Donate

# Huge Atom Smasher.........

ToraToraTora | 12:34 Mon 05th Feb 2024 | Science

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-68172162

Ok perhaps CTG can help with this one, I think I'm right in saying that the LHC collisions are at 99.9999991% of c. No doubt the new one will get even closer to c but what else could come out of that that we are not already getting with the LHC?

Note I am in no way against this contruction I am all in favour of the spend just need bit more info.

1 to 20 of 56

As for the question, there are two benefits that a larger "LHC" could bring:1) Higher energies could mean higher accessibility to exotic particles that are currently, just, out of reach of our experiments;2) Higher energy is in some way a distraction, since no given collision at the LHC ever comes close to using the entire available energy. Another...
14:23 Sat 10th Feb 2024

The only real problem I can see is finding enough huge atoms.

They're almost exclusively tiny.

Question Author

They're in Pitlochry Doug they use them in the highland games.

Perhaps the universe is like a shape shifter , continually changing and we'll never discover the full workings

From their website, "The precise circumference of the LHC accelerator is 26 659 m"

"At full power, trillions of protons will race around the LHC accelerator ring 11 245 times a second, travelling at 99.9999991% the speed of light."

In a vacuum, the speed of light is 299,792,458m/s.

In a second, a proton travels 11,245 × 26,659 metres or, 299,780,455 metres around the LHC.

299,780,455÷299,792,458 = 0.9999599623 or 99.99599623% the speed of light.

I checked on Excel and it shows it as, 99.9959962301653%.

That is not 99.9999991% the speed of light

Am I correct?

If I am and their maths is dodgy, what like is their physics?

Question Author

That is the website I referred to but their percentage claim appears to be wrong.

They are talking about the closing speed.

Question Author

I think you've confused the NIC there kardy! probably stuck in an infinite loop. Better not mention the Einstein time dialation equation he'll have a melt down!

From more than a year ago, this guy explains why it will just be a waste of money.

In the video, CERN scientists are setting out their arguments for the Future Circular Collider (FCC) based on science that has nothing to do with the LHC (or FCC), and other nonsense scientific claims.

Of course, getting the funding approved ensures their continued employment on fantastic salaries.

The video is over 20 minutes, and so will be of no interest to the ABers who have the attention span of a goldfish.

Larger means more energy so more chance of spotting larger newly found particles as particles crash into each other, which will confirm or reject theories, or suggest something else.

This new collider has been discussed for a while. If it's news now some point must have been reached.

Question Author

"The video is over 20 minutes, and so will be of no interest to the ABers who have the attention span of a goldfish." - Well I mightwatch it but anything you post hymie is usually from someone who has the intellect if a goldfish. I assme it's one of Phil's mates and it's all the fault of Brexit.

Question Author

OG: "Larger means more energy so more chance of spotting larger newly found particles as particles crash into each other, which will confirm or reject theories, or suggest something else." - yes but surely if they are already creating collisions at pretty close to c how much more energy is possible? Surely there is a diminishing returns aspect here.

Too busy today, and most likely until the end of the week as I'm working on a different thing. Shout at me if I don't get round to it by the end of Sunday.

We'll be okay until then, Clare, Tora has shouldered the burden of leading the class as on he can.

An infinity of extra energy is possible as it needs infinite energy to move nass at C.

...mass...

I will, however, say that I watch Hymie's video and it's a load of crap. I'll also try to refute that on Sunday. Please don't watch it anybody. Let me waste your time for you.

Also, Corbyloon might want to note that

299792458/26659 = 11245.45

(to two decimal places). Which rounds to 11245. So it's almost certainly just an artefact of one number or the other being rounded to the nearest whole number, and not "dodgy" maths.

12 billion seems like good value when you think that's what we spent on a covid track and trace system that didn't work.

I was considering spending a good amount of time rebutting the video Hymie posted, but I shan't bother. It's not worth it. The problem is, in short, that any idiot can pretend that high-energy physics is full of nonsense, but almost by definition you need to be an expert to appreciate why it's nonsense. Also, the guy in this video is hardly unknown to physicists, and others have already gone to pains to explain why he's completely wrong from start to finish: see eg https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/17sv6lm/unzickers_real_physics_on_dangers_of_youtube/https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/10lf8er/comment/j61gwz8/https://math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6156 etc .

I will, however, pick up on one point: at some stage of the video, Unzicker noted that the physicists said that the Standard Model is incomplete (and so wrong), but also that it was extremely successful and had survived every test. He seemed to think that this was such an obvious contradiction that nothing else was needed than this to explain the flaw: "Orwellian double-speak", he says.

This is, quite simply, utter nonsense. It betrays a failure on his part even to try and understand what's being said. Both points physicists make are in fact true at once, because they are addressing different aspects of the Standard Model (SM):

1. The SM is enormously successful at explaining how electrons and photons and quarks behave and interact, with predictions that fit with measurement to stupid levels of precision: up to 12 decimal places in some sense.

2. The SM is incomplete because, among other things, it has nothing to say about gravity, or about dark matter and dark energy. There are other, more technical aspects in which it's incomplete, but the point is that there are still so many aspects of our Universe left untouched.

In a sense, then, point (1) above is the claim that "we're on the right track", but point (2) states that "we aren't finished yet". The suggestion that these two points are in conflict is completely false, and alone is enough to undermine anything else this ignorant charlatan has to say. And, yes, I am being rude, but his criticisms are tired, ignorant and ill-informed, and in that regard he deserves no respect at all.

It's likely that Hymie won't read this; and, in any event, videos like this sadly have a reach far greater than they ever should. The effort required to explain why he's wrong, though, is so immense that it's little wonder that people share it uncritically. Even at 26 minutes, it's still short enough to have on in the background, and who'd want to spend a decade and invest their entire career into a subject just to refute a half-hour rant?

Don't watch it, as I say.

1 to 20 of 56