http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Did I win my bet?
Started by ●September 10, 2008
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:33:26 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/I do like the snarky comment in the html above: <!-- if the lhc actually destroys the earth & this page isn't yet updated please email mike@frantic.org to receive a full refund --> -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On 10 Sep, 14:33, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:> http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ > > Jerry > -- > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > �����������������������������������������������������������������������So what was your bet, and who did you bet with? Higgs boson or black hole first? Is a Higgs boson a mini black hole? Quaks must be made of 3 parts to have n/3 frational charge? NOPE dosen't really explain much and is such an egotistical use of telecomms bandwidth. cheers jacko
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
jacko wrote:> On 10 Sep, 14:33, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >> http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ >> >> Jerry >> -- >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >> ����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > So what was your bet, and who did you bet with? Higgs boson or black > hole first? Is a Higgs boson a mini black hole? Quaks must be made of > 3 parts to have n/3 frational charge? NOPE dosen't really explain much > and is such an egotistical use of telecomms bandwidth. >The only correct answer is "not yet". All they have done today is switch the thing on. It is equivalent to building a car, and turning the ignition (with gearbox in neutral) on to check that the engine turns over correctly and neither it nor the car as a whole breaks into small pieces. The initial beam was at relatively low energy, and they have not even run two colliding beams yet. So "the experiment" has not actually begun yet. My own hope is for superstrings. I am a musician, after all, so they ~have~ to exist! Richard Dobson
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
Jerry Avins wrote:> http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ > > JerryIt's not in kaboom mode yet. I think the universe-gobbling armageddon-boson doesn't get made until the new year:) J
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:52:29 +0100, John Sager <jcs736620@googlemail.com> wrote:>Jerry Avins wrote: > >> http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ >> >> Jerry > >It's not in kaboom mode yet. I think the universe-gobbling >armageddon-boson doesn't get made until the new year:) > >JChecking whois for a phrase by a famous martian: EARTHSHATTERINGKABOOM.COM is available!
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:35:49 +0100, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:>jacko wrote: >> On 10 Sep, 14:33, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >>> http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ >>> >>> Jerry >>> -- >>> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. >>> ����������������������������������������������������������������������� >> >> So what was your bet, and who did you bet with? Higgs boson or black >> hole first? Is a Higgs boson a mini black hole? Quaks must be made of >> 3 parts to have n/3 frational charge? NOPE dosen't really explain much >> and is such an egotistical use of telecomms bandwidth. >> > > >The only correct answer is "not yet". All they have done today is switch >the thing on. It is equivalent to building a car, and turning the >ignition (with gearbox in neutral) on to check that the engine turns >over correctly and neither it nor the car as a whole breaks into small >pieces. The initial beam was at relatively low energy, and they have not >even run two colliding beams yet. So "the experiment" has not actually >begun yet.It can be very dangerous to cross the streams and create a total protonic reversal if there's no interdimensional gate to absorb the resulting discharge.>My own hope is for superstrings. I am a musician, after all, so they >~have~ to exist!You have a lot of pluck. -- John
Reply by ●September 10, 20082008-09-10
On Sep 10, 11:55�am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 10 Sep, 14:33, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > >http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ > > > Jerry > > -- > > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > > ����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > So what was your bet, and who did you bet with? Higgs boson or black > hole first? Is a Higgs boson a mini black hole? Quaks must be made of > 3 parts to have n/3 frational charge? NOPE dosen't really explain much > and is such an egotistical use of telecomms bandwidth. > > cheers > jackoActually the best that we know is quarks are fundamental indivisible particles. It is large hadrons such as protons and neutrons that are made up of three quarks. Yes the 2/3 number is weird, but it is 2/3 of that of an electron - not 2/3 in some absolute scale. Clay
Reply by ●September 11, 20082008-09-11
On 10 Sep, 22:47, c...@claysturner.com wrote:> On Sep 10, 11:55�am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10 Sep, 14:33, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > >http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ > > > > Jerry > > > -- > > > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > > > ����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > > So what was your bet, and who did you bet with? Higgs boson or black > > hole first? Is a Higgs boson a mini black hole? Quaks must be made of > > 3 parts to have n/3 frational charge? NOPE dosen't really explain much > > and is such an egotistical use of telecomms bandwidth. > > > cheers > > jacko > > Actually the best that we know is quarks are fundamental indivisible > particles. It is large hadrons such as protons and neutrons that are > made up of three quarks. Yes the 2/3 number is weird, but it is 2/3 of > that of an electron - not 2/3 in some absolute scale. > > Clay- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -When I said made up of, I did not mean dissemble able! So it may be because quarks dont really exsist, but are just convienient understanding, I mean by your definition they are not individual. I did hear that fermi lab did some scatter effects and implied that three centres of mass were ghosted in a proton but there is no reason to assume that these masses are yet not further particulable. GCD of 1 2 and 3 is 3 implying 3 parts to a charge. cheers jacko
Reply by ●September 12, 20082008-09-12
On Sep 11, 10:42�am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote:> On 10 Sep, 22:47, c...@claysturner.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 10, 11:55�am, jacko <jackokr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 10 Sep, 14:33, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > > > > >http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ > > > > > Jerry > > > > -- > > > > Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. > > > > ����������������������������������������������������������������������� > > > > So what was your bet, and who did you bet with? Higgs boson or black > > > hole first? Is a Higgs boson a mini black hole? Quaks must be made of > > > 3 parts to have n/3 frational charge? NOPE dosen't really explain much > > > and is such an egotistical use of telecomms bandwidth. > > > > cheers > > > jacko > > > Actually the best that we know is quarks are fundamental indivisible > > particles. It is large hadrons such as protons and neutrons that are > > made up of three quarks. Yes the 2/3 number is weird, but it is 2/3 of > > that of an electron - not 2/3 in some absolute scale. > > > Clay- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > When I said made up of, I did not mean dissemble able! So it may be > because quarks dont really exsist, but are just convienient > understanding, I mean by your definition they are not individual. I > did hear that fermi lab did some scatter effects and implied that > three centres of mass were ghosted in a proton but there is no reason > to assume that these masses are yet not further particulable. GCD of 1 > 2 and 3 is 3 implying 3 parts to a charge. > > cheers > jacko- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -To be sure, the quark model is odd, but so far no scattering/collision experiment has demonstrated divisability of quarks. Sure this doesn't prove their being fundamental, but it strongly suggest they are. But that is why we continue doing experiments. We observe quarks in doubles (mesons) and triples (baryons). A pentaquark has been predicted but much argument still goes on about whether or not experiments actually have observed it. The standard model interestingly contains two major classes of particles, each containing three generations. Nobody can answer as to why 3 generations, but that is what we observe. The (predicted but unobserved) Higgs boson figures strongly in the theory of mass, so finding it is important. But I don't worry about micro black holes being formed by the LHC, since they would evaporate anyway. Recall black holes have a temperature and small blackholes have a higher temperature than large ones. And real small ones are hot enough to radiate way their energy hence mass. Some astronomers are currently looking for hawking radiation created by mini blackholes formed in the Earth's upper atmosphere by its collisions with interstellar high energy protons. So the lack of hawking radiation (which has never been observed) suggest that either micro blackholes don't form at all or very easily or Hawking's theory is not correct. But if the micro black holes do form in the atmosphere and the Earth has lasted for billions of years, then they aren't likely to be much of a threat since we are still around. Clay
