Humans "Can't Understand/Aren't Supposed to Understand"

I was reading science websites like i normally do and stumbled upon a very interesting article on supersymmetry, seems theyve been planning back ups to testing for supersymmetry if the lhc didnt find any evidence before the lhc was where it needed to be ready to test it even. . its interesting and once the gravity wave detection projects get up to where they need to be to start actually detecting some of them it can be put to the test once again.

Gravity waves could hold key to supersymmetry


," Anupam Mazumdar tells PhysOrg.com, "there is a big effort to discover supersymmetry particles at the Large Hadron Collider. But that is not the only way to find these particles. We should also be able to see supersymmetry in the sky through the observation of gravitational waves."

Mazumdar, a physicist at Lancaster University in Britain, worked with Alex Kusenko at the University of California, Los Angeles to simulate what kind of frequency distribution would result from the fragmentation of unstable scalar condensate. The two say that a number of devices, including the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Big Bank Observer (BBO), would be able to detect the gravitational waves they describe in “Gravitational waves from fragmentation of a primordial scalar condensate into Q-balls,” which has been accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.
Supersymmetry is speculated to go beyond the standard model of physics to introduce particles that solve some of the problems that cannot be solved using only the particles that have been observed thus far. In supersymmetry, the standard particles we are familiar with have superpartners that differ from the standard by half a unit of spin. For example, the superpartners of standard model fermions are s-fermions.
“The gravity wave is fundamental to theory from Einstein,” Mazumdar says. “But we have not yet seen it in the frequencies described. However, primordial inflation is one of the many cosmic sources that could produce these waves.” The gravitational waves described by Mazumdar and Kusenko begin as a condensate formed in the early universe of s-fermions.
“At a certain point,” Mazumdar explains, “the condensate starts oscillating due to the presence of scalar, s-fermion, masses, whose masses are roughly determined by the scale of supersymmetry breaking. Due to the inherent nature of quantum corrections the condensate is not absolutely stable and fragments during the coherent oscillations. The fragmentation process leads to the formation of non-topological solitons, known as Q-balls. Since the fragmentation process is so violent and anisotropic, it excites gravity waves.” These waves, he says, have an amplitude and frequency detectable by LIGO.
Mazumdar says that, while many hope to find evidence of supersymmetry when the LHC is fully operational, it is not the only place where one can look for the signs of supersymmetric particles. Besides, he points out, evidence of supersymmetry may not be found at the LHC. Looking to the cosmos, then, would be another option. This is where the sophisticated cosmological observation devices – especially LIGO – come in. “Our model shows frequencies exactly where LIGO is sensitive,” he says. “We also show a place where the frequency would be distinguishable from binaries, black holes and pulsars, which would also form gravity waves.”
“The frequency we show has a broader spectrum, and its uniqueness would provide evidence of this s-fermion condensate,” he continues. “Such a condensate could have also inflated the primordial universe, while explaining the origin of tiny perturbations in the cosmic microwave background radiation.”
However, Mazumdar admits, it may take some time to detect these waves and take the observations. “We’re hoping to detect these in four to five years at LIGO,” he says. “Scientists may find evidence of supersymmetry at the LHC, but we are hoping to find links to it in cosmology.”
Article reference: Kusenko, Alexander and Anupam, Mazumdar “Gravitational waves from fragmentation of a primordial scalar condensate into Q-balls” http://arxiv.org/a … s/0807.4554.

just imagine, something goes wrong in one of their experiments with those huge colliders and thats the "end of the world as you know it, its the end of the world as you know it!"

darkdestruction420 said:

I was reading science websites like i normally do and stumbled upon a very interesting article on supersymmetry, seems theyve been planning back ups to testing for supersymmetry if the lhc didnt find any evidence before the lhc was where it needed to be ready to test it even. . its interesting and once the gravity wave detection projects get up to where they need to be to start actually detecting some of them it can be put to the test once again.

Gravity waves could hold key to supersymmetry


," Anupam Mazumdar tells PhysOrg.com, "there is a big effort to discover supersymmetry particles at the Large Hadron Collider. But that is not the only way to find these particles. We should also be able to see supersymmetry in the sky through the observation of gravitational waves."

Mazumdar, a physicist at Lancaster University in Britain, worked with Alex Kusenko at the University of California, Los Angeles to simulate what kind of frequency distribution would result from the fragmentation of unstable scalar condensate. The two say that a number of devices, including the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the Big Bank Observer (BBO), would be able to detect the gravitational waves they describe in “Gravitational waves from fragmentation of a primordial scalar condensate into Q-balls,” which has been accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters.
Supersymmetry is speculated to go beyond the standard model of physics to introduce particles that solve some of the problems that cannot be solved using only the particles that have been observed thus far. In supersymmetry, the standard particles we are familiar with have superpartners that differ from the standard by half a unit of spin. For example, the superpartners of standard model fermions are s-fermions.
“The gravity wave is fundamental to theory from Einstein,” Mazumdar says. “But we have not yet seen it in the frequencies described. However, primordial inflation is one of the many cosmic sources that could produce these waves.” The gravitational waves described by Mazumdar and Kusenko begin as a condensate formed in the early universe of s-fermions.
“At a certain point,” Mazumdar explains, “the condensate starts oscillating due to the presence of scalar, s-fermion, masses, whose masses are roughly determined by the scale of supersymmetry breaking. Due to the inherent nature of quantum corrections the condensate is not absolutely stable and fragments during the coherent oscillations. The fragmentation process leads to the formation of non-topological solitons, known as Q-balls. Since the fragmentation process is so violent and anisotropic, it excites gravity waves.” These waves, he says, have an amplitude and frequency detectable by LIGO.
Mazumdar says that, while many hope to find evidence of supersymmetry when the LHC is fully operational, it is not the only place where one can look for the signs of supersymmetric particles. Besides, he points out, evidence of supersymmetry may not be found at the LHC. Looking to the cosmos, then, would be another option. This is where the sophisticated cosmological observation devices – especially LIGO – come in. “Our model shows frequencies exactly where LIGO is sensitive,” he says. “We also show a place where the frequency would be distinguishable from binaries, black holes and pulsars, which would also form gravity waves.”
“The frequency we show has a broader spectrum, and its uniqueness would provide evidence of this s-fermion condensate,” he continues. “Such a condensate could have also inflated the primordial universe, while explaining the origin of tiny perturbations in the cosmic microwave background radiation.”
However, Mazumdar admits, it may take some time to detect these waves and take the observations. “We’re hoping to detect these in four to five years at LIGO,” he says. “Scientists may find evidence of supersymmetry at the LHC, but we are hoping to find links to it in cosmology.”
Article reference: Kusenko, Alexander and Anupam, Mazumdar “Gravitational waves from fragmentation of a primordial scalar condensate into Q-balls” http://arxiv.org/a … s/0807.4554.

Click to expand...

if strangelets exist i suppose its possible, in theory, lhc could destroy us all. otherwise, no, not really. lol

why LOL? it can happen... too many humans involved sometimes is a bad thing

yeah, but superman could also turn out to be real and living in another dimension we dont know yet technically. j/k but seriously if you look into it more its exceedingly unlikely. heres a bit of info. seems i was wrong about stranglets though.
Cosmic rays

The LHC, like other particle accelerators, recreates the natural phenomena of cosmic rays under controlled laboratory conditions, enabling them to be studied in more detail. Cosmic rays are particles produced in outer space, some of which are accelerated to energies far exceeding those of the LHC. The energy and the rate at which they reach the Earth’s atmosphere have been measured in experiments for some 70 years. Over the past billions of years, Nature has already generated on Earth as many collisions as about a million LHC experiments – and the planet still exists. Astronomers observe an enormous number of larger astronomical bodies throughout the Universe, all of which are also struck by cosmic rays. The Universe as a whole conducts more than 10 million million LHC-like experiments per second. The possibility of any dangerous consequences contradicts what astronomers see - stars and galaxies still exist.

Microscopic black holes

Nature forms black holes when certain stars, much larger than our Sun, collapse on themselves at the end of their lives. They concentrate a very large amount of matter in a very small space. Speculations about microscopic black holes at the LHC refer to particles produced in the collisions of pairs of protons, each of which has an energy comparable to that of a mosquito in flight. Astronomical black holes are much heavier than anything that could be produced at the LHC.
According to the well-established properties of gravity, described by Einstein’s relativity, it is impossible for microscopic black holes to be produced at the LHC. There are, however, some speculative theories that predict the production of such particles at the LHC. All these theories predict that these particles would disintegrate immediately. Black holes, therefore, would have no time to start accreting matter and to cause macroscopic effects.
Although theory predicts that microscopic black holes decay rapidly, even hypothetical stable black holes can be shown to be harmless by studying the consequences of their production by cosmic rays. Whilst collisions at the LHC differ from cosmic-ray collisions with astronomical bodies like the Earth in that new particles produced in LHC collisions tend to move more slowly than those produced by cosmic rays, one can still demonstrate their safety. The specific reasons for this depend whether the black holes are electrically charged, or neutral. Many stable black holes would be expected to be electrically charged, since they are created by charged particles. In this case they would interact with ordinary matter and be stopped while traversing the Earth or Sun, whether produced by cosmic rays or the LHC. The fact that the Earth and Sun are still here rules out the possibility that cosmic rays or the LHC could produce dangerous charged microscopic black holes. If stable microscopic black holes had no electric charge, their interactions with the Earth would be very weak. Those produced by cosmic rays would pass harmlessly through the Earth into space, whereas those produced by the LHC could remain on Earth. However, there are much larger and denser astronomical bodies than the Earth in the Universe. Black holes produced in cosmic-ray collisions with bodies such as neutron stars and white dwarf stars would be brought to rest. The continued existence of such dense bodies, as well as the Earth, rules out the possibility of the LHC producing any dangerous black holes.

Strangelets

Strangelet is the term given to a hypothetical microscopic lump of ‘strange matter’ containing almost equal numbers of particles called up, down and strange quarks. According to most theoretical work, strangelets should change to ordinary matter within a thousand-millionth of a second. But could strangelets coalesce with ordinary matter and change it to strange matter? This question was first raised before the start up of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, RHIC, in 2000 in the United States. A study at the time showed that there was no cause for concern, and RHIC has now run for eight years, searching for strangelets without detecting any. At times, the LHC will run with beams of heavy nuclei, just as RHIC does. The LHC’s beams will have more energy than RHIC, but this makes it even less likely that strangelets could form. It is difficult for strange matter to stick together in the high temperatures produced by such colliders, rather as ice does not form in hot water. In addition, quarks will be more dilute at the LHC than at RHIC, making it more difficult to assemble strange matter. Strangelet production at the LHC is therefore less likely than at RHIC, and experience there has already validated the arguments that strangelets cannot be produced.

Vacuum bubbles

There have been speculations that the Universe is not in its most stable configuration, and that perturbations caused by the LHC could tip it into a more stable state, called a vacuum bubble, in which we could not exist. If the LHC could do this, then so could cosmic-ray collisions. Since such vacuum bubbles have not been produced anywhere in the visible Universe, they will not be made by the LHC.

Magnetic monopoles

Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles with a single magnetic charge, either a north pole or a south pole. Some speculative theories suggest that, if they do exist, magnetic monopoles could cause protons to decay. These theories also say that such monopoles would be too heavy to be produced at the LHC. Nevertheless, if the magnetic monopoles were light enough to appear at the LHC, cosmic rays striking the Earth’s atmosphere would already be making them, and the Earth would very effectively stop and trap them. The continued existence of the Earth and other astronomical bodies therefore rules out dangerous proton-eating magnetic monopoles light enough to be produced at the LHC.

Other aspects of LHC safety:

Concern has recently been expressed that a 'runaway fusion reaction' might be created in the LHC carbon beam dump. The safety of the LHC beam dump had previously been reviewed by the relevant regulatory authorities of the CERN host states, France and Switzerland. The specific concerns expressed more recently have been addressed in a technical memorandum by Assmann et al. As they point out, fusion reactions can be maintained only in material compressed by some external pressure, such as that provided by gravity inside a star, a fission explosion in a thermonuclear device, a magnetic field in a Tokamak, or by continuing isotropic laser or particle beams in the case of inertial fusion. In the case of the LHC beam dump, it is struck once by the beam coming from a single direction. There is no countervailing pressure, so the dump material is not compressed, and no fusion is possible.
Concern has been expressed that a 'runaway fusion reaction' might be created in a nitrogen tank inside the LHC tunnel. There are no such nitrogen tanks. Moreover, the arguments in the previous paragraph prove that no fusion would be possible even if there were.
Finally, concern has also been expressed that the LHC beam might somehow trigger a 'Bose-Nova' in the liquid helium used to cool the LHC magnets. A study by Fairbairn and McElrath has clearly shown there is no possibility of the LHC beam triggering a fusion reaction in helium.
We recall that 'Bose-Novae' are known to be related to chemical reactions that release an infinitesimal amount of energy by nuclear standards. We also recall that helium is one of the most stable elements known, and that liquid helium has been used in many previous particle accelerators without mishap. The facts that helium is chemically inert and has no nuclear spin imply that no 'Bose-Nova' can be triggered in the superfluid helium used in the LHC.

olylifter420 said:

just imagine, something goes wrong in one of their experiments with those huge colliders and thats the "end of the world as you know it, its the end of the world as you know it!"

Click to expand...

There are cosmic rays with energies in excess of 10E20 electron volts ... as much as 40 million times more energy than the LHC can pack into a particle.
Granted that the LHC collides counterrotating particle streams head-on and gains tremendous event energies that way ... but one of these extremely energetic cosmic rays colliding with, say, an effectively stationary hadron still produces 50x the energy of an optimal LHC event.

So I'm saying, if it could, it already would ... somewhere else.
cheers 'neer

darkdestruction420 said:

if strangelets exist i suppose its possible, in theory, lhc could destroy us all. otherwise, no, not really. lol

Click to expand...

it takes SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much mass to make a black hole that would start destroyin the world and they arent usin nowhere near the amount of that mass at the LHC

blazinkill504 said:

it takes SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much mass to make a black hole that would start destroyin the world and they arent usin nowhere near the amount of that mass at the LHC

Click to expand...

agreed, I was talking about strangeletts though, not saying i support any of the doomsday scenarios because i do not.

Padawanbater2 said:

That's just my opinion about it, I'm interested in hearing other opinions/perspectives

Do you agree with the premise that Gods mind is out of reach of our understanding or do you think it's something we would be able to understand, or something an omnipotent being would be able to explain in a way we'd be able to understand?

Click to expand...

brother,

im not entirely sure what your stance is on this my friend, but you asked about mine and i shall tell you. god is something that humans do not have the ability to know, understand, or even contemplate. we can try to think about it, try to imagine it...but we cant, all we have are thoughts...ideas...not truth. i don't think humans at this point in time in our evolution has gained the ability to know, i think our brains some day may gain the ability to know or understand what truth is...or what god is, but right now...our brains just aren't developed enough to understand these things.

but that doesn't rule out the possibility that someday we might gain the ability to know, because the future can never be known lol!

i think that in this point in time in the evolution of the human brain, we have been given a unique and irreplaceable ability to "experience" god. now this i think is something many many people get confused and it gets misinterpreted. because when you say you experience god, wouldn't that give you some knowledge of it as well? my opinion on that is no, it does not give you any knowledge, since we do not have the ability yet to know god.

as soon as you put thought behind the experience, or as soon as you put words behind the experience...you change it from what it originally was. experiences only happen in the moment, in the now. as soon as its gone its gone forever, until you experience that again.

people who have had an "awakening" or an "enlightenment" or something that happens to them... why do you think they cant explain it, because it isn't possible!!! hahaha!!! experiences cannot be explained! they can ONLY, ONLY BE EXPERIENCED. as soon as you try to explain what that experience is, you change it to what you WANT it to be...instead of leaving it is as it is, which is something that can never be explained........

only experienced...

i have experienced something i cannot explain, and i would like to put that experience into a word, god.

god-something that can not be explained