Forums > Social Discussion > LHC and the god particle
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
organic creation
246 posts
Location: earth, Wales (UK)
Posted:
link to article
link to article
Written by: from the article
The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is a powerful and impossibly complicated machine that will smash particles together at super-fast speeds in a bid to unlock the secrets of the Universe.
Needless to say, new theories are gaining ground and discoveries at the LHC could lead physicists towards a unified theory to explain how the Universe works.
"We are at a stage where the theorists do not know which direction to go in. The results from [our] experiment will determine which direction science takes," says Professor Virdee, who is based at Imperial College London, UK.
"We don't always like theorists to tell us what we should find. Nature is much smarter than us.
Written by: wikipedia
The Higgs boson is a hypothetical massive scalar elementary particle predicted to exist by the Standard Model of particle physics. It is the only Standard Model particle not yet observed, but plays a key role in explaining the origins of the mass of other elementary particles, in particular the difference between the massless photon and the very heavy W and Z bosons. Elementary particle masses, and the differences between electromagnetism (caused by the photon) and the weak force (caused by the W and Z bosons), are critical to many aspects of the structure of microscopic (and hence macroscopic) matter; thus if it exists, the Higgs boson has an enormous effect on the world around us.
As of 2006, no experiment has directly detected the existence of the Higgs boson, but there is some indirect evidence for it. The Higgs boson was first predicted in 1964 by the British physicist Peter Higgs, working from the ideas of Philip Anderson, and independently by others.
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Black Holes.... great... I've always wanted one of those..
Written by:
By recreating the searing-hot conditions fractions of a second after the Big Bang, scientists hope to see new physics, discover the sought-after "God particle", uncover new dimensions and even generate mini-black holes.
Black Holes.... great... I've always wanted one of those..
Love is the law.
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
I read a short science fiction story once about something like this. There was an invisible bicycle, and a singularity.
The guy ends up throwing the bike into the black hole, i think...
I read a short science fiction story once about something like this. There was an invisible bicycle, and a singularity.
The guy ends up throwing the bike into the black hole, i think...
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
SILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Mini black holes eh? If i disappear into a singularity because some scientist stuffed up, i'm gonna be real pissed off.
Mini black holes eh? If i disappear into a singularity because some scientist stuffed up, i'm gonna be real pissed off.
SILVER Member
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Posted:
I listened to an interview with one of the chief scientists/ engineers yesterday on the way to work- it sounds fascinating.
A good quote from that was when he was asked what it would be useful for and he replied that he didn't know, but that the knowledge would almost inevitably lead to some very excting prospects in the course of time; he then recalled what was said when researchers were looking into atomic structure and discovered the electron- they too were asked what the use of such a discovery would be, to which the response was "I don't know, but you'll be taxed for it in 20 years"
I listened to an interview with one of the chief scientists/ engineers yesterday on the way to work- it sounds fascinating.
A good quote from that was when he was asked what it would be useful for and he replied that he didn't know, but that the knowledge would almost inevitably lead to some very excting prospects in the course of time; he then recalled what was said when researchers were looking into atomic structure and discovered the electron- they too were asked what the use of such a discovery would be, to which the response was "I don't know, but you'll be taxed for it in 20 years"
PLATINUM Member
bastard child of satan
1,113 posts
Location: Raanana, Israel
bastard child of satan
1,113 posts
Location: Raanana, Israel
Posted:
mini black holes? doesnt sound too promising. let's hope they test it around some politicians.
mini black holes? doesnt sound too promising. let's hope they test it around some politicians.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Mini-black holes are too small to swallow anything (so we think), so theoretically we're not at risk.
You have to weigh up both sides here. It might be safe, and creating black holes is totally cool.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1157826128)
Mini-black holes are too small to swallow anything (so we think), so theoretically we're not at risk.
You have to weigh up both sides here. It might be safe, and creating black holes is totally cool.
EDITED_BY: jeff(fake) (1157826128)
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Not only are they too small to swallow anything, but due to Hawking radiation, they radiate off their excess mass in a teensy fraction of a second and evaporate.
Yay for quantum mechanics!
Not only are they too small to swallow anything, but due to Hawking radiation, they radiate off their excess mass in a teensy fraction of a second and evaporate.
Yay for quantum mechanics!
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
I still reckon the best way to make a black hole would be to freeze something to absolute zero. With a complete cessation of molecular movement, by removing all heat energy, i reckon the particle would just collaps upon itself into a hyperdense thingy.
But i'm a 'lectrician, not a quantum physicist.
I still reckon the best way to make a black hole would be to freeze something to absolute zero. With a complete cessation of molecular movement, by removing all heat energy, i reckon the particle would just collaps upon itself into a hyperdense thingy.
But i'm a 'lectrician, not a quantum physicist.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Well, problem is that even at absolute zero (which you can't actually reach, so let's just say very close to absolute zero) the electrons still move. Electron motion in the lowest available orbital doesn't depend on temperature. And electron clouds around atoms still repel each-other regardless of temperature, so that wouldn't cause collapse. It would just cause a very cold solid.
Well, problem is that even at absolute zero (which you can't actually reach, so let's just say very close to absolute zero) the electrons still move. Electron motion in the lowest available orbital doesn't depend on temperature. And electron clouds around atoms still repel each-other regardless of temperature, so that wouldn't cause collapse. It would just cause a very cold solid.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Self-Flagellation Expert
3,414 posts
Location: Bogged at CG, Australia
Posted:
i thought that the amount of electron movement was proportional to heat?
That's why cold electrical stuff's better.
i thought that the amount of electron movement was proportional to heat?
That's why cold electrical stuff's better.
"beg beg grovel beg grovel"
"master"
--FSA
"There was an arse there, i couldn't help myself"
--Rougie
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
No, because the uncertainty principle dictates that the position and velocity of a particle cannot be exactly determined. Thus, if an electron were not moving one would know its position and velocity in violation of the uncertainty principle.
For an electron in a 1s orbital around a nucleus, the uncertainty, no matter how low the temperature, is the 90% or 95% probability radius of the orbital. That is if I recall correctly. NYC might be able to explain better.
No, because the uncertainty principle dictates that the position and velocity of a particle cannot be exactly determined. Thus, if an electron were not moving one would know its position and velocity in violation of the uncertainty principle.
For an electron in a 1s orbital around a nucleus, the uncertainty, no matter how low the temperature, is the 90% or 95% probability radius of the orbital. That is if I recall correctly. NYC might be able to explain better.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
SILVER Member
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
addict
449 posts
Location: Australia
Posted:
Doesn't zero kelvin mean NO energy at all, even kinetic energy of an electron?
Even if we could predict that its velocity is zero, how does this violate the uncertainty principle? We still don't know its position, and any measurement to determine its position would introduce energy into the system.
Doesn't zero kelvin mean NO energy at all, even kinetic energy of an electron?
Even if we could predict that its velocity is zero, how does this violate the uncertainty principle? We still don't know its position, and any measurement to determine its position would introduce energy into the system.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
At this point I would defer to someone who has actually studied some physics other than reading books meant for the populace.
At this point I would defer to someone who has actually studied some physics other than reading books meant for the populace.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
well - since no-ones managed to reach absolute zero and it is quite possibly impossible - its all very hypthetical still.
but lightning is correct - as the atom approaches absolute zero, the electrons pack into the lowest possible orbitals of electron probability - described to do with the 'Fermi' state i think (which is quite important to understanding conduction and a whole bunch of other stuff) but just because they are at the lowest possible energy level configuration of the atom, even at absolute zero, doesnt mean the electrons are without motion or entropy.
good grief this is stretching back into my brain back about 4 years.
to Psyrushs comment: to answer that would actually involve me unpacking my uni notes to remember, so ill sit in the same boat as Lightning and wait for someone else.
*jumps in lightnings boat & waits*
EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1157936126)
Written by:
Doesn't zero kelvin mean NO energy at all, even kinetic energy of an electron?
well - since no-ones managed to reach absolute zero and it is quite possibly impossible - its all very hypthetical still.
but lightning is correct - as the atom approaches absolute zero, the electrons pack into the lowest possible orbitals of electron probability - described to do with the 'Fermi' state i think (which is quite important to understanding conduction and a whole bunch of other stuff) but just because they are at the lowest possible energy level configuration of the atom, even at absolute zero, doesnt mean the electrons are without motion or entropy.
good grief this is stretching back into my brain back about 4 years.
to Psyrushs comment: to answer that would actually involve me unpacking my uni notes to remember, so ill sit in the same boat as Lightning and wait for someone else.
*jumps in lightnings boat & waits*
EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1157936126)
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
6,942 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
absolute zero there is no kinetic movement of the atom as a whole - there is still the internal energy inherant to the bonds with in the atom (i do physics me
)
as for mini black holes as Doc says they would radiate their energy off in a fraction of a second
anyway the real fun is with super fluids and the BEC (bose-einstien condensate) yay for atomic 'lasers'
absolute zero there is no kinetic movement of the atom as a whole - there is still the internal energy inherant to the bonds with in the atom (i do physics me
)as for mini black holes as Doc says they would radiate their energy off in a fraction of a second
anyway the real fun is with super fluids and the BEC (bose-einstien condensate) yay for atomic 'lasers'
back
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com