Live data from Hacker News

First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

home.web.cern.ch

41–50 of 71 posts

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#41

Could someone explain the significance of this, for those of us that don't know?

This is going to be a bit abstract, but hopefully it still makes sense.

In particle physics there are a couple important fundamental principles, one of the most basic is the various conservation rules. Energy/mass, charge, lepton number, baryon number, etc, all of these things are conserved. But that leaves open a big window, because it means you can have any sort of particle reaction possible as long as you have enough energy and the various other "quantum numbers" (charge, leptons, whatever) are balanced. So, for example, if you have nothing more than high energy photons (gamma rays) you can create particle/anti-particle pairs easily (such as electrons/positrons) because in those situations everything that should be conserved is exactly balanced (since anti-particles have opposite charge, spin, lepton number, and so on). You can get more complex particle reactions so long as they are still balanced.

Now, let's say you want to study a particular particle. If those particles aren't naturally occurring, like protons or neutrons or electrons, then you'll need to figure out how to create them. And that means creating conditions where there's more energy available than the energy required for reactions that involve those particles. For example, the LHC was operating at 7 TeV total energy for collisions, which enabled them to discover the 125 GeV Higgs boson. Note that there's a significant difference in those energy levels (nearly a factor of 100), and this is because the process is somewhat inefficient and random and also there's some overhead in the reactions. For example, you need twice the energy of an electron particle in order to see electron-positron creation reactions, due to that balancing aspect.

Ultimately what you have is a huge collection of reactions due to particle collisions at a given energy level. And these reactions can be compared against the reactions you'd expect to see. With more energy in the collisions you push out the "search space" into different realms involving different particles and different phenomena. You can then use that data to perform "tests", by comparing what you actually see to what you'd expect to see given certain theories (such as the Higgs-mechanism theory), and in that way verify or falsify a theory. The more energy you have the easier it is to search for higher energy particles and phenomena.

The LHC energy boost will make it possible to explore new realms of physics. To either rule out the existence of potential particles at certain mass levels or to establish their existence, as with the Higgs-boson. It'll make it possible to narrow down some constraints on the Higgs-mechanism theory as well as potentially fill in some details (or rule out some possibilities) with regard to Dark Matter.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#43

Could someone explain the significance of this, for those of us that don't know?

I recommend this infographic from Nature magazine; it explains the upgrades and what they hope to learn in this run (including about supersymmetry, dark matter, the Higgs boson and a B+ meson decay anomaly).

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.17081!/menu/main/topColu...

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LHC just doubled it's power. While only operating at 50% it discovered several new particles including the Higgs Boson. Now that it's nearing 100% they're hoping to discover physics beyond the Standard Model. That could include things like additional spatial dimensions, Dark Matter, microscopic black holes and more. TLDR: Hopefully opening the door for some mind blowing discoveries.

Microscopic black holes scares me. I once heard (entirely anecdotal - I'd love it if someone more knowledgeable on the subject could comment) they had calculated the probability that the LHC would create a black hole that consumed the Earth. The result was more likely than SHA1-hash collision, and was deemed safe enough to try. Somewhere between humorous and scary. edit: did some Googling and found some documentation…

The earth is constantly subjected to interactions at much higher energies than the LHC can produce. The LHC simply lets us concentrate a lot of reasonably energetic interactions in a small space.

Very small black holes are not stable. For all we know, they are being created all the time, but they evaporate almost immediately.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see how this would be a problem even if a black hole was created. A black hole is no different than any other massive object in that it doesn't exert any stronger pull than its mass allows for. In other words, if the Sun suddenly turned into a black hole right now, we would not get "sucked" into it. The Earth would continue orbiting at the same period and distance. Of course, it would suck (no pun intended) n…

To maxerickson: I know what you mean, but I still think you have to look at the numbers. It seems plausible to me that the black hole might be so small that it would take literally millions of years or more to consume enough mass to become a threat. And that might even depend a lot on chance since most particles would just drift by it without passing inside of its event horizon since the force of gravity has very lit…

Right, but if that were possible, it would have already happened. Cosmic rays hitting the Earth's upper atmosphere can already have much, much more energy than the LHC achieves. So the LHC is being ramped up to produce 13 TeV collisions... but we've measured cosmic ray impacts as high as 300,000,000 TeV. That was the so-called "oh my god particle", which had as much kinetic energy as a 60mph baseball, even though it was probably just a single proton. Sure, it's an outlier, but you can look at the overall distribution of cosmic ray flux:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray#/media/File:Cosmic_r...

Let's move beyond "seems plausible" and try to work with "supported by the data".

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LHC just doubled it's power. While only operating at 50% it discovered several new particles including the Higgs Boson. Now that it's nearing 100% they're hoping to discover physics beyond the Standard Model. That could include things like additional spatial dimensions, Dark Matter, microscopic black holes and more. TLDR: Hopefully opening the door for some mind blowing discoveries.

Microscopic black holes scares me. I once heard (entirely anecdotal - I'd love it if someone more knowledgeable on the subject could comment) they had calculated the probability that the LHC would create a black hole that consumed the Earth. The result was more likely than SHA1-hash collision, and was deemed safe enough to try. Somewhere between humorous and scary. edit: did some Googling and found some documentation…

If it makes you feel any better, the Earth is hit by something like 4000 cosmic rays a day with energies that are 760,000 times higher than those being generated at CERN. That is 7 × 10^15 events since the Earth was formed and it's still here. :)

Sources and half-assed math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_cosmic_ray

Lower limit for UHE cosmic ray: 10^19 eV

10^19 eV / 13 TeV = 769 230.769

24 events detected / 3 years in an area of 3,000 sq. km

Surface area of the Earth = 510 million sq. km

(510.1 million / 3000) * (27 / (3 years)) * 24 hours = 4188 events per day, or 7.19241 × 10^15 in 4.7 billion years.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The LHC just doubled it's power. While only operating at 50% it discovered several new particles including the Higgs Boson. Now that it's nearing 100% they're hoping to discover physics beyond the Standard Model. That could include things like additional spatial dimensions, Dark Matter, microscopic black holes and more. TLDR: Hopefully opening the door for some mind blowing discoveries.

Microscopic black holes scares me. I once heard (entirely anecdotal - I'd love it if someone more knowledgeable on the subject could comment) they had calculated the probability that the LHC would create a black hole that consumed the Earth. The result was more likely than SHA1-hash collision, and was deemed safe enough to try. Somewhere between humorous and scary. edit: did some Googling and found some documentation…

Not happening.

Or rather, irrelevant if it does happen. You work out the mass loss via Hawking radiation, it's high enough at those mass levels that they'd just go "poof". The Earth isn't dense enough to sustain such a black hole.

Not to mention that if the LHC produced said micro black holes, they'd be produced by cosmic rays anyways.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#49
post #34

This is awesome! I highly recommend 'Particle Fever', in case you haven't seen it yet. It cover's the LHC before the shutdown and restart, which included the Higgs boson discovery. Just fascinating look into what an international collaboration of human beings can accomplish. IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385956/ Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rikc7foqvRI Netflix: http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70296323…

The recent reviews at the Netflix link are priceless :)

Poe's Law has me at a loss.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#50
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't see how this would be a problem even if a black hole was created. A black hole is no different than any other massive object in that it doesn't exert any stronger pull than its mass allows for. In other words, if the Sun suddenly turned into a black hole right now, we would not get "sucked" into it. The Earth would continue orbiting at the same period and distance. Of course, it would suck (no pun intended) n…

Here's a summary I posted a few days ago of an article I found explaining why it's absolutely impossible, not just unlikely, for the LHC to create a black hole that destroys the earth: https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/could-the-lhc-make-an-... TL:DR: 1.) If these miniature black holes exist, the Earth has been getting hit by them for billions of years, and it’s still here. 2.) If you do create a miniature black…

>>Capturing 66,000 nucleons per second, how long will it take to get the black hole up to even one kilogram? Three trillion years

Thanks for the wonderful article.

A small question. Is this rate of consumption linear? Correct me if I'm wrong, the heavier the black hole gets, more and faster it can absorb matter. Of course given there is matter around it.

Post reply on HN