MASSIVELY upgraded LHC Ready to hunt down MYSTERY Dark Matter Particles

a reply to: Arbitrageur

This article explains it.

Supersymmetry predicts that versions of the particles that make up normal matter possess mirror or supersymmetrical versions. Thus there could be supersymmetrical quarks – or squarks – out there. Or supersymmetrical electrons – selectrons. “The trouble is that supersymmetry predicts that these entities exist but doesn’t say at what energies we might find them,” adds Charlton.

Nevertheless, Cern physicists believe supersymmetrical particles could lie within the range of the energetic collisions that will be generated in the upgraded LHC. And if they do detect these strange entities, they could provide the solution to one of the universe’s greatest mysteries: the nature of dark matter.

Dark matter is believed to pervade the cosmos, giving galaxies far greater masses than could be supplied by the “normal” matter of protons, neutrons and electrons. Its existence is only inferred, however, for despite decades of effort, scientists have yet to observe a single unit of dark matter. The new LHC could change that.

“The main candidate to explain dark matter is the Wimp – which stands for weakly interacting massive particle,” adds Charlton. “And it may turn out that Wimps are types of supersymmetrical particles that we will be able to make in the LHC.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: Wifibrains

The video you posted. Did you watched it? It´s total made up bull#

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Sort of, but it explains that the LHC can't find dark matter which is what I already suspected. From the same source:

By its very nature, dark matter hardly interacts with normal matter and so will not appear in our detectors. However, it will be noticeable as an event that has missing energy and momentum. In that way, we will know we have created dark matter.

So they are saying that they can't find dark matter.

What they can do is notice if something is missing, then infer that the missing energy must be related to dark matter somehow.

It seems we already have an inference of dark matter via the galactic rotation curves, and gravitational lensing. So the LHC may also find more evidence of the existence of dark matter to add to that pile, but we already have quite a bit of evidence of dark matter so if they can't detect it, and they can't, then I don't know how helpful the "Hunt for Dark Matter Particles" can be when they say "'dark matter' will not appear in our detectors". All they will have is at most, another inference that dark matter might possibly exist and might possibly explain some things in their observations they don't know how to explain otherwise. They don't expect to find dark matter and admit their detectors cant find it.

a reply to: verschickter

Which video are you referring to? I've watched both btw.

The LHC video I posted in relation to my comment "that is some machine" was for the animation of the LHC in action.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Sort of, but it explains that the LHC can't find dark matter which is what I already suspected. From the same source:

By its very nature, dark matter hardly interacts with normal matter and so will not appear in our detectors. However, it will be noticeable as an event that has missing energy and momentum. In that way, we will know we have created dark matter.

So they are saying that they can't find dark matter.

What they can do is notice if something is missing, then infer that the missing energy must be related to dark matter somehow.

Lol. That was the exact gist of my e mail to a female scientist there at lhc, even b4 they fired up this contraption for the first time

a reply to: Wifibrains


The video in the post I replied to.
It´s really b#tery at its climax. Didn´t you notice that? Come on.

Where he fails to see that the blue and red lines rotating are ment to visualize how fast they circle the ring.
He says they get so much mass they do not fit there in anymore ^^ made me chuckle.
"Einstein warned us if we reach lightspeed that it would be the end of the universe" Is that so? Not really and it´s still a theory....

a reply to: Abednego

Wow, so now scientists are trying to bring darkness into our world? Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Wifibrains


The video in the post I replied to.
It´s really b#tery at its climax. Didn´t you notice that? Come on.
Where he fails to see that the blue and red lines rotating are ment to visualize how fast they circle the ring.

Yes I discerned the same thing(scuse the pun) I can make circles out of a dot holding a lazer in my hand. I don't see the need to point out the obvious.

He says they get so much mass they do not fit there in anymore ^^ made me chuckle.
"Einstein warned us if we reach lightspeed that it would be the end of the universe" Is that so? Not really and it´s still a theory....

I dont mean to point out the obvious, but I said that I thought his end of the world theories are due to his biblical beliefs in the post you commented on. Come on, I agree with you. Now what?

a reply to: Wifibrains

But it might not be so obvious to the others. ->> That´s the reason why I pointed it out.
And thinking 2 years back, not that obvious for you (NO ATTACK).


Yes you wrote that line.

a reply to: verschickter

Whoa chick!
I'm flattered you remember lines I wrote two yrs ago, Your memory is better than mine.

Not sure what it has to do with this thread tho... (Attack?)

I was going to create a thread on an article that came across my feed application, but I found this thread and I think it's discussing the same thing. I think.

So I found this article, talking about the upcoming March test.

CERN To Attempt 'Big Bang' In March - Stephen Hawking issues Warning

Is this centering around the same topic, and does the piece I linked have any validity to it?

I ask, because since I've been very young, I've had doom scenario dreams that center around the LHC. When I read articles like that I just shared, or hear about new experiments with that machine - I always get a little nervous. But when ATS says there is no way Cern can create a singularity event... I rest a little easier.

CdT

If they do manage to create a singularity, the effects of which to reach our time frame of ref may be way too distant in our future to worry about, imo.
a reply to: CirqueDeTruth

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol. That was the exact gist of my e mail to a female scientist there at lhc, even b4 they fired up this contraption for the first time

Somebody help me up off the floor, I just fell over. After all your denials of relativity, you and I actually agreed on something?

originally posted by: CirqueDeTruth
CERN To Attempt 'Big Bang' In March - Stephen Hawking issues Warning

Is this centering around the same topic, and does the piece I linked have any validity to it?

I haven't walked around recording everything Hawking ever said, but I doubt he said what that article claims, and it's basically bunk.

The claim that the LHC produces "big bang" conditions is a gross exaggeration and technically very incorrect, but it makes a good headline that gives journalists hits on their stories even if it's false. So what's the truth? See this chart:

Safety of high-energy particle collision experiments-Talk

That shows the energy levels of the LHC particles, around the middle. The lower right shows naturally occurring particle energies many times greater than anything the LHC ever has or will make. What makes the "big bang conditions" claim so laughable is that big bang conditions would be completely of the chart.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol. That was the exact gist of my e mail to a female scientist there at lhc, even b4 they fired up this contraption for the first time

Somebody help me up off the floor, I just fell over. After all your denials of relativity, you and I actually agreed on something?

Pity the external quote that was the gist of my e mail did no show up in the quote, when I replied to you.

By its very nature, dark matter hardly interacts with normal matter and so will not appear in our detectors. However, it will be noticeable as an event that has missing energy and momentum. In that way, we will know we have created dark matter.

I did not agree to GR with them or anything like that

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks. I rest a little easier knowing this was a fluff piece just to get hits on it's site, and there is no possible way that the LHC will spell disaster or destruction for us.



CdT

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It seems we already have an inference of dark matter via the galactic rotation curves, and gravitational lensing. So the LHC may also find more evidence of the existence of dark matter to add to that pile, but we already have quite a bit of evidence of dark matter so if they can't detect it, and they can't, then I don't know how helpful the "Hunt for Dark Matter Particles" can be when they say "'dark matter' will not appear in our detectors".

What it should give you is a very narrow range of mass and also some properties along with it.

Right now the mass range searched for by direct measurements is around 5GeV/C^2 up to around or over 1000GeV/C^2 A missing Energy and Transverse momentum measurement at the LHC can give a wonderful estimate of mass, that is at least better than the 3 orders of magnitude range we have now.

There are theoretical regions where WIMPs (if that is the correct solution) might be, but these typically have a range of 100s of GeV/C^2

So it is more evidence like you say, though it opens up a great deal of possibilities. There might be a whole range of dark matter particles, not just one. Such a measurement MIGHT give us a glimpse into that

a reply to: ErosA433

Have you considered my black matter solution any further?

How many gravitons are thought to exist in a spiral galaxy on average, or an estimation of particular galaxy?

To see if my solution may be correct would take very quickly if you are familiar with related formulaes.

It seems you and your people not comprehending what the gravity field is and how it works, may be extremely most of the reason why 'dark matter' is a mystery.

a reply to: ImaFungi

But mate. Dark matter cannot be gravitons. We are looking for particles with mass. Gravitons have no mass.

Unless I misunderstand you?

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: ImaFungi

But mate. Dark matter cannot be gravitons. We are looking for particles with mass. Gravitons have no mass.

Unless I misunderstand you?

I think you misunderstand me, and the universe.

The field which is warped in the presence of mass, must be composed of somethingness. It exists when mass is not in the vicinity and it exists when mass is in the vicinity, in short, it exists. How can this universally traversing, existing field, be fundamentally massless?

I'm pretty dense, but has any of the LHC research translated into practical applications in our daily lives?

I want my anti-gravity car...