Large Hadron Collider

Okay, this may be a silly question, or a decent question but simple to answer:

All day I've heard about, "There was no chance of making a black hole as our outer atmosphere creates the same events all day long, and with more energy and we've never had a black hole event."
One guy even said, "In nature this happens in our outer atmosphere roughly about 100,000 times every second"

So if that's the case, why did they need to build a LHC in the first place, why not just monitor the atmosphere? Or use some Hubble type device? After all, it produced some good results.
 
helmet said:
Okay, this may be a silly question, or a decent question but simple to answer:

All day I've heard about, "There was no chance of making a black hole as our outer atmosphere creates the same events all day long, and with more energy and we've never had a black hole event."
One guy even said, "In nature this happens in our outer atmosphere roughly about 100,000 times every second"

So if that's the case, why did they need to build a LHC in the first place, why not just monitor the atmosphere? Or use some Hubble type device? After all, it produced some good results.
Click to expand...

Because it's hard to track something microscopic when you don't know where to find it, then you have to take millions of photos.
 
I think it is because there are too many other things going on to be able to sort the details of the collisions out. It's probably cheaper to build the LHC anyway. I bet some of the instruments need supercooling too.
 
helmet said:
Okay, this may be a silly question, or a decent question but simple to answer:

All day I've heard about, "There was no chance of making a black hole as our outer atmosphere creates the same events all day long, and with more energy and we've never had a black hole event."
One guy even said, "In nature this happens in our outer atmosphere roughly about 100,000 times every second"

So if that's the case, why did they need to build a LHC in the first place, why not just monitor the atmosphere? Or use some Hubble type device? After all, it produced some good results.
Click to expand...


You've seen those huge sections right?


Well they're the monitors so you'd have to put a few hundred thousand of them in the sky and hope a reaction occurs inside one.
 
shauncr91 said:
Because it's hard to track something microscopic when you don't know where to find it, then you have to take millions of photos.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's what is happening anyway, hence the use of a Grid and many many data storage locations. The Head of IT in CERN today said "data enough to fill 1 DVD every second".
 
lord filbuster said:
I think it is because there are too many other things going on to be able to sort the details of the collisions out. It's probably cheaper to build the LHC anyway. I bet some of the instruments need supercooling too.
Click to expand...

People should really stop talking about the £5bn as though it's a lot of money. You have to remember, it is being funded internationally from dozens/hundreds of different sources, including governments. Across all these £5bn really isn't a lot of money. It isn't as though our government is funding it all, actually from what I have heard we have only invested around £860m into the project.
 
Ah I understand, I thought you might reply with that once I posted. I just thought it was a good oppurtunity to say it as you mentioned money in you're post, been wanting to get it out there for a while :)
 
Tefal said:
I didn't think they where anywhere near that speed?
Click to expand...

If you meant today then you're right they're going pretty slowly at the moment. At full power though:

cern faq said:
At full power, trillions of protons will race around the LHC accelerator ring 11 245 times a second, travelling at 99.99% the speed of light. Two beams of protons will each travel at a maximum energy of 7 TeV (tera-electronvolt), corresponding to head-to-head collisions of 14 TeV. Altogether some 600 million collisions will take place every second.
Click to expand...
 
yak.h'cir said:
Altogether some 600 million collisions will take place every second.
Click to expand...

Kind of answers my point too, there would be no orbit vehicle with the amount of bandwith to transmit back anything like that amount of traffic.


What's the chances that the first few collisions produce some new type of energy/matter that rips right through those detectors?
 
Tefal said:
**** me! tbh I'd rather the money went into something better than a flippin fireworks show.

I wonder how much the ITER (and the new version, or is iter the new one and I'm thinking of the old uk one >.<) could benefit from that much cash.
Click to expand...

I'd say ITER will be, probably the most important scientific experiment (right choice of word?) humanity has ever attempted. I really hope it's finished in my lifetime
 
Here's an idea. Lets concede the Olympics to the frogs and spend the 9 big ones on sports development. £500M gave us 4th in the table, imagine what £9B would do? We would have the Yanks, Chinks and Commies weeping with envy at just how awesome Team GB is. After all, we can all be in Paris, knocking back the champers and chatting up their women in only a bit more time than it takes to get to that craphole London.

Spend the money on sport and not on rubbish stadia and flats for immigrants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom