Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Density LHC vs Cosmic Rays

  1. Jan 14, 2011 #1
    Hello,

    I was reading the quote below in a safety debate and I had a question. It is generally accepted that flux density is not a safety issue, why is that? One would think that the more energy one fits into one place at a certain time, the more energetic the situation is. Like when you use a loupe to bundle light into one spot.

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 4, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 14, 2011 #2
    Could you define what you mean with regard to safety? Do you mean the crackpot "world is going to end because of the LHC" or do you mean something about the radiation dose from these sources?
     
  4. Jan 14, 2011 #3
    I think a crackpot will always find a reason why the world would come to an end. I just wanted to know why the bundling of these energies is still considered within the same frame as cosmic rays.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2011
  5. Jan 14, 2011 #4
    You still haven't answered the question or given enough background, but I am going to assume you are wondering why the physics community thinks that cosmic rays are a good proxy for the LHC.

    This is usually concerning just the basic energy of the interaction. Most doomsday scenarios put out there concerning the LHC were based on the premise that the LHC was going to be pushing the energy regime of particle physics experiments (LHC is expected to run at 7 TeV). So, on your plot you see that at about 10 TeV (10 TeV = 10^13 eV), that the flux density of cosmic rays hitting the Earth is larger than one interaction per square meter per year. So, the Earth is being bombarded with cosmic rays of these energies fairly regularly. This has been covered in the LHC safety assessments.

    Are you only considering the energy density? That is you are worried about the amount of energy contained in the interaction region of the LHC? I don't know the luminosity of the LHC off-hand (I thought it was larger than the 10^30/(cm^2 s) that you quoted below). Why exactly is the energy density scary? Energy density is just a pressure (sort of... same units anyways).
     
  6. Jan 14, 2011 #5
    The scary part I find to be is when you can break a glass with sound, for instance one short 'Aaah' won't break a glass, but if you have a longer 'Aa...ah' you might break a glass. It's a matter of having the right tone for a long enough time, and with right intensity.

    If I could imagine a 'special' event happening, I would imagine that a high radiance frequency, caused by colliding particles, may cause an event where surrounding atoms start to loose their composure, like the vibrations of sound make the glass burst. For cosmic rays there is an 'Aah' here and an 'Aah' there, and it happens at the higher levels of the atmosphere where there aren't a lot of atomic structures to shake apart, but at the LHC you have much longer and intenser 'Aaaa..ah's' at one specific place, and with surrounding atoms in lattices that are far much denser.
     
  7. Jan 14, 2011 #6
    Actually, if you hit the resonant frequency, it does not take long at all. Finding the resonant frequency is usually the difficult part. There is nothing scary about this. You are adding energy to a lattice at the correct energy to break apart the lattice structure. A similar situation occurs in nuclear fission when you take certain nuclei (akin to the glass in your example) and bombard them with neutrons of a specific energy (akin to the pressure waves in your example) and fission occurs (breaking of the glass).

    High radiance frequency? What exactly is that? In the case of sound and glass, is this pressure waves in the air? The interactions and characteristics of the secondaries after the collisions are fairly well understood and it is this knowledge that lets us determine what they are in the detector. So, what exactly is the "energy wave" used to shake apart your "atomic structures"? Remember this is particle physics we are concerned with here. Things are quantized. There are few macroscopic, everyday experiences which can act as a proxy to describe the phenomenon being investigated at the LHC.

    The collisions in the LHC are done in vacuum. So there are (as best as they can engineer) only the colliding particles in the interaction region. So, where the energy density is large there is no "atoms in lattices." Outside the interaction region is the detector, but the energy density at the detector is much lower than in the interaction region.

    I think I may have found something that is of interest to you:
    http://lsag.web.cern.ch/lsag/BeamdumpInteraction.pdf

    It talks quickly (only 3 pages of text) about diverting the beam of the LHC into a graphite block. Not exactly what you are worried about, but related.
     
  8. Jan 14, 2011 #7
    For finding the resonance frequency I found this experiment interesting, where they just tick the glass, record the sound and amplify it. In a simplistic way I would say one collision is one thick, and just having a lot of them during a short period amplifies the sound.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9KuwJXMQUdc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9KuwJXMQUdc?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
    (If the clip isn't embedded, use this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KuwJXMQUdc")

    For transmission of sound I was thinking of Aether, I don't think that it is something that should necessarily be ruled out, as this article tells the story of a scientist that is supported by theoretical physicists at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and the University of California: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060908-dark-matter.html"

    That is an interesting paper, btw Norman I just wanted to add this before you posted your last reply, I'll fit it in over here:

    There was a mistake in my Original Post, I've asked the same question to the spanish author of this side LHC website: http://www.lhc-closer.es" [Broken] and got the following reply:
    So the difference between Nature and the LHC is roughly 10^6 that's about a million per second.

    Anyway, in the paper you mention, where beams are dumped the numbers are again somewhat higher. And the main concept in the article is if Fusion might happen, but as you pointed out breaking glass is a Fission reaction, a slightly different event, perhaps the same calculations can be used?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  9. Jan 15, 2011 #8
    Someone gave me the suggestion today, that String Theory might provide an insight on how vibrations, caused by collisions, would interact with surrounding matter. Because string objects "vibrate and propagate vibrations" very well, would that be a possibility?
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2011
  10. Jan 15, 2011 #9

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    You're clutching at straws - you're adding new phenomena on top of new phenomena to make this idea work.
     
  11. Jan 16, 2011 #10
    Pardon me, but I believe it is you who's clutching at a straw called "Vacuum".

    According to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum. source: http://[/I [Broken]

    Particle physics is all about wave-particle duality, you can smash something apart and you can shake something apart.

    btw I'm not saying that such a thing will happen, I just would like to know what the chances are.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  12. Jan 16, 2011 #11
    oh boy.

    Yes this is well known on this forum (especially by Vanadium). The Aether has long ago been debunked. There is no aether. Yes, I am aware of recent attempts to use it to explain dark energy (or was it dark matter, I cannot remember). The Aether pops up every decade or so to try to explain some phenomenon.

    The fact that the vacuum is not empty is nothing new. This still does not allow for anything like your "high radiance frequency" you described previously. The purpose of my last post (relative to this one) was this: talking about waves of energy at the particle physics level is large nonsense. A wave is a collective phenomenon. In addition, the energy why consider in particle physics experiments is typically all well accounted for. Missing energy signals new phenomena and we currently aren't seeing much of this.


    I am very sorry now for going along with the glass analogy. I thought I made it quite clear that this sort of macroscopic phenomenon is not possible at the microscopic level of particle physics. There are no crystal structures (or lattice as you called it) for these mysterious vibrations, which you still haven't explained even what they could possibly be.

    On top of it all, you hint that possibly string theory might lend some insight into this phenomena. String theory as applied to the real world of physics is still somewhat questionable. Vanadium was pointing out that you are simply heaping implausible explanations on top of an already completely speculative notion [*].

    Current problems with your line of thinking are:
    1. This phenomena has not been observed at other facilities working at similar energy densities.
    2. There is no lattice in the interaction region to worry about.
    3. You still have not explained what your "high energy radiance" would be.

    [*] I say "completely speculative" here, since you have not answered my questions regarding the actual basis of your ideas. You are attempting to describe a phenomenon which has not been observed using terms and ideas that I find completely incorrect, which leads me to think you do not have the background to even consider such questions.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  13. Jan 16, 2011 #12
    This is not correct, there as been no aether wind detected. This doesn't mean there is no aether, it's the same discussion Boltzmann had trying to prove that there are atoms. While anti-atomists protested his ideas as if it was nonsense.

    The law of conservation of energy is quite tricky, It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. The problem with this is, what is an isolated system? If you take in account that there is an aether, than undetectable forms of energy could move freely through the mazes of the measuring tools. Also note that there is no law that says that there is a conservation of Force.

    'These mysterious vibrations' there is nothing mysterious about this idea, when you look with your eyes you cannot see radio waves, oxygen molecules etc. that doesn't mean that they aren't there, we can use instruments that are far more refined than our eyes to capture what is going on. But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that we are limited to measure anything beyond the quantum mechanical effects, that doesn't mean that the 'finesse' of the world stops there.

    It seems that you are lacking the powers of imagination, you can only imagine what you can see, it is okay to be skeptical about what I say, but to answer everything with a no - no - no is imho a pre-copernicus way of thinking, you should leave the door open to what might be. If humans wouldn't have done this now and then, we would still believe that the world is the center of the universe. I can imagine that String theory is leading us into new insights, I don't see it as an extra layer of nonsense, but as a part of the puzzle.

    Are you contesting the idea, that things can be shaken apart with vibrations? And what background does one need to have to postulate an Aether? Maxwell reintroduced Aether to generate his formulas on Electromagnetism and he was also thought of as idiot, by so called 'Newtonions' who purely believed in a Vacuum, and look what he has given us.
     
  14. Jan 16, 2011 #13
    So bringing this all back to the first post, please correct me about anything because this thread wanders like a drunk on new years eve:

    You are concerned about the energy density at the LHC creating unseen energy vibrations which travel through an undetected aether to disrupt and shake apart unseen lattice structures in some undetected matter in the interaction region?

    Did I miss anything? This whole thread is very confusing.
     
  15. Jan 16, 2011 #14
    Perhaps a little sketch might help :)

    particle_collisions.jpg

    The idea is quite simple,

    Every particle body has a basic structure made up out of cavities and bumps that generates a typical resonance within the Aether medium.

    During a collision 2 protons bump into each other, because of contraction and expansion within the medium, a shock wave is emitted that has the proton pattern (stamp).

    These signature waves travel through the medium and collide with surrounding atoms. Because they have the 'proton-stamp' they could amplifying or neutralizing the way the proton vibrates. This could lead to a disruption of the functionality of the proton, and the nucleus might be shaken apart.
     
  16. Jan 16, 2011 #15

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2017 Award

    I think it's time to remind people of the PF Rules on overly speculative posts.

    The last post is clearly a personal theory, and I think Norman covered the layers on layers of speculation in his post. The energy density of the LHC interaction region is about the same as that of a filament of an incandescent light bulb.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook