Thread: The Large Hadron Collider

"the two largest detectors would fill 100,000 CDs every second"

So to avoid all of that, they filter out collisions that were not direct head-on collisions between particles.

I think I read that they're actually archiving some or all of the useful data on magnetic tape.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

"the two largest detectors would fill 100,000 CDs every second"

So to avoid all of that, they filter out collisions that were not direct head-on collisions between particles.

I think I read that they're actually archiving some or all of the useful data on magnetic tape.

On that first statistic, do you happen to know if that's before or after the triggering (filtering)? I'm guessing it's after.

They also filter out events based on what actually happens in them. For example, if they are looking to study a phenomenon that can only occur if no muons are created, they will run the accelerator for a given amount of time and filter out any events that do have muons. (For those who don't know, the muon is a particle that is exactly like the electron, except it has a larger mass and is unstable (which is why we don't see them all over the place.)) <-- Sorry about the notation

I'm not sure about the LHC, but they did use tape drives for the initial storage at Fermi, and a lot of the huge databases which contained simulation data (that I was using) were also stored on tape drives. At one point, I took a screenshot of the hard drive arrays that were linked to the terminals we used to work on via network; it was insane how much drive space there was. Again, I don't remember the numbers. And that wasn't even all the storage space they had.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

If they are anti-matter, does that mean that they don't matter?

Either that, or that they are against mattering. If it is the latter, it follows that it must not matter to them whether they matter or not. But this should not be confused with a "nothing matters" attitude on their behalf - nothing certainly does not matter to them, as they are staunchly anti-matter. Not that they are staunchly anything, really, because that would imply that it matters to them, which it most certainly does not.

I hope that clears the matter up. Not that it matters.

James.

Jimbo,
This is exactly the hypothesis we used when I built the first collider here in Texas.do you happen to know of a good patent infringment attorney.Im thinking of sueing these guys.When we were recording the data was before large hard drives,so we just hired lots of ladies who cold write real fast Best regards Gary(Prop. Traveller's Taco stand,and collider shop)

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Either that, or that they are against mattering. If it is the latter, it follows that it must not matter to them whether they matter or not. But this should not be confused with a "nothing matters" attitude on their behalf - nothing certainly does not matter to them, as they are staunchly anti-matter. Not that they are staunchly anything, really, because that would imply that it matters to them, which it most certainly does not.

I hope that clears the matter up. Not that it matters.

James.

Originally Posted by Seraphim

Nuclear fusion is safe in the reaches of outer space.

Having it happen in Geneva may not be as acceptable....

Nulear fusion is safe enough in a reactor as well. It's been done many, many times. France is building a reactor that is supposed to have a net positive energy output, together with several other countries. Planned finish date is 2050.

Having sun like conditions in an enclosed space is not a big deal, because the amount of particles we're talking about is so small that they can't do damage on a catastrophical level.

Originally Posted by Traveller

(Prop. Traveller's Taco stand,and collider shop)

Originally Posted by holli4pirating

The sizes of black holes cannot be measured directly, but they can be measured rather accurately. By examining gravitational lensing and the rate at which gasses are stripped off nearby stars, the sizes and masses of the black holes can be determined (to be more specific, I believe it is acutally the diamater of the event horizon that is detected).

Yes and no. It's the even horizon which can be detected, but from the event horizon, the actual size of the black hole can be inferred. To some degree.
But also, through gravitational lensing, the curvature of space time can be measured areound the event horizon. With these data (and probably other data I don't know about) it is posible to make some good calculations about mass and size.

Anyway, a black hole can range in size from smaller than the core of an atom (as predicted by the hawking radition theory) to the size of chandra at the center of our galaxy.
So the statement that 'they are the size of a marble' is wildly inaccurate. That would be like saying 'a planet is the size of earth'

Holli, I just know what I can scrounge up in print or on the web. I thought I remembered that statement being the reason that they filtered the data, but it could easily have been the reason that they're using the huge network and tape after the filters.

As an aside about muons, I attended a great lecture last winter by Dr. Francis Halzen of the Ice Cube project that is trying to use muons to detect neutrino interactions. They use the entire mass of the earth to filter out much of the junk that bombards the atmosphere and then study the results of muon-neutrino collisions occurring in the super clear, pristine, ice at the southpole. Neat stuff.

They've theorized a possibility of doing "neutrino astronomy" because, other than photons, neutrinos are the only other particle that move unimpeded after leaving their source. So, they may be able to create an image of the universe with respect to every celestial body that emits neutrinos. (on top of doing particle physics analyses with the data from the collisions).

Originally Posted by Jimbo

You've already sent me a couple Gary, remember? I PMed you next month, and you shipped them off next year. They arrived yesterday.

ooooo, You made it beyond the event horizon!

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

99.9999991% of the speed of light is the target speed for the hadron "bunches." (for those who don't know and are impressed by big numbers)

Is that fast enough to gain mass? I should think so. How much mass will be gained?

X

Originally Posted by Traveller

Jimbo,
This is exactly the hypothesis we used when I built the first collider here in Texas.do you happen to know of a good patent infringment attorney.Im thinking of sueing these guys.When we were recording the data was before large hard drives,so we just hired lots of ladies who cold write real fast Best regards Gary(Prop. Traveller's Taco stand,and collider shop)

Seriously Gary, you crack me up man. So do Seraphim and Jimbo though.