Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

home.web.cern.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#61

Post by omegaham »

maxerickson wrote: post #33
davesque wrote: post #32

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…

If it doesn't evaporate, it would (slowly at first) absorb the Earth. We might not get pulled in anytime soon, but it would sort of be a bummer for the future if the planet was destroyed in the next few thousand years. (I don't think I have an interesting opinion when it comes to the question of whether such a hole would evaporate or not, but the question of why having a blackhole on the surface of the planet is bad…

Couldn't it be "contained" (it would break out eventually, as it would slowly suck in the container, but it could at least be contained for a period of time) and launched on a solar escape trajectory? Very, very expensive, but better than destroying the Earth in a few thousand years.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#62

Post by iwwr »

krohling wrote: post #25
noobermin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To expand upon what you're saying for the grandparent, what you have is one beam of protons can reach the kinetic energy of 6.5 TeV. They will circulate a second beam at the same energy, and collide them head on. Thus, the "center-of-momentum" energy, that is, the energy involved in a collision of one proton from one beam hitting another from the other beam will be 13 TeV at max. Often times, physicists refer to this…

This is a great explanation. One other bit I'll add is that the particles they're colliding are protons, which are made of other particles, called quarks. While the protons are colliding with a relative energy of 13TeV (or will be) the actual collision energy depends on the collision angle of the quarks inside the proton. If it's a glancing collision, which it almost always is, the actual collision energy is much low…

There's also a free mini-course by David Butler

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpH1IDQEoE8Q8842yVe-V...

It goes into a little more detail than a typical popularizing course, but enough even for laypeople to understand.

David Butler also has a great introduction to astronomy in the same style:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpH1IDQEoE8QWWTnWG5cK...

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#63

Post by raverbashing »

noobermin wrote: post #22
krohling wrote: post #18

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.

To expand upon what you're saying for the grandparent, what you have is one beam of protons can reach the kinetic energy of 6.5 TeV. They will circulate a second beam at the same energy, and collide them head on. Thus, the "center-of-momentum" energy, that is, the energy involved in a collision of one proton from one beam hitting another from the other beam will be 13 TeV at max. Often times, physicists refer to this…

> If a particle has a mass of 938 MeV, say, we will see it in a collision as a product only if s for that interaction is greater than 938 MeV

Just as a comment, we "only" saw the Higgs Boson (around 125GeV) at LHC energy levels, so the Higgs might get produced at small collision energies, but with a much lower probability

(I'm not disagreeing with you btw)

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#64

Post by mrebus »

oneel wrote: post #52
cpg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The recent reviews at the Netflix link are priceless :)

Some highlights: mealy-mouthed malcontents BIG-BANG-BELIEVING-BABBLERS dead darkness drool that drips from the drooping face Every fickle frame is filled with the foul stench of arrogant atheists sad little men sit in the silent abyss of spiritual darkness wearing their dirty diapers of despair dead-dogma doctrines best movie ever, could use moar magnets Though now as I go back through, some of the more ridiculous co…

Is there some meta joke i don't know, with all that alliteration.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#66

Post by spacemanmatt »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #57
ehmmm wrote: post #13

Weren't they aiming for 7 TeV?

It's so easy to be disappointed, isn't it? Fermilab had a .9TeV beam 30 years ago, so that's only ~7x in three decades, basically nothing for people accustomed to Moore's Law.

I will gladly accept mere incremental performance upgrades when my CPU speed crosses the ole terahertz barrier.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#68

Post by maxerickson »

kamaal wrote: post #50
ufmace wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The article addresses that (It states that the growth will be linear until it reaches a certain mass).

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#69

Post by maxerickson »

omegaham wrote: post #61
maxerickson wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it doesn't evaporate, it would (slowly at first) absorb the Earth. We might not get pulled in anytime soon, but it would sort of be a bummer for the future if the planet was destroyed in the next few thousand years. (I don't think I have an interesting opinion when it comes to the question of whether such a hole would evaporate or not, but the question of why having a blackhole on the surface of the planet is bad…

Couldn't it be "contained" (it would break out eventually, as it would slowly suck in the container, but it could at least be contained for a period of time) and launched on a solar escape trajectory? Very, very expensive, but better than destroying the Earth in a few thousand years.

I guess it would pretty much be impossible to detect.

The article ufmace links in a sibling thread addresses the issue more directly, it wouldn't grow fast enough to be something to worry about, thousands of years is the wrong time scale.

Re: First successful beam at record energy of 6.5 TeV

#70

Post by ufmace »

kamaal wrote: post #50
ufmace wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not a physicist or anything, but the idea I'm getting from that is that the event horizon of such a micro-black hole would be much smaller than a subatomic particle. It's too small to actually draw anything into it from a distance, so it would only be able to absorb something by running into it. The rate of consumption can't increase until the mass gets large enough to actually draw matter in from a greater distance than something like the size of an atomic nucleus.

The article author calculated how big that would be, and the black hole would reportedly need to accumulate about a billion tons of mass before it could start to grow exponentially.

Post reply on HN