 Protons with an energy of 7 TeV (1 Teraelectron Volt =
> 1.60217646 x 10-7 joules) so the combined energies will be 14 TeV.
> Although
> such energies in collisions are certainly occurring every day in space,
> this
> will be the first time that energies such as these will be observed on
> Earth, however what is alarming to us are the myriad of other
> possibilities
> that could arise.
>
> Why haven't I heard about this before?
>
> Honestly, this is a good question, I seem to come accross this response
a
> lot, it seems that in general most people have never heard of the LHC,
or
> even particle acclerators in general, I am aware that there has been a
lot
> more coverage of this in the UK then the America's (probably due to it's
> geographical location), but also I suppose the main reason why it is not
> covered that often in the states is because of a general lack of
interest,
> or the belief that the general public is probably incapable of
> understanding
> something so complex. Still however there are several Do***entaries and
> other programs/magazines that have covered the LHC, so I'm not fully
sure
> why some people have not heard about this as from a financial
perspective
> it's the most expsenive (8.2 Billion Dollars) and most powerful
scientific
> Expirement of al time.
>
> Why We're Concerned
>
> To explain the concern thoroughly and accurately it has to be stated
that
> the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva is not the first particle
accelerator
> in
> history. In 1929 the Cyclotron, invented and developed by Ernest O.
> Lawrence, was the first particle accelerator, and from that initial
> invention over several decades we have come into a new breed of Larger
and
> More Powerful Particle Accelerators. Although we have had particle
> accelerators in the past, The luminosity at which these operate has
> increased dramatically, in fact it is true that prior to the
construction
> of
> the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) such theories as MBH
> Production,
> Strangelets, and several other theories were placed on the table as
> relevant
> possibilities.
>
> So, what's different this time?
>
> This is the point that has to be emphasized, this time things are quite
> different, a study was conducted after initial concerns for the RHIC
were
> explored, and to their conclusion the amount of energy necessary for
these
> scenarios was not sufficient. The Large Hadron Collider operates at a
> total
> combined energy of 14TeV, which is a lot higher than the energies
> generated
> by the RHIC, as such the possibility of Black Hole creation is a
reality,
> in
> fact on CERN's own web site they admit it could create Black Holes, here
> is
> an excerpt from Safety at the LHC
>
> "If the LHC can produce microscopic black holes, cosmic rays of much
> higher energies would already have produced many more. Since the Earth
is
> still here, there is no reason to believe that collisions inside the LHC
> are
> harmful. Black holes lose matter through the emission of energy via a
> process discovered by Stephen Hawking. Any black hole that cannot
attract
> matter, such as those that might be produced at the LHC, will shrink,
> eva****ate and disappear. The smaller the black hole, the faster it
> vanishes.
> If microscopic black holes were to be found at the LHC, they would exist
> only for a fleeting moment. They would be so short-lived that the only
way
> they could be detected would be by detecting the products of their
decay."
> We'll cover the theoretical problem of this statement in the next
section.
>
> So, what's the problem?
>
> In theory (according to Hawking Radiation) any Black Hole created would
> eva****ate in Femtoseconds, not having the chance to accrete any mass,
and
> being essentially harmless, although this is comforting in theory, It
has
> never been proven, and in fact has been questioned before. The problem
is
> that although most people in the physics community believe in Hawkings
> Radiation, it has no basis in observation. In 2003 Adam D. Helfer
> Published
> a paper concerning Hawking's Radiation coming to the conclusion that
> Hawking's Radiation may in fact be incorrect, and that a Black Hole
would
> not lose mass in such a way. (For the full text of this do***ent go here
> Paper By Adam D. Helfer on Hawking Radiation.)
>
> In fact since the LHC has been on the drawing board several studies and
> theories which have gained a lot of sup****t in the scientific community
> such
> as "String Theory" and "Extra-Large Hidden Dimensions" have surfaced,
> which
> do indeed place the threshold for Black Hole Creation much lower than
> previously thought.
>
> The main problem lies in believing in theory as fact, every argument for
> safety made concerning Black Holes and thier creation immediately
> references
> Hawking Radiation, however, if Hawking Radiation turns out to be
incorrect
> then the Black Hole would continue to accrete mass at an exponential
rate.
>
> Now Hold on, No one would willingly create a machine that would create
> Black
> Holes on Purpose?
>
> Of course not, I highly doubt the thousands of scientists involved wish
to
> usher in Oblivion any quicker than politicians, however the danger lies
in
> Theory being accepted as Fact, Adam D. Helfer Published a paper recently
> which outlines a very strong possibility that Hawkings Radiation may in
> fact
> not exist, which would actually fit in better with the Laws of
> Thermodynamics, at which Our current explanation and understanding of
the
> nature of Black Holes has always been somewhat at Odds.
>
> Alright, so if a Black Hole created doesn't eva****ate, what next?
>
> Here is another place that CERN's safety *****sment is incapable of
> addressing, although these extremely high energy collisions each Proton
> beam
> is in fact coming from opposite directions, Over 2 thousand Protons in
> each
> beam will pretty much collide roughly in the middle, although no
collision
> would create a particle exactly dead center, or "still", in a relative
> sense
> any MBH or fundamental particle created in such a manner (even with both
> beams at a speed of .99999999 c) would be in a relative sense, at Rest,
or
> to elaborate the term at rest we mean lower than the necessary escape
> velocity to escape the Earth's own gravitational pull.
>
> At that point two hypothetical scenarios exist. It would either maintain
a
> rather low orbit within our planet itself, slowly accreting mass at an
> exponential rate, or it's possible it may "gravitate" to the direct
center
> of the planet in which case would accrete mass very quickly
>
> Wait a second, I've also heard of other dangers like "Strange Matter",
> "Bubble Nucleation", and "Magnetic Monopoles", why the focus on Black
> Holes?
>
> It is true that these scenarios are also possible, however the problem
> with
> representing them accurately is the true danger can never be quantified
as
> None of these have been observed, however that does not mean the risk is
> zero. The very fact that this experiment is called an experiment is the
> prove a hypothesis, if the results were truly known then this would not
be
> occurring in the first place.
>
> The Large Hadron Collider is going to be forcing Protons together in a
> very
> unnatural way, not only forcing them into groups of roughly 3,000
protons
> for the collisions, but exposing them to temperatures colder than space
as
> well (1.9 K or -271 C). These types of collisions in a sense are
unnatural
> because collisions at those speeds and temperature would never happen,
> meaning at the point of activation, no one will truly know these results
> until they occur, in a matter of Femtoseconds we would be placing the
> entire
> world in potential Danger. I've seen many websites calculate
> possiblity/problem or a percentage of risk, however without many of
these
> theories as proof, there is no accurate way to calcuate them, So
although
> the risk potential is unknown, the risk can never be calculated at zero.
>
> Although the credence given Strange Matter production, and it's
subsequent
> catalytic behavior by the scientific community is not always mutual.
> Certain
> types of Strange Matter could be formed that would catalytically convert
> all
> matter that it touches into strange matter as well, although this is not
> as
> likely as creating a Black Hole, it's worth mentioning because it is a
> possibility.
>
> I want to learn more, where can I go?
>
> The internet is a good place, it brought you here, didn't it? Of course
> you
> could always visit the links on the site, and take part in our
discussion
> on
> the forum, I would recommend familiarizing yourself with all the issues,
> and
> a basic understanding of Black Holes won't hurt either, of course I can
> always recommend reading A Brief History of Time or the Universe in a
> Nutshell there is always Google, for as many people as there are
> concerned,
> there are people who believe the danger is zero, it's im****tant for you,
> to
> properly evaluate the facts and come to your own conclusion, of course
we
> would like your sup****t, however, the goal of this web site is
> information,
> discussion, action, and rationale, we are real people after all, and so
> are
> you.
>
> Thinking outside the box can't hurt either, I encourage you to Talk to a
> Professor at a local college, write a Letter to CERN, do whatever you
need
> to do to inform yourself and make an informed decision, any contribution
> you
> make, even discussing with one other single person in the world, has the
> possibility to make all the difference.
>
> Links..
>
> Large Hadron Collider
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
>
> CERN
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
>
> LHC Concerns
>
> http://lhcconcerns.com/
>
> National Geograhic - The God Particle
>
> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
>
> BBC News - Lab Fireball May Have Been Black Hole
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4357613.stm
>
> An Open Letter To Stephen Hawking
>
> http://lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=72
>
> Black Holes On Demand (George Street Journal)
>
>
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/George_Street_Journal/vol26/26GSJ10a.html
>
> CBC News - LHC
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/science/lhc.html
>
> New York Times - LHC Dangerous?
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/science/15cern.html?ex=1336881600&en=7c25f6782d7029e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
>
> LHC Legal Defense Fund
>
> http://www.lhcdefense.org/
>
> MySpace STOP CERN Website
>
> http://www.myspace.com/stopcern
>
> LHC Risk Evaluation Forum
>
> http://www.risk-evaluation-forum.org/
>
> YouTube music Video Of The Atom Smasher (LHC) Black Hole Generator
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOFSrS03wjE#GU5U2spHI_4
>
> French Build Doomsday Machine
>
> http://www.misunderstooduniverse.com/France_Builds_Doomsday_Machine.htm
>
> U-Tube Videos
>
> Do***entery
>
> Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [1 of 3]
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fJ6PMfnz2E&feature=related
>
> Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [2 of 3]
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNPpeVvZ9w&feature=related
>
> Large Hadron Collider - The Search For The Higgs [3 of 3]
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbKZwXK-3c&feature=related
>
> The Large Hadron Collider: The End Of The Universe?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPxYdObyJ2A&feature=related
>
>
|
