adobe photoshop 6 book Adobe Creative Suite 5 Web Premium software download adobe photoshop lightroom crack leagal adobe photoshop software for cheap Adobe InCopy CS5 for Mac software download actualizacion adobe illustrator 10 download adobe acrobat tryout crack Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 software download adobe illustrator cs2 12.0.0 crackz serialz adobe acrobat 70 professional free download Adobe Dreamweaver CS5 software download adobe photoshop elements 5.0 scrapbook download adobe acrobat standard Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Premium software download adobe illustrator demos 5.0 acrobat adobe download free reader Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended software download adobe illustrator parallogram total training for adobe photoshop cs Adobe Creative Suite 5 Master Collection software download adobe creative suite academic adobe photoshop cs3 mac keygen Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended software download scrolling in adobe illustrator downloading software acrobat adobe form client Adobe Premiere Pro CS5 software download adobe photoshop cs2 filters serial number adobe acrobat 6.0 Adobe Illustrator CS5 software download adobe photoshop killer tips

Particle Accelerators: Man vs. Space!

November 14, 2008 on 3:22 pm | In Astronomy, Physics, Q & A |

A lot of people are still uncertain about just what the LHC will do once it turns on. But reader baragon-kun asks a really good question, which I paraphrase here:

Why are people saying that cosmic rays can be more powerful than the LHC? The LHC collides two fast moving particles into each other, but cosmic rays collide a fast moving one with one at rest. Aren’t these very different?

They are very different, but not as different as some people think. Let’s take a look at accelerators first.

You accelerate particles as quickly as you can in two opposite directions, either in a straight line or in a giant ring. And then, when they’re moving at their top speed, you tweak a little magnet and make them collide into one another.

Now of course, we can build a giant detector around these collision points and figure out what happened inside. But I’d like to focus on how much energy we can get out of these collisions. Why?

Because that’s how we make brand new particles that we’ve never made or seen before. Get enough energy and you can make anything. This is how we make antimatter, and it’s also how we made and discovered nearly every particle we know about today. Including practically the entire standard model:

You accelerate particles as fast as you can, and they have a certain amount of kinetic energy, which is the energy of their motion. Smack two moving in opposite directions into each other, and all of their kinetic energy has a chance to become mass! At Fermilab, we get particles up to energies of one trillion electron-volts (1012 eV), and we give that a name: 1 TeV. (Hence the name — TeVatron.) So smack two into each other, and your maximum energy for making stuff is 2 TeV.

At the LHC, the magnets are more powerful and the accelerator is larger in circumference, so they can get kinetic energies up to 7 TeV, for a maximum energy for making stuff of 14 TeV. This “new energy range” is why people are optimistic about finding new things — like the Higgs, Supersymmetry, and Extra-Dimensions — more energy means more opportunity for discovery.

But some people are worried that we’re going to destroy the Earth. Still. And we know we won’t, because cosmic rays have been striking Earth with not only more energy for eons, but they even have more energy for making stuff. First off, how much energy do they have?

Well, the magnetic fields are thousands-to-millions of times stronger for collapsed stars than they are for the most powerful magnets on Earth, and they can accelerate them in larger rings, too. So when we try to detect them, what do we find? How energetic are these particles? Let’s show you the hardcore data:

Over 1020 eV, or more than 10,000,000 times more energetic than the LHC will be able to reach. But not all of that can be used to make new particles. Why? Because we aren’t running it into an equal energy particle moving in the opposite direction; we’re running it into a stationary proton. Therefore, a lot of it has to stay in the form of kinetic energy in order to conserve momentum. Still, I can derive a pretty simple formula for how much energy in a collision like this goes into making particles. All you need is the energy of the super-energetic particle (E, or about 1020 eV) and the mass of the proton (m, or about 938,000,000 eV). What’s the formula?

That wasn’t so bad. But if I put my numbers in, I get that the energy is 433 TeV, or about 30 times as powerful as the LHC’s upper limit. So even if you take the greatest thing we’ve ever built, it’s still a factor of 30 weaker than the stuff we get from space all the time.

So there you go. More evidence that nothing that the LHC makes is going to destroy us. Why? Because over billions of years, we’ve already made everything that the LHC is going to be able to make, and we’re still here. Now go out and have a good weekend!


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI


    Comment by baragon-kun — November 14, 2008 #

  2. so, this explains that this LHC collisions will not make micro black holes, if the cosmic rays do them, or it is possible that collider collisions can make them even if cosmic rays dint?

    Comment by Denji — November 14, 2008 #

  3. It means that if the LHC is going to make a micro black hole, cosmic rays have already made them, and many of them, over the span of billions of years, have already shot through the Earth.

    And we’re still here.

    Comment by ethan — November 14, 2008 #

  4. yeah, but, since 2 protons colliding at equal energy in opposite direction can make an implosion for a MBH, the cosmic ray collision can do it to?

    i mean, it can make an implosion with 1 super energetic particle agaisnt a static particle with low energy?

    and why?

    Comment by smish24 — November 15, 2008 #

  5. I don’t believe the LHC will destroy the world and I’m a big supporter of ambitious science. However, just to play devil’s advocate, let me put on my crackpot hat for a moment.

    Don’t collision and event rates factor into this explanation just as strongly as energy? You write that the LHC is “a factor of 30 weaker than the stuff we get from space all the time” (my emphasis). But what does “all the time” really mean?

    Say the universe can manufacture Earth-dooming events at energies below 14 TeV, but they are simply very uncommon. What if such events are so infrequent that only a few planets in our galaxy wink out of existence naturally every year, something we simply haven’t observed yet.

    The LHC site says “the LHC will generate about 800 million collisions per second.” Isn’t it possible that this rate of “low-energy” LHC collisions is so much higher than naturally occurring (> 14 TeV) cosmic ray collisions that it will speed up the clock on some incredibly unlikely but devastating event that we haven’t anticipated?

    Every square km of Earth is hit by a 433 TeV monster cosmic ray about once per year — isn’t is possible there is some risk associated with even meager 14 TeV collisions happening 800 million times per second?

    (Personally I don’t think so, but what does science say?)

    Comment by Derek — November 15, 2008 #

  6. Well, you’re right, Derek. We need to look at how likely “all the time” is.

    For the most powerful cosmic rays (over 1019 eV, let’s say), the rate is 1 per square kilometer per year. Since the Earth occupies a volume of 127 million square kilometer, it means that over the last 65 million years (since the extinction of the dinosaurs), we have had as many collisions at super-high energies (more than 100 TeV for particle creation) as we will if we run the LHC for 317 years continuously, although we’ll only get 14 TeV collisions at the LHC.

    That’s what the science says.

    Comment by ethan — November 15, 2008 #

  7. Well thank god that clear all the ¨fear¨about how the million collisions per second, but how about this

    my original question

    yeah, but, since 2 protons colliding at equal energy in opposite direction can make an implosion for a MBH, the cosmic ray collision can do it to?

    i mean, it can make an implosion with 1 super energetic particle agaisnt a static particle with low energy?

    and why?

    Comment by smish24 — November 15, 2008 #

  8. but wait, i find a mistake in your calculation of cosmic rays, you say that 1 per square kilometer for 10-19 eV per year, and the earth is like 217 million square KM, it give 127000000 of this cosmic rays per year, and multipliying for 65 000 000 years it give us 8,255,000,000,000,000 of this type of TeV Rays since the dinasour extinction….

    but, 600 000 000 collisions per second at LHC, lte see

    per 60 seconds it give us 36 000 000 000 per minute

    then this per 60 minutes give us 2,160,000,000,000
    per hour

    then this per 24 hours = 51,840,000,000,000 per day

    the this per 1 year it means that we got 18,921,600,000,000,000 per year

    and for the 317 years, it give us a total of 5,998,147,200,000,000,000 collisions

    well i did my calculations in a windows calculator, so maybe im wrong, if im, point it out

    oh, but one more question, all the cosmic rays collide in a space so big like a planet or neutron star and white dwarf, if those make the micro black holes, make 600 000 000 collisions at 14Tev per second in a small space will be dangerous???

    Comment by smish24 — November 15, 2008 #

  9. and how many 14-16TeV scale cosmic rays hit the earth per year and square kilometer?

    Comment by Denji — November 15, 2008 #

  10. Danji,

    Many more. Go to the wikipedia page for Cosmic Rays and take a look at the graph. It’s closer to 1 per square meter per year.


    Derek was assuming 800 million per second, not 600 million per second. Your calculations are fine.

    As for your other question, smish, you are correct. Two things smacking into each other at rest gives 100% of it’s energy that can go into making particles, or what you call an implosion.

    All collisions have this, it’s just a much smaller percentage when you have one moving quickly and one at rest. I even gave you the formula, the “implosion energy” = sqrt (2 m E), where E is the energy of the cosmic ray and m is the mass of the proton at rest.

    How can you do this? There’s a trick where you can change your reference frame to make it look like you have a head-on collision of two things moving with equal and opposite momenta; work that out for this collision, and you get that each proton has 216 TeV of energy, much more than the 7 TeV of LHC protons.

    Comment by ethan — November 15, 2008 #

  11. quote by ethan:

    As for your other question, smish, you are correct. Two things smacking into each other at rest gives 100% of it’s energy that can go into making particles, or what you call an implosion.

    All collisions have this, it’s just a much smaller percentage when you have one moving quickly and one at rest. I even gave you the formula, the “implosion energy” = sqrt (2 m E), where E is the energy of the cosmic ray and m is the mass of the proton at rest.

    How can you do this? There’s a trick where you can change your reference frame to make it look like you have a head-on collision of two things moving with equal and opposite momenta; work that out for this collision, and you get that each proton has 216 TeV of energy, much more than the 7 TeV of LHC protons.


    so this means that if a cosmic ray collision dont make a micro black hole, the LHC collisions can make them?

    or, its just the same result of 100% of the collision only if, one 13 Tev quick collision agaisnt one of 01 Tev particle at rest to make the same collision of the 100% (14 Tev)

    and also, smish24 make another questions, what if so many collisions in one small place can make the implosion for the hypotetically micro black hole so powerful and dangerous, since the ones that possible can be create in the cosmic ray collisions are just 1 collision of 2 particles per cosmic ray, the micro black hole will have space free?, or all hypotetically made by the cosmic rays can marge faster, dont the ones at the LHC will marge a lot faster in a second and make one dangerous?

    because of this, when CERN will make the 1st particle collision, they will make only 1 collsion of 2 protons at start to see what happens, and if they make a non-evaporating black hole, what will they do?

    Comment by smish24 — November 15, 2008 #

  12. and did CERN take in consideration all those points discussed about the implosion of the collisions and the space?

    Comment by Danile Vellendes — November 15, 2008 #

  13. Ethan,

    Tell me if i did this calculations right (especially the one with 700 tev14 rays)

    ————————————————–Cosmic Rays 14 TeV (4 rays x 1 square Km per Year)
    635,000,000 per year
    41,275,000,000,000,000 since dinosaur extinction
    2,540,000,000,000,000,000,000 per 4 billion years

    ————————————————–Cosmic Rays 14 TeV (12 rays x Km per year)
    1,524,000,000 per year
    99,060,000,000,000,000 since dinasour extinction
    396,240,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per 4 billion years

    ————————————————–Cosmic Rays 14 TeV (700 rays x square KM per year)
    88,900,000,000 per year
    577,850,000,000,000,000 since dinasour extinction (almost 317 of LHC continuing work)

    2,311,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per 4 billion years

    ———————————————————LHC 14 Tev Collisions
    600,000,000 LHC Tev14 per second
    36,000,000,000 LHC Tev14 per minute
    2,160,000,000,000 LHC Tev14 per hour
    51,840,000,000,000 LHC Tev14 per day
    18,921,600,000,000,000 LHC Tev14 per year
    189,216,000,000,000,000 LHC Tev14 per 10 years
    599,814,720,000,000,000 LHC Tev14 per 317 years

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 15, 2008 #

  14. Hi Ethan, I don’t understand where you got this number from:
    [quote from Ethan] “…the Earth occupies a volume of 127 million square kilometer”

    Thanks, deddy

    Comment by Deddy — November 17, 2008 #

  15. I said volume?! Yikes! I mean cross-section! That’s the area of a circle (pi*r^2) with r as the radius of the Earth, 6,371 km.

    Comment by ethan — November 17, 2008 #

  16. so, you mean you did this calculation wrong?

    and one more thing, i wrote a letter to Steve Giddings and he told me that if cosmic rays do not make micro black holes, the LHC collisions will NOT do them, but what if this theory goes wrong, myabe it is the equality of the energy in this case?, (7Tev for each particle), and you dais that the cosmic rays energy collision is not useful for make particles, but the collision at equal energies do them, dont this mean that cosmic rays will not make black holes, but collisions at equal energies can do them?, then it turns out that there is no evidence of safety!!!!!!!

    in my opinion

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 17, 2008 #

  17. No, I did the calculation for cross section. Your numbers look right, too; like I said, I did them for 800,000,000 collisions per second, not 600 million.

    And yes, I agree with Steve Giddings, if cosmic rays do not make black holes, the LHC will not either. There’s a lot of evidence at colliders and elsewhere that these are how the laws of physics work. There’s always a chance that our theories are wrong, but the theory behind this is, IMO, just as good as the theory that the Sun will rise in the East and set in the West tomorrow.

    Comment by ethan — November 17, 2008 #

  18. Ha Ha Ha

    thanks Ethan

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 17, 2008 #

  19. now it makes sense, and if cosmic rays make micro black holes, the fact that neutron stars and white dwarfs did exist for millions of years, and we dint see them beign destroyed and turn into black holes, pretty much means, that this are not dangerous cause they evaporate, or either they dint exist

    CLEVER!!!, right sir?

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 17, 2008 #

  20. Mr Ethan

    Im 13 Years old, and i got 2 questions to ask:

    1.- if there any possibility that cosmic rays only produce charged black holes, while the ones at the LHC will have no charge?, how you know that black holes can have electric charge or not

    2.- and how do you know the longevity of neutrons stars and white dwarfs, one friend tell me that whiet swarfs only live for a few seconds, and how did you know that cosmic rays collide with them too?

    Oh Please Sir, my daddy tell me not to worry but i used to have nightmares and cry sometimes

    Comment by Milli Ellionor — November 20, 2008 #

  21. nevermind sir, thanks for answer the other questions, still, how you know that cosmic rays collide with those objetcs (neutrons stars and white dwarfs)

    Comment by Milli Ellionor — November 20, 2008 #

  22. but wait, according to the link you gave me sir, it seems than the chargd black holes are just in theory, but i heard that if all black holes had no electric charge, all can escape the earth, is that true???

    and how they NOT escape neutron stars and white dwarfs?

    Comment by Milli Ellionor — November 20, 2008 #

  23. Milli,

    If these cosmic rays come from all over the galaxy and the Universe, and they collide with anything and everything in their path, then it wouldn’t make sense for them to miss neutron stars and white dwarfs. A white dwarf is about the size of the Earth, so of course they’re going to hit it.

    A neutron star is much smaller than the Earth, but still large enough that there should be thousands of cosmic rays striking a neutron star every year.

    All black holes, so far, are theoretical. Our telescopes aren’t powerful enough to tell if there really are black holes or not. But what you heard is not true. Charge is pretty irrelevant when it comes to something as gravitationally powerful as a black hole. Whether a black hole is charged or not, if you make one on Earth, it isn’t going anywhere.

    Comment by ethan — November 20, 2008 #

  24. so this means that even non-charged (neutral) micro black holes are produced they will not escape the earth or other objects?

    Comment by Milli Eliionor — November 20, 2008 #

  25. […] the ParentsOne for the KiddiesWhy doesn’t Earth lose its atmosphere?Weekend Diversion: Vashti BunyanParticle Accelerators: Man vs. Space!The Simplest Unsolvable ProblemFingerprints: Nature, Nurture, and TwinsWeekend Diversion: A Class […]

    Pingback by Carnival of Space #80: Thanksgiving Edition | Starts With A Bang! — November 21, 2008 #

  26. what was that last thing?

    Comment by Milli Eliionor — November 21, 2008 #

  27. Whether a black hole escapes Earth or not has nothing to do with its charge. The Earth isn’t charged; all that matters is the total energy inside a black hole — you typically call that mass — that determines how strong its gravity is.

    Comment by ethan — November 21, 2008 #

  28. so it means, that if micro black holes are created in cosmic rays, it osnt matter of its charge, they cant escape?

    Comment by Milli Eliionor — November 22, 2008 #

  29. Yes, Milli, that is correct. If you made a stable black hole, and it was gravitationally bound to the earth, it wouldn’t be able to escape, regardless of its charge.

    Comment by ethan — November 22, 2008 #

  30. i personally dont belive any of this arguments, for several reasons.

    1.- i never heard of the cosmic rays before, it dosnt make any sense, why we cant see them?, and if they exits, why they have no effects on earth or us, and how they can beign in constantly quantitys ince the earth formation, if there really exits, we most see them

    2.- i read the Giddings paper and i find it quite interestingly, but aside from what i tell you, how you know that relativity is well tested (in reality), got any examples?

    3.- in the papers when they talk about conservative arguments, then it means than something is wrong, why, because Conservative usually means something bad, why not using liberal arguments instead, like the ones of walter l. wagner, otto rossler and plaga, all the cientist just tell them to shut up and dont molest them, i dont belive this bullcrap.

    we dont need theorys, we need facts, facts than proves safety about this monstruosity

    Comment by Delirian — November 23, 2008 #

  31. Im More Smart than any scientist evah!!!

    the cosmic rays argument is just an excuse for CERN, how it is possible than something than collides with earth atmosphere dint hurt us, you say are charged with high energys, but how is it possible than they dint hurt us, we cant see them, so they must not exist, and if they exist, how we can see them, and what if trey all are deflected by magnetic field, so this means the only reason why those things dint create black holes and dint hurt us, cause they are deflected if they exists, and how you know that neutron stars and white dwarfs had low magnetic fields, they have no protons inside them, so how they collide, also you say in one of you posts,

    “The Earth isn’t charged”

    Then how the hell you say that they collide with particles at rest here?,

    See people you see, they contradict themselves, wer are doomed, we are doomed!!!!!

    Comment by Pwner35 — November 24, 2008 #

  32. Also heres a few quotes from Jtankersley

    Question: Do you know many cosmic rays strike a neutron star in one Earth year?

    Answer: Zero, the magnetic field of a neutron star is 1,000,000,000,000 times more powerful than Earth’s!

    Magnetic fields of white dwarfs are 1,000,000 times Earth’s.

    Hawking Radiation is unlikely, rapid micro black hole growth is plausible, no safety arguments are verified.

    The neutron star and cosmic ray safety arguments in the 2008 LHC Safety Report were deemed “unverified” by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee, but not for the reasons above.

    Credible arguments that neutron stars do not prove safety may be found in points 5, 6 and 7 of


    HA HA, How you see that you liars!!!!!

    Comment by Pwner35 — November 24, 2008 #

  33. Delirian,

    1- We’ve seen cosmic rays for over 100 years. They do exactly what I’ve told you they do.

    2- Relativity has been one of the best tested theories ever. It has, every time, predicted exactly the correctly observed answer.

    3- Conservative arguments mean that we don’t assume anything crazy and/or known to be wrong. Less conservative claims are less grounded in reality.

    And if you think we need something besides theories, why don’t you walk off a cliff? After all, isn’t gravity just a theory?


    What does the fact that a neutron star’s magnetic field is so strong have to do with an inability of cosmic rays to hit it? And what does a neutron star have to do with Earth anyway?

    I don’t even understand what you’re trying to contend in your first argument, so you’re going to have to try a little harder to be clear and concise.

    Comment by ethan — November 24, 2008 #

  34. i think that what this troller guy assumes is that, magnetic fields of neutron stars and white dwarfs are so strong than deflects the cosmic rays or even the products, but arent magnetic fields made of energetic protons?

    laso i remember read months ago a quote from a guy on youtube. tell us than 30 years ago a scientist theorized than nuestron stars ans white dwarfs do not have molecules or particles inside them

    isnt this just ignorance and triying to scare the scientist?, prove me wrong ethan if im, caue i think im not

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 24, 2008 #

  35. by the way check out this image sir ^^

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 24, 2008 #

  36. by the way, how d you know that there are white dwarfs with low magnetic fields, and how low?, as well as neutron stars with companions?

    and how is possible than if cosmic rays come in polar directions or trajectory, the magnetic field has less effects in neutron stars?

    i hope this will be my last questions, but oh well ^^

    Comment by baragon-kun — November 26, 2008 #


    We have observed particle acceleration in nature before. The most obvious danger is from the beam itself, and CERN has adequate methods for containing the beam with magnetic shields much like the ones earth uses to protect us from solar wind. The only question is, as Plaga suggested, whether a micro black hole (or other newly discovered particle and phenomona) could act as a mini capacitor, store some of the energy and temporarily lower the power level, and then release it all at the same time (through hawking radiation in the black hole example), thereby making the beam stronger than anything designed to contain it.

    A lot of people would be happier with this outcome (as it doesn’t threaten the entire earth), but it would be devastating to particle physics, and science and human progress in general.

    Aside from black holes probably not being created at this low an energy level, is there any other reason why this is not a plausible scenario? Or, should it turn out to be a plausible scenario, is there any way to combat the potential danger and implement any additional safety features?

    Comment by Bubba Gump — December 5, 2008 #

  38. Bubba,
    You can’t get more energy out of a black hole than you put into it when you created it. So even if you make a black hole with your beam, and it decays via Hawking Radiation, you’ll only get as much energy out of it as you put into it. So that’s why you can’t make the beam stronger like this.

    I don’t know who Plaga is, so I don’t know to what you refer.

    Comment by ethan — December 5, 2008 #

  39. Plaga was onw of the 2 Pseudo Scientist who wrote agaisnt the LHC and he was debunked, his claims are in the part of the dangers of Hawking radiation, but he ignores the fact that any fact should already happened in others stars (neutron stars and white dwarfs) as well as the earth

    Comment by baragon-kun — December 8, 2008 #

  40. On Cox is cited saying: “When theories are shown to be false, the correct thing to do is to move on.” Else there are confessions about his confidence in engineers, and, of course, physicists are sensitive beings, bringing good to the world and its civilization. The cited statement as well as the TED talk are full of the common hybris. They deny to think about the globality of the potential threat, that way taking all other hostage. First, and second, sentence of their religolous confession: “The LHC is safe.” Based on what theory they claim that? The same wonderful theory which is incomplete, and, at best, inconsistent? The theory which is so incomplete that they started to think that they would need the LHC experiment? That’s a petitio principii, a silly circularity in the safety argument. Nobody knows for instance much about strongly-coupled Quark Gluon Plasmas. I expect Cox to have a “theory” on it. Ever tested it? Thats the first mistake of these oh so intelligent physicists. But there is a second serious mistake in the safety claims, proposed by all those awaiting the collisions like fanatics: (1) They do NOT take into account the experimental conditions. Only single collisions of protons are considered. Cosmic rays are not the same as the beam packages, the energy of a single collision is not the correct metric to speak about the collision, see overlapping sQGP. For instance. Ever seen a “cosmic ray” mead from lead ions? A cosmic ray consisting of 10e11 particles? At least 30 colliding very, very close to each other almost simultaneously? I think that nowhere in the universe (except another collider) these conditions will be met. We do know that the sQGP spreads to a diameter of the whole gold-nucleus, its not so tiny anymore. What about overlapping these exotics, to accumulate the energy density? (2) The surprises met concerning sQGP at the RHIC this October clearly shows, that the current theory should NOT extrapolated. To do so, even Cox get a victim of the “inductionist fallacy”. Reading D.Hume on that is recommended. —
    The LHC COULD be safe, nobody can honestly know. It could. Because there is a chance for basic failure of current theories, the threat is potentially a global one, the issue develops into an ethical, or political one. Here, all the physicists are simply ruthless. Its an ethical singularity yes, but we should deal with it not calling each other twats. Do you really trust a guy calling you a twat, and at the same time performing insane logics in a safety argument? I prefer not to.

    Comment by nico.m — December 8, 2008 #

  41. Nico,
    We understand physics well enough that we know that the things you’re afraid of happening at the LHC will not happen at the LHC.

    I’ve been over why twice already, and your contentions present nothing new. There is nothing that could be made at the LHC that would pose a danger to the world.

    Comment by ethan — December 9, 2008 #

  42. Mr Ethan, i read about the evidence and the testing of the relatiity in this whole issue

    one silly question

    if there any chance than the evidence than proves safety over this issue (cosmic rays, relativity, and others), can be fake, or going wrong this time in general?

    Comment by Tony — December 12, 2008 #

  43. No, Tony, there’s no chance that the evidence that shows the LHC is safe is wrong. It’s definitely right. And the conclusion that the LHC won’t destroy the world is definitely right, too.

    Comment by ethan — December 12, 2008 #

  44. this means just hawking radiation or the other evidence aside cosmic rays?

    Comment by 4funky — December 13, 2008 #

  45. and by the way, i hears that theLHC is a quark factory and that Frank Wilczek once said that smashing quarks will create the earth into a supernova

    the videos are from here

    Comment by 4funky — December 13, 2008 #

  46. can you tell us how much validity and truth have all those argyments on those videos, and if they the opposite:

    can you point out?

    Comment by 4funky — December 13, 2008 #

  47. and at last, what do you think about Dr.Rossler publications of his reinterpretation of relativity, about the whole black hole cause, according to him, the black hole can grow up in years

    Comment by 4funky — December 13, 2008 #

  48. before Mr Ethan can answer your question dude, i will told you, that most of this videos, and many others who are on youtube, are made by Luis Sancho, who is one of Walter Wagner Partners in this whole Anti-LHC conspiracy, but before of anything, take a look at this, to see the kind of people are those mens

    you will see that walter wagner, the main men who started the whole mess is nothing more than a fraud, oh, but most people seems to think that even if hes a fraud, me could be right when talking about the black holes, Hes not, Hes not!!!.

    but he used the media and lied so much about his credentials to make people believe in his bullshit:

    and let Mr Ethan answer about th crappy videos you linked 4funky, i just wanna help, cause i was passing for the same depression because of this fallacy, i mean, go to the media and bitch and vomit that “CERN Saffety report is Flawed cause i say so”, “CERNS has manipulated the web to make people feel sure”, “Cosmic rays do not prove safety about the LHC”, “CERNS is just censor Rossler and plaga discoveries”, and shit like that

    oh, and about Mr.Plaga and Rossler:

    please read this guys, but Mr,Ethan, what do you think about those videos 4funky linked, as well of this thing i put?

    Comment by baragon-kun — December 14, 2008 #

  49. yeah, i actually watch the video that 4funky linked, and i dont know if anything what he says is true, they say is just an anti-CERN propaganda, but who knows?

    Comment by Delirian — December 14, 2008 #

  50. excuse me mr ethan, but i remember seen the videos linked on Jtanker webpage, some are the same that 4funky posted a few post ago, but theres others

    I apologize for taking your time kind sir

    Comment by Martin Cortez — December 15, 2008 #

  51. i suggest you to be patient all of you, mr ethan is a real scientist and has a lot of work to do, but im sure he will investigate those concerns of the last post made by you, and the other 2 guys…

    by the way i miss the interview in astroengine who talks about new discovering on the supermassive BH on the center of our galaxy, and i heard that something on this follows on BBC.

    my question is, what was?, and the results can play role on the LHC?

    Comment by baragon-kun — December 15, 2008 #

  52. oh nevermind about the blackhole news on BBC

    Comment by baragon-kun — December 16, 2008 #

  53. It seems like there are still a lot of people here who aren’t convinced by what I’ve written or by the calculations I’ve done.

    Well, I’ll have to figure out another avenue, then, to try to make you aware and informed about what goes on in the world of physics. Because there isn’t a physicist worth his weight in quarks and leptons who believes the LHC poses any danger.

    And yet, people are still paranoid about the possible destruction of the world. This will take some time; look back here on Friday, the 19th.

    Comment by ethan — December 17, 2008 #

  54. im convinced ethan, but the other it seems not, but i think that they need to see what the doomsday sayers really are, but its just a suggestion.

    thanks ethan

    Comment by baragon-kun — December 17, 2008 #

  55. by the way i send you a mail for suggestions for the topic if you want to read it

    Comment by baragon-kun — December 18, 2008 #

  56. Aren’t we neglecting the fact that the LHC will accelerate particles of different matter than those of cosmic rays? Pb protons being one example. The interaction between two of these protons could be very different from those of cosmic rays and stationary ‘Earth’ matter? Is this correct?

    Comment by Peach — September 29, 2010 #

  57. My wife and i have been contented when Jordan could carry out his preliminary research because of the ideas he had using your web page. It’s not at all simplistic to just find yourself giving out tips a number of people may have been selling. So we fully understand we now have the writer to appreciate for that. The explanations you’ve made, the straightforward web site navigation, the relationships your site assist to foster - it’s got everything awesome, and it is leading our son in addition to us do think that topic is brilliant, and that is seriously important. Many thanks for everything!

    Comment by to go travel — August 20, 2011 #

  58. Please let me know if you’re looking for a article writer for your weblog. You have some really great posts and I feel I would be a good asset. If you ever want to take some of the load off, I’d really like to write some articles for your blog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please send me an e-mail if interested. Kudos!

    Comment by astral travel projection — August 20, 2011 #

  59. And of course, I’m so certainly contented with your great information served by you.

    Comment by Venetta Alario — September 6, 2011 #

  60. Hey! This is my 1st comment here so I just wanted to give a quick shout out and say I genuinely enjoy reading your articles. Can you recommend any other blogs/websites/forums that cover the same topics? Thanks a ton!

    Comment by Gabriel Mccartha — September 23, 2011 #

  61. Hi.

    One of the most annoying things about, my interest, in atom-smashers/particle accelerator(s,, a by-product of watching too many ‘Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman’ Science Channels series), IS that while my general advanced math/College Alegra and beyond, limits me in modeling certain things regarding Quantum Mechanics and the related apparent infintesimal sizes (i.e. trying to explain how someone can see a particle, Bozons, etc., the size of something like 2 X 10^-1000 [power]), I STILL find myself drawn to the science(s) of the infinesimally small and the indescribly large (Black-Holes, etc.). I ONLY wish there was a crash course, or something, in advanced math to boost my skills-knowledge/confidence of understanding these things mathematically; leyman (spell?) terms I CAN understand, I just FEEL so inadequate when it comes to expalining the mathematics aspect of these things. Could I get help from someone, One-On-One/Personal-to-Person, on this? Is there a kind-of “informal” math club, persently NON-College-UNTIL I can one-day[fantasy-fantasy] my return to college, to help me understand the more advanced/post-College Algebra, Precalculus, Calculus etc.) mathematics invovled?

    Comment by Terry — February 21, 2012 #

  62. so good? and nice.

    Comment by מובילים — April 17, 2012 #

  63. Hello!
    Unplanned my work colleague has bumped into with the page Particle Accelerators: Man vs. Space! | Starts With A Bang!. Class page! Unfortunately currently I am looking for big tits tube. Look at this site certainly in the evening hours.

    Comment by read home — November 18, 2013 #

  64. burberry outlet online…

    at how will be to a great burberry coats extent exquisite

    you need realize that you are inviting approach r burberry logo educed price that you should insulting then you’re the one getting referrals and they will find get you started convenient in…

    Trackback by burberry coats while|as|with|on top of that|in addition — March 4, 2014 #

  65. louboutin wedding shoes…

    and also camera angles

    So it’s a good mulberry bayswater bag idea by this reporter to take frequent rides in your automobile. mulberry wallet yes. You can perform virtually any dumbbell exercise with them and more. The labs create virtual reality…

    Trackback by mulberry bayswater bag and lots camera angles — April 15, 2014 #

  66. Once I initially commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get four emails with the identical comment. Is there any means you can remove me from that service? Thanks!

    Comment by KIRBY — September 5, 2014 #

  67. Particle Accelerators: Man vs. Space! | Starts With A Bang!
    Nike Free TR Fit

    Comment by Nike Free TR Fit — November 25, 2014 #

  68. The electionfor the rower - but obtain a GENUINE rowing unit (using
    a flywheel and sequence, ideally a Concept II).

    Comment by general rowing — February 23, 2015 #

Leave a comment

XHTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Entries and comments feeds. Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^ Powered by with a personally modified jd-nebula-3c theme design.