Large Hadron Collider Produces "mini Big Bang"

[delet]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

 

[MikailCaboose]

Question!!

How do you produce a temperature of one trillion degrees in a machine and not melt part of it? Granted it is a big machine but a temperature that high would rise and likely do some damage to anything above the source

That's the thing though. The source is so microscopic that, while there is a lot of thermal energy, it's only coming from a few molecules. For that to melt anything would be a practical impossibility.

 

[Naheal]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

 

[delet]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

And then we turn their life into a TV show. What a glorious show that will be!

 

[Naheal]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

And then we turn their life into a TV show. What a glorious show that will be!

No. Reality TV's shit. Let's not add to that mix.

The taco disapproves.

 

[delet]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

And then we turn their life into a TV show. What a glorious show that will be!

No. Reality TV's shit. Let's not add to that mix.

The taco disapproves.

You kidding? This is the opportunity to cause full on wars and it'll still be more real than what we've got now. We could throw goats at people! Goats!

 

[Naheal]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

And then we turn their life into a TV show. What a glorious show that will be!

No. Reality TV's shit. Let's not add to that mix.

The taco disapproves.

You kidding? This is the opportunity to cause full on wars and it'll still be more real than what we've got now. We could throw goats at people! Goats!

...and that would make us no better than the vengeful God that most atheists can't bring themselves to follow.

 

[delet]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

And then we turn their life into a TV show. What a glorious show that will be!

No. Reality TV's shit. Let's not add to that mix.

The taco disapproves.

You kidding? This is the opportunity to cause full on wars and it'll still be more real than what we've got now. We could throw goats at people! Goats!

...and that would make us no better than the vengeful God that most atheists can't bring themselves to follow.

I don't believe that's the reason most people are Atheists...

And hey, we're not worshiping ourselves, nor are we asking for worship. We're throwing goats at people, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Naheal]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

From a religious perspective, this is the natural conclusion. We're God's children. It's only natural for a child to want to follow in their parent's footsteps.

I'm looking at it as a more trippy view, in that we're simply the latest chain in a loop of loops stretching back farther than is physically possible to comprehend. We were created by people toying around with a Hadron Collider of their own, and those people were in turn created by other people with a Hadron Collider of theirs, and so on and so on.

It's essentially a similar view that I've had for a while. I wonder what kind of effects we're causing extra-dimensionally with what we're doing here...

We're just making sure that whole "There's an alternate universe of all types" theory is true.

The real question is, once we create a universe, can we destroy it?

Then we come to another question:

If we can create a universe, would it be moral to destroy it? If we can create a universe, can we bring whatever life comes from this new universe into ours before we destroy it?

And then:

Can we then make ships that look like UFOs?
Can we paint ourselves green and add fancy antennae?
Can we fuck with some primitive life forms?

And then suddenly, we realize everything.

By playing God, we gain perspective on what it's like to be God.

Hee. I'm excited.

I say we introduce the Flying Spaghetti Monster to 'em early.

I say we drop 'em subtle hints and see what they figure out on their own.

And then we turn their life into a TV show. What a glorious show that will be!

No. Reality TV's shit. Let's not add to that mix.

The taco disapproves.

You kidding? This is the opportunity to cause full on wars and it'll still be more real than what we've got now. We could throw goats at people! Goats!

...and that would make us no better than the vengeful God that most atheists can't bring themselves to follow.

I don't believe that's the reason most people are Atheists...

That's a discussion for another topic.

And hey, we're not worshiping ourselves, nor are we asking for worship. We're throwing goats at people, and that's good enough for me.

I suppose it'll be a worthy experiment if nothing else. I have problems with it morally, but I can set that aside for science.

 

[Sjakie]

the LHC: coolest machine ever created by man! It will help us in making man the Gods of this Universe.

 

[sosolidshoe]

I'm surprised nobody on the Escapist has brought this up yet. I'd say it's pretty substantial news.

The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than at the centre of the Sun.

So then, if it produced temperatures approaching 27 TRILLION, 999 BILLION, 540 MILLION degree's Fahrenheit (for those of you outside of the US, It's 27 billion, 999 millard, 540 million degrees fahrenheit, I'm not converting it into celsius for ya), then explain to me, how did it NOT melt the air around it into plasma, or melt the LHC it'self into a slag of molten metal?

Lol, seriously? Well, lets think, because the collision takes place in a massive vacuum chamber constrained by immensely powerful magnetic fields, and the entire fucking apparatus was designed specifically to conduct these experiments? This machine breaks down sub-atomic particles, and you don't think they accounted for that before they spent billions on it?

I worry for the human race, sometimes.

 

[Shru1kan]

Like the fact that no one actually knew if these kind of temperatures would actually create some sort of mini black holes which would have perhaps less than funny effects. But it seems that the particle quantities and energy put into them in time span are still small enough not to cause anything nasty.

I have to object to this. Any black holes created by the LHC would dissolve in a matter of milliseconds. I don't remember where the article itself is, but I do remember reading about it shortly after they got it up and running.

Actually I think we have not created any artificial black holes so that is your quess for what comes to "dissolving" of a black hole. Like I said also.

Like the fact that no one actually knew if these kind of temperatures would actually create some sort of mini black holes which would have perhaps less than funny effects. But it seems that the particle quantities and energy put into them in time span are still small enough not to cause anything nasty.

Not to be personal, but that type of thinking is the type of extreme "what if?'s" that hinder scientific progress. Akin to nobody driving their cars due the the pathetically insignificant chance that the whole thing will explode when the engine turns over.

Hmm. I read my post again and I don't see "what if?'s" in my part. If LHC would need humans to fuel itself I would not stand in the way as long as no one would put me in for the fuel. I am physicist for life.

I'm sorry if I got the wrong idea from your post, but to me it sounded like you were reprimanding them for not being able to predict every tiny thing. The part before your bolded portion sure makes it look that way to me. But again, sorry if I'm in the wrong.

 

[Tharwen]

I'm surprised nobody on the Escapist has brought this up yet. I'd say it's pretty substantial news.

The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than at the centre of the Sun.

So then, if it produced temperatures approaching 27 TRILLION, 999 BILLION, 540 MILLION degree's Fahrenheit (for those of you outside of the US, It's 27 billion, 999 millard, 540 million degrees fahrenheit, I'm not converting it into celsius for ya), then explain to me, how did it NOT melt the air around it into plasma, or melt the LHC it'self into a slag of molten metal?

1. There's no air for several metres around it.

2. The energy isn't emitted as heat.

I believe this was the Physics equivalent of a burn, so I just had to express my gratitude.

That's quite alright

I enjoy correcting people too much...

Question!!

How do you produce a temperature of one trillion degrees in a machine and not melt part of it? Granted it is a big machine but a temperature that high would rise and likely do some damage to anything above the source

That's the thing though. The source is so microscopic that, while there is a lot of thermal energy, it's only coming from a few molecules. For that to melt anything would be a practical impossibility.

Molecules? Oh no. There aren't any molecules in the LHC.

What they're colliding and detecting are sub-atomic particles (Well... lead ions aren't quite sub-atomic, but they're not molecules)!

Also, the energy is emitted as kinetic energy and mass, not temperature in the the way that article describes.

 

[Dogstile]

When you're dealing with the temperature of the sun, nothing is a "safe controlled environment". Still, pretty interesting.

Fun fact. There is a type of crab that produces the temperature of the sun every time it wants to kill something.

Link please? Sounds more like the pistol shrimp to me, but I'm not sure.

Eh, correct, it is the pistol shrimp. Science class seems so long ago.

 

[MikailCaboose]

I'm surprised nobody on the Escapist has brought this up yet. I'd say it's pretty substantial news.

The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than at the centre of the Sun.

So then, if it produced temperatures approaching 27 TRILLION, 999 BILLION, 540 MILLION degree's Fahrenheit (for those of you outside of the US, It's 27 billion, 999 millard, 540 million degrees fahrenheit, I'm not converting it into celsius for ya), then explain to me, how did it NOT melt the air around it into plasma, or melt the LHC it'self into a slag of molten metal?

1. There's no air for several metres around it.

2. The energy isn't emitted as heat.

I believe this was the Physics equivalent of a burn, so I just had to express my gratitude.

That's quite alright

I enjoy correcting people too much...

Question!!

How do you produce a temperature of one trillion degrees in a machine and not melt part of it? Granted it is a big machine but a temperature that high would rise and likely do some damage to anything above the source

That's the thing though. The source is so microscopic that, while there is a lot of thermal energy, it's only coming from a few molecules. For that to melt anything would be a practical impossibility.

Molecules? Oh no. There aren't any molecules in the LHC.

What they're colliding and detecting are sub-atomic particles (Well... lead ions aren't quite sub-atomic, but they're not molecules)!

Also, the energy is emitted as kinetic energy and mass, not temperature in the the way that article describes.

Ack, term screw up! Oops.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I'm surprised nobody on the Escapist has brought this up yet. I'd say it's pretty substantial news.

The experiment created temperatures a million times hotter than at the centre of the Sun.

So then, if it produced temperatures approaching 27 TRILLION, 999 BILLION, 540 MILLION degree's Fahrenheit (for those of you outside of the US, It's 27 billion, 999 millard, 540 million degrees fahrenheit, I'm not converting it into celsius for ya), then explain to me, how did it NOT melt the air around it into plasma, or melt the LHC it'self into a slag of molten metal?

Lol, seriously? Well, lets think, because the collision takes place in a massive vacuum chamber constrained by immensely powerful magnetic fields, and the entire fucking apparatus was designed specifically to conduct these experiments? This machine breaks down sub-atomic particles, and you don't think they accounted for that before they spent billions on it?

I worry for the human race, sometimes.

I didn't know that, if I did, I wouldn't have asked.

 

[Crunchy English]

A bit technical for my rather loose grasp of physics, but the LHC did SOMETHING without breaking down, blowing up or costing more money so... yay science.

On the prospective side, creating something that hot must have created a ton of usable energy: couldn't even one millionth of the sun's energy essentially solve any energy crisis we have? Just another piece of evidence proving that energy is really easy to come by, what we really need is a massive, super efficient battery.

It didn't create that energy, it used it, lol. We manufactured a mini-big bang. That's shockingly energy intensive - the LHC is a drain on the power grind, not a major contributor

Wait-- The protonic reaction doesn't release potential energy within the atoms? It's just uses the same energy that accelerated the particles? Madness!

Erm, I don't think it's producing some sort of fission reaction, it really is just smashing stuff really hard together to see what comes out. I'm pretty all that equipment is there just to get the velocities of the particles involved high enough to gib atoms into sub atomic particles. Like taking a hammer to a watch to find out what cogs are in there...

To break atomic particles into subatomic particles don't you have to release the energy in their Ionic bonds? Man, I wish I paid more attention in High School Chemistry.

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I can't wait till we make a complete mini universe and come to the conclusion that it's just a loop of loops, humanity creating a mini version of itself and becoming God.

Brilliant! I find this amusing and yet very believable. I'm going to have to be careful what I do, now that I know I'm being observed by scientists.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

I didn't understand a word of what was said there, but I'm glad work is finally paying off for those scientists.

They basically smashed a bunch of lead ions together until they generated 37 trillion degrees Celcius of heat.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

A bit technical for my rather loose grasp of physics, but the LHC did SOMETHING without breaking down, blowing up or costing more money so... yay science.

On the prospective side, creating something that hot must have created a ton of usable energy: couldn't even one millionth of the sun's energy essentially solve any energy crisis we have? Just another piece of evidence proving that energy is really easy to come by, what we really need is a massive, super efficient battery.

It didn't create that energy, it used it, lol. We manufactured a mini-big bang. That's shockingly energy intensive - the LHC is a drain on the power grind, not a major contributor

Wait-- The protonic reaction doesn't release potential energy within the atoms? It's just uses the same energy that accelerated the particles? Madness!

Erm, I don't think it's producing some sort of fission reaction, it really is just smashing stuff really hard together to see what comes out. I'm pretty all that equipment is there just to get the velocities of the particles involved high enough to gib atoms into sub atomic particles. Like taking a hammer to a watch to find out what cogs are in there...

To break atomic particles into subatomic particles don't you have to release the energy in their Ionic bonds? Man, I wish I paid more attention in High School Chemistry.

Aren't ionic bonds intermolecular forces of attraction? As far as my Chemistry knowledge extends, ionic bonds hold together molecules, not subatomic particles.