Banner
    UFOs Causing Problems at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
    By Helen Barratt | November 24th 2011 02:22 PM | 45 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    UFOs or ‘Unidentified Falling Objects’ have apparently been causing problems in the form of mysterious rapid beam dumps at the Large Hadron Collidor (LHC). It is not yet known definitely what is causing these UFOs and even exactly what they are. One as yet unproven hypothesis is that they are dust particles falling into the beam path and triggering a beam dump. Studies have shown they occur primarily at the injection points shortly after injection, often but not always creating problems before the LHC beams have become stable.

    There had been over 5000 below threshold UFO events by June 2011, yet surprisingly, at that time their frequency was not increasing with further intensity advances. Possible sources of these hypothetical dust particles include distributed ion pumps, electrical discharges, movable devices and articles frozen or condensated at cold elements. Simulations suggest that these hypothetical dust particles are also positively ionized and repelled from the beam.

    As a laywoman who is very interested in the recent reports of hypothetical superluminal neutrinos being produced by the LHC and measured by OPERA at Gran Sasso, I was quite fascinated to read a report about these UFOs at the LHC on viXra several months ago, which contained links to a powerpoint of a detailed June 2011 UFO report from the CERN LHC Beam Operating Committee.

    In September 2011, another quite technical Powerpoint report from J. Wenninger at CERN’s LHC Beams Department Operation group,  provided an update of the latest UFO research findings see http://jwenning.web.cern.ch/jwenning/documents/LHC/Talks/LHC.PAF.Sep11.ppt however, I was hoping that more layperson reader friendly scientific information, would have become more generally available on the Internet by now, so hopefully writing this blog will help to bring this about, in the meantime here is a quite detailed scientific paper describing the UFO's in the LHC.

    LHC Operation Challenges
    Wikipedia describes some of the huge Large Hadron Collider's  ‘operational challenges’. :-

    'The size of the LHC constitutes an exceptional engineering challenge with unique operational issues on account of the amount of energy stored in the magnets and the beams. While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (equivalent to 2.4 tons of TNT) and the total energy carried by the two beams reaches 724 MJ (173 kilograms of TNT).’‘Loss of only one ten-millionth part (10−7) of the beam is sufficient to quench a superconducting magnet, while the beam dump must absorb 362 MJ (87 kilograms of TNT) for each of the two beams. These energies are carried by very little matter: under nominal operating conditions (2,808 bunches per beam, 1.15×1011 protons per bunch), the beam pipes contain 1.0×10−9 gram of hydrogen, which, in standard conditions for temperature and pressure, would fill the volume of one grain of fine sand.’

    The ViXra Log
    The Vixra log website claims to provide news about science in general and also reports on large scientific experiments, plus articles on unusual episodes from the history of science and mathematics. Earlier this year in February 2011 this viXra log reported that :-

    ‘The Large Hadron Collider’s cryogenic systems have now cooled down all the superconducting magnets to 1.9 degree Kelvin as required for this year’s physics runs. This means that the main accelerator ring is essentially ready for beam injection which is scheduled to start on 21st February.’‘The plan will be to bring the collider back to last years peak luminosity of 0.2/nb/s as quicky as possible so that the experiments can start to add significant data to what they have already collected. The bunch spacing used will be 75 ns instead of the 150 ns used before. With this closer packing it should be possible to circulate about 900 bunches in each beam to more than double the beam intensity. Further luminosity increases will be achieved with a tighter squeeze of the beams at the collision points.'

    'Overall they hope to slowly progress towards 1.0/nb/s luminosity then just work on maximum running efficiency.’ ‘Some problems identified towards the end of last year will have to be dealt with. This includes Unidentified Falling Objects in the beam pipe and a build up of electron clouds. To clean the pipes they will “scrub” with extra high intensity beams at lower energy using 50ns spacing to pack in even more bunches. As last year, the proton physics operations will end in November to allow time for some more heavy ion collisions. This year they will aim for a significant increase in luminosity for these collisions. At the end of the extended proton physics run in 2012 they may try out collisions of protons on heavy ions. As last year we plan to closely follow the progress on viXra Log.’

    Then this Vixra log reported that :-

    ‘In his talk Myres gave some more information about UFOs. These are mysterious rapid beam loss events thought to be caused by particles falling into the beam path. They can trigger the protection mechanisms to dump the beams. Studies have shown that they most often occur at the injection points and almost always shortly after injection causing problems before they get to stable beams. Surprisingly their frequency is not increasing with further intensity advances. They were 110 of these UFO events last year and already 5000 this year, but only the strongest cases can trigger a beam dump.’

    The CERN LHC Beam Operating Committee Powerpoint Report on UFOs
    A detailed powerpoint report on these UFOs dated June 2011 from the CERN LHC Beam Operating Committee authored by Tobias Baer contains many interesting statistical graphs and diagrams, detailing extensive research into these LHC UFOs, including some of the following information and summaries:-

    UFO Dumps

    •       18 beam dumps due to UFOs in 2010.

    •        UFOs are fast beam losses (loss duration some 10 turns)

    •        UFOs occur often at unconventional loss locations (e.g. in the arc)

    •       11 beam dumps due to UFOs in 2011.

    •        8 in injection region (2010: 2)

    •        1 dump at 450 GeV.                 (6.6.2011)

    UFOs Detection in 2011

    •        2010:113 UFOs below threshold found in logging database. (E. Nebot)

    •        2011:Online UFO detection from live BLM data.
                Losses (RS 4) of two BLMs in 40m areabove 1E-4 Gy/s.
               
    RS 2 / RS 1 > 0.55 (UFO average :0.89).
                RS 3 / RS 2 > 0.45 (UFOaverage: 0.79).

    •       Over 8000  triggers so far.

    •        From subset of about 300 manually verified triggers:

    About 65% are UFOs, 15% ambiguous cases, 20% are false triggers.

    •       For most analysis additional cut. E.g.:

    Only flat top UFOs, loss of UFO BLM (RS05) > 2∙10-4 Gy/s (≈ 2 ‰ of threshold).

    74 events remain of subset, of which 71 are clear UFOs (96%) and 3 are ambiguous cases.

    Events Below Threshold

    “threshold”= lowest threshold in standard arc cell.

    Most events are much below threshold

    Spatial UFO Distribution

    On average:10 UFOs/hour

    Peak Signal

    •       No clear dependency of peak loss on intensity.  (cf.E.B. Holzer at Evian Dec. 2010)

    •       No clear dependency of peak loss on bunch intensity.

    •       Loss duration:UFOs have the tendency to become faster with increasing intensity.
                                   (cf. E.B. Holzer at Evian Dec. 2010)

    Peak Signal vs Loss Duration

    Tendency that harder UFOs are faster.

    Beam dump on 6.6.2011

    UFO at MKI in Pt.2, at 450 GeV.

    •       From fit to losses
     (BLMEI.05L2.B1E10_MKI.D5L2.B1):

    •        Amplitude:7.73 Gy/s

                            (Threshold: 2.3 Gy/s)

    •        Width:0.77 ms

                resulting speed of transiting dust particle  = 0.47 m/s. (assuming ϵn=2.2µm·rad)

    Peak Losses

    336 candidate UFOs at 450 GeV. Signal RS01 > 2∙10-4 Gy/s.

    + 1 event with 3.5Gy/s (dump 06.06.2011)

    Peak loss for MKI UFOs at 450 GeV.

    Threshold (RS1 = 2.3 Gy/s)

    UFOs around Injection Region

    •       679 UFOs aroundthe MKIs caused 9 beam dumps.

                Most of the UFOs around the MKIs occur before going to stable beams.

    MKI UFOs During Scrubbing

    •       Typical scenario for MKI UFOs during scrubbing: Loss spikes occur in first few minutes after an injection and go away then.

    UFOs at MKIs per fill

    Flashover of MKI D Pt.8 before Fill 1721 (vacuum valves moved in).

    Correlation with Vacuum

    Despite a large vacuum spike, there is no clear correlation with UFO's 

    UFOs at MKIs

    •       08.04.– 05.05. in total 460 fast loss events around MKIs.

    (104 around MKI in IP2,336 around MKI in IP8). Distribution of first BLM which sees the loss:

    Next Steps

    •       Improve diagnostics.

                Acquisition of BLM Study Buffer for UFO events.

                Successful test during technical stop.

    •        Better localization of MKI UFOs.

                Additional BLMs during next Technical Stop.

    •        MD on MKI UFOs.

    •        Better understanding of Quench Limit.

    •        Additional Simulations (F. Zimmermann, Y. Levinsen)

    •       Mitigation:Further increase of BLM thresholds...
                            But: For higher energies thresholds need to be decreased.

    Summary

    •       11 UFO related beam dumps in 2011 so far (18 in 2010).

    •       Over 5000 UFOs below dump threshold detected in June 2011 so far.
                Most events at 3.5 TeV.
                UFO rate constant at 10 UFOs/hour at 3.5 TeV.

    •       Many UFOs around injection kicker magnets
                During scrubbing: increased UFO rate after each injection.
                Increased UFO rate after MKI Flashover.

    •       Next steps: UFO MD, Improve the diagnostics, better understanding of quench limits, learn from simulations.

    UFOs in 2010

    •       18 beam dumps due to UFOs.
                (since 07.07.2010)

    •       113 UFOs below threshold found in logging database. (E.Nebot) (03.08.2010 - 28.10.2010)

    •       UFO rate proportional to intensity.

    •       No dependency of peak signal on intensity. (cf. E.B. Holzerat Evian Dec. 2010)

    •       Loss duration has tendency to become faster with higher intensity. (cf. E.B. Holzerat Evian Dec. 2010)

    Event Rate

    •       113 events below threshold found in 2010. (E. Nebot)

    •       UFO rate: proportional to beam intensity.

    Calibration of Tloss

    Correlation of Tloss and width of Gaussian fitted to post mortem turn-by-turn data.

    Fast Loss Event Rate

    •       After the increase of the BLM Threshold by a factor of 3 there were about 4.1times less beam dumps due to fast loss events.

    UFO Algorithm

    1.      Losses (RS 4) of at least two BLMs within 40m are above 1E-4 Gy/s.

    2.     A BLM is not taken into account if

     It is at a TCT

    It is in IP3, IP6 or IP7

    RS 2/ RS 1 > 0.55 (UFO average : 0.89).
    RS 3 / RS 2 > 0.45 (UFO average: 0.79).

     3.         The acquisition is skipped for a few seconds after injection warning and beam wire scan timing event.

    LHC UFO Buster

    LHC Console Manager -> Fixed Displays -> BLM -> UFO Buster

    UFO Detection

    •       For 2010: 113 UFOs below threshold found in logging database. (E.Nebot)

    •       For 2011: Online UFO detection by UFO Buster.

                Detects UFOs in BLM concentrator data (1Hz).

    •       5000 UFOs below threshold found so far.

               Most events are much belowthreshold.

     4905 candidate UFOs at 3.5 TeV.

    “threshold”= lowest threshold in standard arc cell.

    Dump on 01.05.2011

    Dynamics of Dust Particles

    From simulations:

    •       Dust particle will be positively ionized and be repelled from the beam.

    Beam intensity: 2.3∙1012 protons, Al object.

    •       Loss duration of a few ms.

    Losses become shorter for larger beam intensities.

    Correlation with Wire Scanner

    UFO size

    •       Two extreme cases:

    •        UFO much larger than beam: the beam is imaging the UFO.

    •        UFO much smaller than beam: the UFO is imaging the beam.

    Most UFO shapes are Gaussian, thus most UFOs are expected to be smaller than the beam.

    UFO Speed

    The UFO speed corresponds to the expected speed for a free fall from the aperture.

    Known Dust Particle Sources

    •       Distributed ion pumps (PF-AR, HERA).

    •       Electrical Discharges (PF-AR).

    •       Movable Devices.

    •       Particles frozen or condensated at cold elements. (ANKA)

    The additional information about the LHC UFOs that I was able to glean from the more recent September report from CERN was in summary :-

    'Very fast beam loss events in super-conducting regions of the LHC were THE surprise of 2010 –nicknamed UFOs (Unidentified Falling Object).

    Beam dumps triggered by UFO events:

    18 beam dumps in 2010,

    11 beam dumps in 2011, last beam dump mid-July 2011.

    All but one dump at 3.5 TeV.

    Things are‘calming down’ at 3.5 TeV, but the situation is worrying for future 7 TeV operation: Extrapolation to 7 TeV predicts ~ 100 dumps / year.

    Due to lower quench thresholds and larger deposited energy density.

    UFO Rate ~slowly decreasing to ~ 3-4 / hour 

    Most likely hypothesis for UFO: small ‘dust ‘ particle falling into the beam

    UFO loss amplitude distribution is consisted with measured dust particle distributions in the assembly halls…

    The UFOs are distributed around the machine. About 7% of all UFOs are around theinjection kickers.

    Mainly UFOs around injection kickers (MKI) 

    We are focusing on the understanding of UFO at the MKIs

    Detailed FLUKA model of the injection region to reproduce UFO losses and help localizing the source(s).

    Spare MKI that was removed from the LHC last year will be opened for dust analysis.'

    Comments

    Johannes Koelman
    Helen -- it seems you are truly frightened by this 27 km long super machine. Let's see if I can put you somewhat at ease. You write "While operating, the total energy stored in the magnets is 10 GJ (equivalent to 2.4 tons of TNT)". That is nothing. When you top up the petrol in your car, you are keeping a 1 GJ bomb (10% of the whole LHC) under control. A line of traffic jam 27 km long contains almost a thousand times the explosive power of all magnets in the LHC combined. By all standards, the LHC is a giant weakling, way too weak to constitute any threat.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thank you for your comments Johannes. I don't think that I am 'truly frightened' by the LHC just in awe of its enormous power and potential, even though you and Gerhard keep telling me that it couldn't hurt a fly. I am also very interested in the new particles and forces that it is capable of creating along with the logistics of simply running this huge machine. I am especially interested in the computer programming that has evolved over the last decade with thousands of past and present programmers writing the code that controls the selection criteria for the 3 level trigger system for example and also probably the Beam Loss Monitoring (BLM) System. I would also be very interested to have a look around this programming code which is basically driving the machine.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    UvaE
    When you top up the petrol in your car, you are keeping a 1 GJ bomb,
    Even more actually, at least for many oversized cars on North American roads. Gasoline contains about 15 MJ per liter, which for a 60 L tank (about 15 gallons) amounts to almost 2 GJ.
    Sources:
    http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/ENERGY/ENERGY_POLICY/tables.html
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation
    Johannes Koelman
    "Even more actually, at least for many oversized cars on North American roads. Gasoline contains about 15 MJ per liter, which for a 60 L tank (about 15 gallons) amounts to almost 2 GJ."

    Indeed, but I was talking about Helen's car. I'm pretty sure Helen drives a small fuel-efficient eco-friendly car with a tank way smaller than 60 L. ;-)
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Indeed, but I was talking about Helen's car. I'm pretty sure Helen drives a small fuel-efficient eco-friendly car with a tank way smaller than 60 L. ;-)
    Yes Johannes, you are correct, though my car is also a rather aggressive looking, bright red sports car on the outside and a hairy, sandy, smelly dog basket on wheels for my three dogs, who I take to the beach daily, on the inside! Oh, and a mobile food dispenser and salt lick for my horses. I would like to have a newer more fuel efficient car like the new jaguar one day soon.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Clearly this LHC is not about being lesser or bigger in energy than an a tank full of car fuel or a bomb. This huge energy is used with very very very tiny parts of matter. Then "interesting" things start happening, things man might not know anything about. That is why these happenings are called experiments! That is why some people might be worried. Playing with fire?

    Gerhard Adam
    Then "interesting" things start happening, things man might not know anything about.
    My problem is that this sort of comment is filled with all manner of innuendo without actually saying anything.  The point of experiments is to learn how things work, so it is ridiculous to suggest that we must understand everything about particle physics before we can conduct experiments.  However, where the comment becomes disingenuous is when it implies that the lack of knowledge is synonymous with NO knowledge. 

    We should be clear that the problem isn't that scientists lack knowledge.  The problem is that YOU lack knowledge and want to blame scientists for not personally reassuring you about all the things that you don't understand.
    Playing with fire?
    What is that supposed to mean?  It's simply another slam suggesting that scientists are "playing" with dangerous forces, while remaining completely oblivious to potential dangers (that apparently only the conspiracy nutcases can see).  Well, you might as well suggest that the LHC work will anger the gods and they may unleash their vengeance.
    Mundus vult decipi
    I find your comment in line with the aloof haughtiness of materialist science that has led to a collapse of trust between science and humanity. Nobody consulted the people who paid for LHC (the taxpayers) and furthermore all the data thus far indicates that ordinary humans with hearts that beat would rather the half of the world that goes hungry would be fed rather than get by on 2 bucks a day while a bunch of Freemasons in Zurich try and smash things up that they don't understand. The principle purpose of the experiment is to take apart the standard model yet try and talk with those same pseudo scientists about alternative physics models and the haughty arrogance returns. CERN is brimming with abstraction and frankly populated by a lot of low grade peer review brown nosers.

    Gerhard Adam
    I find such comments disingenuous and naive.  If you want people fed, then stop whining about money and do something about the political infrastructure in the countries that can't seem to distribute food.  See how much influence you have in reshaping the societies that have such difficulties.  See how much influence you have in providing better farming methods, etc.

    In short, the perpetual clamor for "just a few more dollars" is a straw-man argument and isn't worthy of anyone truly considering the plight of people (i.e. starvation and disease) on this planet.
    Mundus vult decipi
    blue-green
    When LHC was first getting ready to be powered up, I recall reading that its electrical demands are so huge, that it would be fully operational (cooled) only during certain allocated times when the electrical grid could handle the load. Can anyone bring me up to date as to whether that is still a major issue?
    ((Johannes, what is your email or contact info? I keep having a month or longer delay in being available to dialog with you concerning the entropic view of forces.))

    @ Gerhard Adam

    The point of experiments is to learn how things work, so it is ridiculous to suggest that we must understand everything about particle physics before we can conduct experiments.

    In my reaction I did not suggest anything about first understanding before experimenting.

    I only suggested, when one does not understand everything, it might come out after the experiment, that one was playing with fire.

    Nothing new... for example, the first ones experimenting with radium, did they know what they were doing? Maybe they knew only that what was known at that time.

    To my knowledge Marie Curie died of some form of radiation disease.

    Gerhard Adam
    Yes, Marie Curie died of leukemia, likely induced by radiation exposure.  I'm not clear on what you're point is, since Marie Curie wasn't specifically experimenting on radioactivity using herself as a guinea pig.  In addition, it is useful to note that radium was also being used by industry to paint watch dials amid claims that it was entirely safe.

    I'm sure similar points could be made regarding the germ theory and disease transmission, hygiene, and cleanliness standards (especially in medicine).  The fact that some information that isn't known may impact individuals is hardly surprising, but isn't exactly in the same category as what you're referring to regarding the LHC.  Would you consider the use of antibiotics to be "playing with fire" because people didn't apply prudent measures and consequently gave rise to antibiotic resistant bacteria?

    Like it or not, you can't talk about "playing with fire", if no one knows what "fire" is nor can anticipate what it is.  That's simply an arbitrary invocation of the precautionary principle which precludes doing anything without complete knowledge.  It's a Catch-22.
    Mundus vult decipi
    Another example of playing with fire:

    The US has expressed deep concern about a deadly variant of the avian influenza virus ‘created’ by a Dutch professor and has delayed publication of his findings pending an investigation. Experts fear terrorists could get their hands on the information and use it as a biological weapon, reports Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant on Friday.

    In a twist of irony, the research was commissioned by US medical research agency NIH. The institute asked Ron Fouchier - professor of molecular virology at Rotterdam’s Erasmus teaching hospital – to investigate whether the bird flu virus H5N1 could lead to a pandemic.

    Virus DNA adjusted
    Many scientists reacted with scepticism to the research, which was carried out amid high security. Fouchier showed that with a small number of mutations in the virus DNA, he was able to change it into an extremely infectious variant.

    Avian flu is rarely transferred from animal to human, but, when it happens, the result is usually fatal. By deliberately modifying the virus’ genes, Dr Fouchier was able to induce H5N1 transmission between ferrets, which are commonly used to study flu transmission between humans because of similar immune systems.

    Research as bioterrorism
    The Dutch professor submitted an article based on his research to the US scientific journal Science. The magazine contacted the US advisory board for bioterrorism looking for approval before publication. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity is looking into whether the altered virus could have global consequences should it be released ‘into the wild’.

    De Volkskrant says Dr Fouchier is unwilling to comment until the results of the investigation are made known. The decision to postpone and possibly prohibit his article has sparked off a huge debate on scientific freedom among researchers.

    The findings of separate Japanese research on H5N1, which show similar results, are also being examined.

    from: http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/us-fears-dutch-research-could-be-used-...

    Gerhard Adam
    Don't confuse politics with science.  That isn't to say that scientists will not be subject to political pressures, but that's a different discussion.
    Mundus vult decipi
    from previous post by Gerhard Adam:

    > Would you consider the use of antibiotics to be "playing with fire" because people didn't apply prudent >measures and consequently gave rise to antibiotic resistant bacteria?

    Yes! Thank you! This is a slow simmering fire, still going on in the present.

    for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/business/27germ.html

    Gerhard Adam
    OK, then you've demonstrated some confusion in separating science from public policy.  The science isn't "playing with fire", however you may argue to varying degrees about the implementation of public policy without all the scientific considerations in place.
    Mundus vult decipi
    For those interested about a new paradigm of the forces of the Universe, aptempting to explain how gravity works and why we can expect to find particles or waves that will be faster than light, visit the website www.theyinyanguniverse.com and download the ebook for free.
    Marc

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    The following is a comment made by blue-green yesterday, that I have edited to correct the link and I now accidentally appear to be the author of the comment :-
    I found an 2008 article in IEEE Spectrum that confirms what I vaguely recalled about the energy requirements to run LHC. 
    http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/embedded-systems/powering-the-large-hadron-collider

    Curiously, I could not find much of anything helpful that is more recent. How much computing energy does it take to process the flood of data ...  and check everything using multiple approaches?
    With shutdowns for retooling and upgrades ahead, it is difficult to project what the future power demands of LHC will be and just what will be the available power options.  


    The multinational effort to provide power is already clouded with shutdowns of nuclear power plants and of course we can't thank enough the financial wizards and powers-that-be for pulling the rug out from under the Euro ... and for politicians making impossible-to-fullfill promises for an electorate that demands impossible things.

    Although the Internet clearly brings with it many efficiencies, the boon is squandered with the amount of TNT joule equivalents it takes to power all the porn, fluff 'n puff.

    Has anyone seen recent estimates as to what it takes to power the human world's daily computational requirements? I recall seeing that it is currently somewhere near 10% of the total energy consumption from all non-renewables. Mabe more ... much more ... depending on how you define what is a computation. For some, everything is computations ... even a traffic jam, 27 kilometers long.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Whoops, sorry Blue-Green, I just edited your comment to correct the hyperlink (which wasn't working) and now it looks as though I was the original poster of your comment. This is the first time I have edited a comment on my blogs and I'm not sure why it has removed your name as the original commenter. Maybe Hank can explain? Anyway, thanks for the interesting link.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    I don't know who or what is interferring with the LHC, but THANK YOU!!!! Humans are too ignorant at this point in their evolution to be operating a machine that is capable of distroying not only this planet but a large portion of the Galaxy. Hopefully something will occur soon that will make it completely inoperable.

    Gerhard Adam
    You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.  Where does this crap come from?
    Mundus vult decipi
    blue-green
    n slightly more proper English, Gerhard should say ....

    From where comes this crap?

    Wherefore cometh this crap?

    How Gerhard got crappy with his grammar s part of the long story ....
    of how the vernacular tongue got crappy with science.

    International readers know that one should not end a sentence with prepositions, as in "from" or "at".

    Although it is common in to hear in America the crappy

    "Do you who where it is at?

    It is better and simpler to inquire,

    "Where is it?"

    Maybe all of this crap, Gerhard, comes from entropic gradients.

    Which are also computations.
    Gerhard Adam
    ... and how do entropic gradients relate to an unwarranted concern about the power of the LHC to destroy a "large portion of the Galaxy"?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Maybe all of this crap, Gerhard, comes from entropic gradients. Which are also computations.
    Maybe these entropic gradients are relevant here blue-green? This paper says :-
    The new approach presented here shows that Newton's third law is not verified in systems out of equilibrium due to an additional entropic gradient term present in the particle's momentum.
    BTW I must admit that I was amazed to read in your link above about powering the LHC that :- 
    Spanning the border between Switzerland and France, the 27-kilometer accelerator ring with its accompaniment of radiation-hardened integrated circuits, feeder accelerators, computers, and supercooled superconducting magnets will, according to varying estimates, draw between 220 and 300 megawatts of electricity—enough to power the city of Geneva twice over. Keeping the power flowing reliably takes a good bit of ingenuity, as a sudden loss of power could mean serious damage to the machine and months of lost work...The superconductors must be cryogenically cooled to temperatures between 1.8 and 4.5 kelvins (colder than outer space). If the temperature creeps even a fraction of a kelvin above that, the magnets stop working and lose control of the beam. An uncontrolled beam can melt 500 kilograms of copper in an instant, causing serious damage and halting the experiment for months. So it is crucial to keep power flowing into CERN at all times.
    Very interesting.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    "One should not end a sentence with prepositions."
     
    Stuff and nonsense! That's what they're for!

    (Think about it.)

    Seriously, we all know that Americans have precisely no sensitivity towards our beautiful language, but the reason "Where's it at?" is so cringe-inducingly foul is not that there's an "at" at the end but that the "at" shouldn't be in the sentence at all at! "Where" does a perfectly good job on its own in "Where is it?" at.  You would not want to correct "Where's it at?" to "At where is it?" would you at?



    blue-green
    ... and how do entropic gradients relate to an unwarranted concern about the power of the LHC to destroy a "large portion of the Galaxy"?

    First of all, my apologies for my garbled response yesterday. I was working on and testing a computer which would suddenly say, "no network cable is connected". After trying various alternatives, I finally moved its internal network card to a slot I made available on the motherboard. It's too late now to edit the post, which I didn't even see go through, where it is supposed to say, in deteriorated Queen's English "Do you know where it is at?"


    Anyhow, this deterioration is of the same kind in which a populace's understanding of fundamental science can degrade. Without a continuous effort to maintain high standards, these standards will slip away as the cogitations people make tend to the far greater number of mediocre speculations. 


    For a more general exposition of what I am trying to say and wanted to discuss with Johannes, I'll give a link below to a tentative 1000 word article I wrote recently. It is written more in the context of a real estate site, so it doesn't address the physics head on, however, if you get through the footnotes, you'll see well enough that I have some 30 plus years of experience with the ideas.

    I would be willing to rewrite the essential points in fewer words right here. Just give me a boundary condition, like 15 words or 150 words exactly and I'll rise to the challenge within 24 hours hopefully.

    Here is the hidden link: cut n' paste as you wish.

    http://www.mountainlake.com/mlp/Where.html
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Thanks for the link blue-green, please feel free to write as many words as you want to describe the essential points regarding the liklihood of entropic gradients affecting the UFO beam dumps at the LHC, which I find a very relevant and interesting topic. I am not one of those bloggers who feels that I somehow own the comments on my blogs, hence my surprise when I edited yours and suddenly appeared as the owner of the comment! I have included the following description from your link in case you do not find time or your computer's internet connection keeps having problems :-
    'ENTROPY is all about counting the number of ways a state can occur. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that an initial state will most likely run down from its Apex to lower states which have the most routes to them. Left to its own, without an improbable source of energy or quality to raise it back to an unusual state, an initial low entropy state will naturally "decay" to higher entropy states for which there are more pathways to be reached. Because they have more ways to occur, the higher entropy states are more probable or frequent. The states with the highest entropy have the greatest number of ways of coming into being and are therefore the most likely to be found. The total number of potential pathways after each trial increases exponentially, so to keep the numbers manageable, physicists use the logarithm of this number as the measure of entropy and thereby get a measure that follows the laws of simple addition.
    Without being more technical, you now have a glimpse of how gradients of entropy can give the impression of systems being pressured to move in predicable ways as though there were forces acting upon them, when in fact, these "forces", even gravity, have more to do with available pathways than anything else. When you purposely configure things in an improbable manner, as when you tidy a room or better, create a special and unusual product, your new arrangement can put you back at an apex and give you the energy and boost to do new things as your initial state runs down. Little pockets of order are physically equivalent to reservoirs of potential energy. This is why excellence can be energizing. It is worth noting, however, that whether you tidy a room to create order or instead work towards messing up a room, either way, there is sweat energy involved and heat losses which cause the total entropy to increase.'
    The tidying the room analogy is very relevant to me at present, my bedroom is currently cluttered with way too much books, clothes and jewelry which is infuriating my husband who has to share it with me. Trying to sort it out in a half-hearted manner is not going to fix the problem, which I realised yesterday when I tried to do exactly this. 

    The easiest option would be to just throw it all out but then I would have nothing to wear or read when I felt like it, so I will have to try to be more systematic today. I could just throw out all my black clothes, all my psychology books and all my 'way out' jewelry, that would probably get rid of half of them but then what would I wear on my 'fat days' or when I'm feeling a bit high or even low profile and would I ever really miss the psychology books, probably not? To assess the value of each article of clothing, jewelry and book in relation to my overall collection and what I might want to wear or read in the future requires much more logistics, memory and brain power than just throwing out specific categories doesn't it? 

    Deciding which UFO beams to dump at the LHC also sounds as though it can be both simple and complicated depending upon the selection criteria.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    blue-green
    The huge amount of energy, cooling and control that goes into an LHC experiment all goes to create an extremely low entropy intial state. It is no wonder that there are entropic gradients trying to throw it off course. The planned collisions (and the unplanned UFOs) are a cascade to vastly higher entropy states. It is all very one-directional in terms of time. You'll never see the by-products and spent energy recombine into the original highly focused beams and pulses. Getting to an extremely low entropy and improbably initial state is indeed a bit like getting back to near big-bang conditions. It takes a lot of concentrated energy and talent to do it, and yes, of course there are risks, manageable ones as simple as using earth, lead and/or ferro-concrete barriers (and of course the primary detectors) to protect the operators from showers of radiation as the initial states degrade.
    Or, as we say in English, it's bloody fragile at.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Or, as we say in English, it's bloody fragile at.
    Sorry Derek, I have to disagree, I can't imagine anyone saying that.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    "The huge amount of energy, cooling and control that goes into an LHC experiment all goes to create an extremely low entropy intial state."

    Are you sure? I bet the beam temperature (having removed the coherent velocities along the axis), is still embarrasingly hot, nothing like the helium temperature for example. Anyone know?

     


    blue-green
    A laser beam has no temperature unto itself .... nor would a pure particle beam .... that's my guess.
    Keep the hot and black cocktail dress and the jewelry that has ancestral or talismic value that is a doorway to something greater than itself. Use it or lose it.



    Light beams do not have unabiguous temperatures because the energy distribution may say one temperature (think colour temperature in photography) and the intensity say something different. Lasers are even worse because they are coherent and monochromatic as well as being highly directional.  There is a case for saying they have such low variations that their temperature is extremely low.  However systems of particles have random energy distributed in many degrees of freedom and can be given a temperature, which may or may not represent an actual equilibrium with some thermal reservoir. For instance if you rode the CERN beam, and didn't look at the passing scenery, there would be a spread of momenta in the direction of motion and some random bobbing about sideways, which the dampers try to reduce. It's only meaningful to ascribe a temperature to those movements and possibly any purely random variations in the axial direction. Of course dampers would only be able to cool the beam to the temperature of the magnetic field and that will depend on what it couples to: possibly the control electronics, possibly ambient ironwork, I really have no idea which is why I was curious.
     
    No hay palabras para explicar lo que voy a decir, porque durante muchos años e intentado mostrar y hablar de algo que e descubierto sobre PI y los ovnis, y todo gracias a unos cálculos matemáticos que e descubierto, de verdad no me gustaría que alguien pensara que quiero quitar la razón a matemático, físicos o intelectuales en la materia de la ciencia, porque esa no es mi meta, mi meta es mostrar lo que yo e descubierto, por si alguien pudiera ayudarme,
    A qui tenéis esta dirección para poder leer y ver de lo que hablo,
    http://nuevopi.blogspot.com/p

    blue-green
    Any measure that is going to be akin to temperature is going to have something to do with "jitters" and the original statistical definitions of heat and temperature from the likes of Boltzman and Mawell. No particle or laser beam is going to be 100% ideal or perfectly prepared such that if it were measured again in its prepared state, there would be 100% certainty that each and every "particle" is still in its intially prepared state.

    No matter how perfect (and expensive) the control devices, there are still going to be random cosmic rays and neutrinos entering the beam chamber from the astrophysical sources. I don't know what exactly the engineers at CERN do to minimize such things. With solar flares, there is at least a certain correlation that could be established, since there would be an observation of them first happenning some 8 minutes beforehand.

    As I already indicated, the whole complex machine is poised to create a near zero entropy ~ bigbang precondition ~ from which there is going to an explosive shower of processes as the initial state seeks out the much higher entropy pathways available, ideally in the Atlas detector where everything can be safely degraded and measured.

    It is not going to take much to create a "UFO". The very small number of them is a testimony to the excellence and robustness in the overall design. It's a bit like trying to successfully launch a rocket. It is not anywhere as easy as it looks in B movies.

    The beneficial spinnoff from the LHC is going to be more in the development and perfection of these control technologies than in the mental satisfaction of confirming everything in zoo of particle physics. Nano-engineering will make great use of the control technologies and cyrogenics. 





    Yes, the world is not short of energy, it is short of low entropy reservoirs. We call them energy supplies. The two descriptions are fundamentally equivalent.

    However, the beam does not need to be low entropy to recreate the BB - whether or not inflation had a low entropy prior state. The furthest back that we can probe is quark-soup and that was about as entropic as anyone could wish. The only reason we need to make such a carefully controlled beam is to get a decent number of hadrons to collide at all. The early universe just took energy out of a Higgs field that just happened to be lying around and banged everything together chaotically.

    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Derek, you seem to know something about everything, the Jack of all trades I've been looking for maybe, don't worry I'm only joking, or am I? BTW I have sent you a 'friendlist' request, not because I want to be your friend but mainly so that I can easily track your comments, which are always interesting, especially the ones you delete. Still I wonder what you know (if anything) about the electron cloud effect which is also causing stability/entropy problems alongside the UFOs in the particle accelerators/colliders that I briefly mentioned in this blog?
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    "Derek, you seem to know something about everything, the Jack of all trades I've been looking for maybe"

    No, I just Google obsessively! Sort of displacement activity when I'm confused.

    I hadn't heard of this type of electron cloud before. The Wikipedia article is reasonably clear.  Though, as my background (and my foreground) is electronics, I am probably more at home in an electron cloud than quite a few professional physicists.

    Yes, sorry about the deletions.  The old imagination sometimes runs riot and I often put in a few "in" jokes, but if, on reflection, I think it's liable to create more heat than light, I delete it. I'm not up to speed on all the site bells and whistles, like the Friends list, yet but I will get there.

    What are you specifically interested in about the collider? Safety issues? Stability theory? (Ugh!) I found the faster-than-light stuff fascinating and looking into it actually gave me an understanding of special relativity that I never quite got when at uni. Forget entropy, though. It's a very beautiful concept when used in its proper context but is prone to the same abuse as the buzz words of quantum mechanics and for the same psychological reasons I imagine. I hope to blog on it some time, but I do have a day job and I'd quite like that bit of my world not to change! :) 
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    What are you specifically interested in about the collider? Safety issues? Stability theory? (Ugh!) I found the faster-than-light stuff fascinating and looking into it actually gave me an understanding of special relativity that I never quite got when at uni.
    I'm specifically interested in any new forces and/or particles that these particle collidors are capable of producing but that we are not yet capable for various reasons of fully observing and/or measuring and/or understanding. 

    Maybe some new particles or forces are creating effects like these electron clouds and UFOs and the subsequent beam dumps of the beams that created them and then annihilating themselves and their own creation, you know the going back in time and killing their own grandfathers concept? The hypothetical superluminal neutrinos for example if they are being created are fascinating. David Halliday and I have been discussing the possible worldlines of these hypothetical tachyon neutrinos on my cork board (only visible to the Science20 community who have 'friendlisted' me and moderators maybe) and naturally if they are somehow exceeding the speed of light then there is a possibility that they could then travel back in time and I can't help wondering if they can then also even keep oscillating and somehow reenter the light cone and release some form of energy in the process. How would we detect the effects of this if it occurred? Anyway, its not always a good idea to speculate about these things on a scientific website without scientific evidence to support such a hypothesis, but you did ask!
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    I have what seems to me to be a complete (ahem) solution to the Grandfather Paradox, which I shall put up some time. There are problems though, but they get less important at the level of single particles. At the Doctor Who level, things become a bit counter-intuitive - it's hard to imagine what it's like when what you haven't done yet determines what you are about to do. I don't mean "determines logically what you *must* do" but "causes you to do them" This sounds like the "big hand out of the sky" theory, that time somehow "forbids" you to kill your grandfather. Nope, it's plain physics.  Wait and see.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    I have what seems to me to be a complete (ahem) solution to the Grandfather Paradox, which I shall put up some time.
    How exciting, can't wait, though 'some time' sounds a bit ominous. Hopefully I won't be a grandma by then?


    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Aitch
    What most people can't get their heads around, is why anyone would want to surmise the universe started with a big bang, then build a machine to try to re-create it....Isn't one beginning of the universe enough?

    Playing with fire someone said, well, suppose, just perchance, the experiment SUCCEEDS, and a 2nd universe is created.....then what?

    Bags I the front seat.....ha ha

    The focussing of vast amounts of energy both in space and time, is even harder to imagine than  what 1 megaton balanced on a vertical 9" needle resting on top of your head, not there, there, feels like....how painful would that be? ...and that doesn't even come close to imagining the LHC energy levels

    Apples and oranges analogies of cars and fuel tanks to the LHC just don't do it, as we are used to using the contents of our fuel tanks in days not femto femto seconds or however ridiculously worded tiny timeslot is used
    The only reason we CAN'T get more power out of our cars, is because the engines would burst if we tried to get that power out in seconds, let alone femto seconds, instead of the days we are accustomed to filling our tanks

    Front row seats, anyone?....new universe, front row seats.......?

    Aitch :)

    This is a bit like cartoons or creationists who depict cave men frolicking with dinosaurs. It was all prehistoric so who cares? 

    The LHC can, downhill with a following wind, recreate the conditions of the early universe when quarks roamed free in a quark-gluon plasma. To create a spacetime singularity and a new universe you'd need to get back to the Planck conditions. But hey, who cares, it was all the "big bang" note wasn't it? 

    The difference between the Flintstones and what you're suggesting is that the Flintstone anachronism is a mere factor of a few thousand. Yours is more like a hundred quadrillion quadrillion times.
     
    Energy levels in the Planck world, which are arguably more relevant, were, on current understanding, a quadrillion times higher than anything the LHC can produce. And even then, we're not really sure how much of the stuff would be needed to stand a reasonable chance of a new universe rolling around Geneva any time soon.

    Finally :) the fuel tank's worth of energy is not just an analogy. It so happens, to quote Wikipedia yet again "Most Planck units are fantastically small and thus are unrelated to "macroscopic" phenomena. One Ep, on the other hand, is definitely macroscopic, approximately equaling the energy stored in an automobile gas tank (57.2 L of gasoline at 34.2 MJ/L of chemical energy)."
     

    Note: definitions of the "Big-bang" vary.

    I've been researching the LHC just because I found the effort and money put forth on the project to be fascinating. I know a little about theoretical physics and the current popular theories of the day and it seems to me that science has a BIG problem with it's own results. What I'm referring to is the fact that conciousness effects some results in the quantum world but science seems to almost dismiss this. It's my opinion that this may be starting to change where things like non-locality and the holographic theory are starting to see results that have been known by ancient civilizations and even today by some Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Budisim that are only recently becoming accepted by (a small percentage of) the Western world. It's my opinion the the great scientist's at CERN will never find the infamous Higgs Boson particle because of the Newtonian teachings they were all taught. I beleive that what the will find is just possibly smaller particles and if they build bigger colliders then they will only find smaller particles yet again. I beleive that science needs to relearn the knowledge of old that says we are all apart of the same conciousness and being. Unfotunately our Western society has taught us for centuries that we must have success as an individual therefore outdo our neighbor and be better. This has made man greedy and has been the root of all wars since the Roman Empire. We will not be able to engauge this vast universe as a species until our collective conciousness learns to give more than take. I remain optimistic tho. Please pass the good word forward. Thanx :-)


    What I'm referring to is the fact that conciousness effects some results in the quantum world but science seems to almost dismiss this.
    It is indeed regrettable that science only almost dismisses it.