Large Hadron Collider set for March restart at 13 TeV

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Phage

ok i am going to assume you are posting truth and the delorean was just a joke wrapped up in science fact?...

Well, in Back to the Future, they used a lighting bolt to provide the power required (1.2 "jiggawatts", Marty!) for the DeLorean to travel forward to 1985 from 1955. They could not get their hands on the plutonium required to power it in 1955, so using the lightning bolt was an improvisation.

So, yeah, the mention of the time-traveling Delorean in the Discovery News Article Phage linked was obviously a joke alluding to the movie -- although the joke loses something once a detailed explanation is given.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It is not wise to mix fiction and non fiction together while trying to prove a point of seriousness to others.

anyhow the point in that post made was a false one as far as i have found the collider produces heat 100x more than a lightening bolt.

so it seems that not just the time travel was fictional but also the claim that the hottest temp. on earth is lightening is also fictional.

this collider stuff is extremely dangerous and all the research can now be done without the collider using modern monitoring tect.

when the were first trying to capture this natural event they had to bbe there on the mountain monitering it but now for less money they could build a coulpe hundred sites and hook up to our fancy new light communication and get likely more results for less money and negate the strangelet chance of harming us all.

Is there any reason they should choose not to research this naturally if it is now possible to view the same events as viewed in the collider?

Zero risk in the natural route and grave risk in the collider.

What is the reward for the danger level?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Is there any reason they should choose not to research this naturally if it is now possible to view the same events as viewed in the collider?

Zero risk in the natural route and grave risk in the collider.

What is the reward for the danger level?

Define "Grave Risk".

I'm super excited to see this machine whir back to life! If we confirmed the Higgs Boson at just 7 TeV, imagine what we'll find at higher energies! We live in exciting times.

a reply to: deadeyedick

The reward is an end to the status quo & everything we think we know about reality.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Your logic is not very sound when everything is at risk.

"We are not dead yet" is not very comforting when we have the option to view this naturally.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Is there any reason they should choose not to research this naturally...

They are. They're watching nature in the target chamber, surrounded with lots of instrumentation.

Look, a proton moving at a certain speed is a proton moving at a certain speed. There's not a natural, safe way of moving it at that speed, or an evil, diabolical way. Speed is speed.

Therefore, as all the collisions of protons, small nuclei and electrons we get from space every day, all day, for eternity haven't formed strangelets, then the answer isn't "we must use NATURAL protons", whatever that might mean, it's "this doesn't happen for some reason or we would be very small by now".

originally posted by: Boeing777
This is the sort of doom porn that turns me on.

*love*
So rare to meet a fellow Doomer in these here parts!

originally posted by: whiteblack
13TeV restart in March got me thinking they are restarting on Friday 13th, March. Bad lucky day.

It just proves they have no concern for our curent beliefs or that they like to poke fun at superstition.

Either way only a fool would choose that date.

a reply to: Bedlam

spin master flash.

it is not the same

diamonds we make are not the same as what is found in the ground.

back to the point i made about how technology will now allow us to combine hundreds of monitoring sites and just view and not create.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

Either way only a fool would choose that date.

How could you miss that? The only way that would be better would be if you had a full eclipse happen that day, and an earthquake.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Bedlam

spin master flash.

it is not the same

It is EXACTLY the same. A proton is just like every other proton. Velocity is velocity. There is no difference.

eta: Hey, there's even a word for that...paraskevidekatriaphobia. Try saying THAT one ten times real fast.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: whiteblack
13TeV restart in March got me thinking they are restarting on Friday 13th, March. Bad lucky day.

It just proves they have no concern for our curent beliefs or that they like to poke fun at superstition.

Either way only a fool would choose that date.

It's all controlled occult science.

it is not the same but "like"

we do not have all the answers cause if we did we would have no need for such ventures.

this can now be done more effectively without the collider

originally posted by: deadeyedick
it is not the same but "like"

It is the same, like "identically".

Protons are protons, and there isn't any difference between any two of them. They're as alike as it gets. Do you think that space protons are somehow 'more natural'?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

It is not wise to mix fiction and non fiction together while trying to prove a point of seriousness to others.

Personally, I don't mind a little humor or "human-ness" showing through in the articles I read. It sometimes breaks the monotony. That depends on the source of the article and the humor itself, but considering that was only a "Discovery News" article (i.e., it wasn't a scientific Journal or a greypaper), and consideringthe allusion to the movie was an obvious one, I had no problem with it.

this collider stuff is extremely dangerous and all the research can now be done without the collider using modern monitoring tect.

The proton collisions that happen in the LHC happen in nature every day -- in fact the natural collisions are more energetic. The LHC tries to duplicate these collisions (albeit at lower energies than in nature) because they can then control where and when those collisions occur, which allows them to have their detection equipment going to gather data on those collisions. It would be almost impossible to gather that data on one of those collisions occurring in nature, not knowing when and where that natural collision will happen.

The Large Hadron Collider vs. Cosmic Rays -which one wins the energy battle?

originally posted by: deadeyedick

we do not have all the answers cause if we did we would have no need for such ventures.

We're past the question "are protons all the same". Now we're after other answers that have tougher questions.

What you're saying is like "we can't be sure all 1s are the same if we're still mucking about with the number theory of logarithmic differential equations"

originally posted by: deadeyedick

it is not the same

diamonds we make are not the same as what is found in the ground.

On a macro level they are not the same, because in nature there are impurities, etc that affect natural diamond formation (and I mean diamonds as a whole, not just the diamond crystal formation). However, they are the same at microscopic scales.

Down at the crystal level, one natural diamond crystal is the same as one artificial diamond crystal. The manner at which one crystal grows is always "natural", no matter if that crystal is being artificially coerced to grow or not.

But even if you think that one crystal may differ from another, let's go to an even smaller level -- the atomic level. The carbon atoms in a natural diamond are exactly identical to the carbon atoms in one crystal of an artificial diamond. They don't use "artificial carbon"; they use carbon.

Let's get even smaller yet, down to the nuclear level. The proton in a carbon atom is no different than a proton in any other atom. That proton certainly doesn't know if it is part of an artificial diamond or a natural one. There are not "diamond protons" that differ from "hydrogen protons" that differ from "iron protons"; there are just "protons".

originally posted by: deadeyedick
diamonds we make are not the same as what is found in the ground.

well, actually, they are, if you're talking about diamond and not zirc or something.

Only man-made are more perfect than natural.

But we're talking about basic particles, not diamond. Electrons are electrons. Protons are protons. There aren't natural and man-made ones.

You...DO...understand that part, right? They aren't somehow fabricating faux manmade protons here? It's 100% "natural" protons. Like they all are.

Bring it, it didn't destroy the world last time,
so i welcome the restart of the large hardon collider.
Science! The thing that ACTUALLY progresses mankind.
Let´s see religion do this.