Oi Fraz, how's your Hadron?

[Salazaar]

The Register is reporting a record breaking 2.36 GeV collision, and still no collapse of reality/invasion from the world of Zen.

Wooo! on both counts.

[Lucio]

The Register is reporting a record breaking 2.36 GeV collision, and still no collapse of reality/invasion from the world of Zen.

Wooo! on both counts.

How do we know that we haven't been invaded? After all logically if beings exsist in a different dimension to our own, then we probably wouldn't see them unless they have technology to interact with us.

In fact, they're probably already here complaining about us destroying their home universe!! Only the tin foil hats will save us!

[Salazaar]

Only the tin foil hats will save us!

I'm not settling for anything less than a Mk.V HEV suit (with optional tin foil accessories).

[HSK]

If you were to let one of these beams loose, would it shot out like laser beam? Travelling through every object it hits...till there's an explosion or it loses power.

Just trying to visualise it (and not ridicule anyone, I'm far to bored at work today).

[mikerr]

The Register is reporting a record breaking 2.36 GeV collision, and still no collapse of reality/invasion from the world of Zen.

Well at about the same time there was a black hole ^H^H^ strange spiral in the sky over norway:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMUhS...layer_embedded

Coincidence?

[Fraz]

If you were to let one of these beams loose, would it shot out like laser beam? Travelling through every object it hits...till there's an explosion or it loses power.

Just trying to visualise it (and not ridicule anyone, I'm far to bored at work today).

Basically yes, except it's a proton beam. Currently we are running a low luminosity beam, but at full luminosity the stored energy in the beam is huge. Silly factoids are as follows:

At full luminosity & proton-energy, the beam will store 362 mega-joules of energy, which is:

1) The same energy as the HMS Invincible aircraft carrier moving at 12 knots.
2) The same energy that a Subaru Impreza moving at ~3000 mph would have.
3) Enough energy to melt half a ton of copper.
4) The equivalent of 77.4 kg of TNT.

Then bear in mind that the LHC could deliver all this energy into an area much smaller than a single square centimeter in less than 90 microseconds.

[HSK]

That has put it all in to perspective, but especially that last bit!

[bsodmike]

I'd like to chime in a bit, although Gordon's ...er, Fraz's last bit really did put it all into perspective BUT, I'm pretty sure 362 MJ works out to 86.5 kg of TNT. Not much of a difference though.

For anyone wondering, the Trinity test was 20 kt of TNT and Little Boy was 13–18 kt (54–75 TJ), where a TJ is 10^6 * times larger than a MJ. Oh ha, look what I found on Wiki:

The size of the LHC constitutes an exceptional engineering challenge with unique operational issues on account of the huge energy stored in the magnets and the beams.[24][52] 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).[53]

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 immense energies are even more impressive considering how little matter is carrying it: 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.

[IronWarrior]

You should put a teddy bear at the end and fire the laser at it.

[bsodmike]

You should put a teddy bear at the end and fire the laser at it.

I hope folks understand the complete achievement in #fail by referring to a beam of sub-atomic particles as a laser. A laser by definition is light amplification by the stimulated emission of radiation. While it is true you can look at visible light as either the easily understood wave model, there is also the particle model (photons etc). But that does not change the fact that visible light is electromagnetic radiation - an electromagnetic wave that has both a sinusoidal E-field (electric field) and B-field (magnetic flux density, as we engineers call it; physicists just call it the magnetic field) oscillating in phase at right angles.

Now, going back to the laser, this is simply a device that emits light, albeit highly amplified, at a singular wavelength, which is why they are characterised by various colors - with the advent of blu lasers allowing more data to be etched onto the surface of BluRay DVDs for example. While there are very powerful military grade lasers about, I do not suspect any of them can transmit the same quantifiable amount of energy as described by Gordon.

I just guess it is 'easier' to conceptualise it as a laser, as that is probably the only beam most people can visualise in the first place.

[IronWarrior]

I hope folks understand the complete achievement in #fail by referring to a beam of sub-atomic particles as a laser. A laser by definition is light amplification by the stimulated emission of radiation. While it is true you can look at visible light as either the easily understood wave model, there is also the particle model (photons etc). But that does not change the fact that visible light is electromagnetic radiation - an electromagnetic wave that has both a sinusoidal E-field (electric field) and B-field (magnetic flux density, as we engineers call it; physicists just call it the magnetic field) oscillating in phase at right angles.

Now, going back to the laser, this is simply a device that emits light, albeit highly amplified, at a singular wavelength, which is why they are characterised by various colors - with the advent of blu lasers allowing more data to be etched onto the surface of BluRay DVDs for example. While there are very powerful military grade lasers about, I do not suspect any of them can transmit the same quantifiable amount of energy as described by Gordon.

I just guess it is 'easier' to conceptualise it as a laser, as that is probably the only beam most people can visualise in the first place.

Sense of humour and sarcasm doesn't exist in sri lanka or do we just have a pole up our arse.

[Fraz]

I'd like to chime in a bit, although Gordon's ...er, Fraz's last bit really did put it all into perspective BUT, I'm pretty sure 362 MJ works out to 86.5 kg of TNT. Not much of a difference though.

Oh right - I was using 4.6 MJ/kg for TNT. From another look at the internets, there seems to be some disagreement on what the correct number is. Pesky internets not being consistent.

[bsodmike]

Sense of humour and sarcasm doesn't exist in sri lanka or do we just have a pole up our arse.

Not at 0123 hrs in the morning I guess Oh and in the words of Sheldon Cooper, "That pole would be Physics!!" <scary face>...

[chuckskull]

Basically yes, except it's a proton beam. Currently we are running a low luminosity beam, but at full luminosity the stored energy in the beam is huge. Silly factoids are as follows:

At full luminosity & proton-energy, the beam will store 362 mega-joules of energy, which is:

1) The same energy as the HMS Invincible aircraft carrier moving at 12 knots.
2) The same energy that a Subaru Impreza moving at ~3000 mph would have.
3) Enough energy to melt half a ton of copper.
4) The equivalent of 77.4 kg of TNT.

Then bear in mind that the LHC could deliver all this energy into an area much smaller than a single square centimeter in less than 90 microseconds.

Always enjoy your updates from CERN Fraz, keep them coming.

Also I want a proton beam gun now

[bsodmike]

Also I want a proton beam gun now

Well if you took a CRT, that accelerates electrons; I do admit though, this acceleration is only linear and far less fancy than that of the LHC. It is also only achieved via an E-field but the most important lack of 'oompf' here is the fact that protons have ~1836 times more mass than the electrons...

[peterb]

I'd like to chime in a bit, although Gordon's ...er, Fraz's last bit really did put it all into perspective BUT, I'm pretty sure 362 MJ works out to 86.5 kg of TNT. Not much of a difference though.

For anyone wondering, the Trinity test was 20 kt of TNT and Little Boy was 13–18 kt (54–75 TJ), where a TJ is 10^6 * times larger than a MJ. Oh ha, look what I found on Wiki:

Hmmm - well I guess if you were sitting on that block of copper when the beam dumped its energy, I don't think you would be that concerned about the difference! (and of course the explosive effect depends on the rate of reaction of the explosive material and the confinement of the material!)