• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged LHC has its first high energy collisions! 7 TeV

Yeah, you're right. Crossed wire in brain; sorry. So that's 700 billion particles to make a pot of tea.


Which appears to be just about the number of particles that the LHC stores per cluster... which at full capacity will arrive at the pot in a maximum of about 1 microsecond.

That's a big improvement (8 orders of magnitude) over my current tea making device, which takes a full minute to boil a single cup of water.

When will this brilliant new kitchen technology be available for home use?

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Reading wiki on the subject of the Higgs boson has me very confused, because they state various limits have been hypothesized. One experiment thinks they may have a candidate just above 114 GeV, others say the upper limit is 186 GeV or 285 GeV, etc. No one is suggesting "tera electron volts" as a mass, but the LHC is looking up there apparently.

My question is, what if the mass of the Higgs is 285 GeV, for example, and they are doing collisions at 3 TeV? Does this mean that they are missing the Higgs or just creating a lot of them? In other words, do you have to tune the mass to a critical number to generate particular particles, sort of like a spectrometer uses a diffraction grating? Or is it the case that above a certain mass you get everything below that point?

ETA: Well, they also say the upper limit for the standard theory is 1.4 TeV, and then there are all kinds of Higgs bosons! I'm about ready to give up on this stuff.

It is really difficult to know how to ask these questions, since I really am in the dark about the theory.:)
 
Last edited:
My question is, what if the mass of the Higgs is 285 GeV, for example, and they are doing collisions at 3 TeV? Does this mean that they are missing the Higgs or just creating a lot of them? In other words, do you have to tune the mass to a critical number to generate particular particles, sort of like a spectrometer uses a diffraction grating? Or is it the case that above a certain mass you get everything below that point?

Hi Olowkow,

There are different ways that a collider can spit out a massive particle, and different colliders (and different particles) behave differently in exactly the way you're asking about. e+e- colliders have one behavior, pp colliders have another.

To make a Z-boson at an e+e- collider, you indeed want the collider to be tuned so the collision energy is equal to the Z mass. To make an Upsilon(4S) meson, you want the collider tuned to the Upsilon(4S) mass.

On the other hand, to make a Higgs boson in an e+e- collision, it turns out that the best reaction to create is one with both a Z and an H0 in the final state; you want to get your energy up to at least MH + 91 GeV, and somewhat higher is better. So that's a general sort of consideration to think about---are you trying to make a plain Higgs sitting there by itself? Or are you trying to make a Higgs via some sort of top-quark process? You need enough energy to run the whole process.

In any case, the LHC isn't an e+e- collider, it's a pp collider. A proton consists of three "valence" quarks and a sea of gluons and quark-antiquark pairs. In fact, it's tempting to think of it as a quark-quark collider---instead of colliding two protons at 7 TeV each, it'll collide two quarks at about 2 TeV each, 4 TeV total, right? That's a good place to start, but it gets more complicated than that. The sea quarks and gluons (which are much more numerous than the valence quarks) have extremely low energies, even in a 7 TeV proton---most are below 1 TeV. So now your 14 TeV pp collider really behaves kind of like a low-luminosity ~4 TeV valence quark collider, and also a ~2 TeV quark-gluon collider, and also high-luminosity ~1 TeV gluon-gluon collider. All at the same time. Depending on the Higgs mass, one or the other of these collision types might be the dominant producer of Higgs bosons.

So you don't just want the *proton* energies to be above the Higgs mass. You actually want the *gluon* energies---for as many of those low-energy sea gluons as possible---to be that large.
 
Last edited:
Thanks again ben m.
That's a lot to ponder, but I will. I just spent 15 minutes trying to say something in response but I guess "wow" is all I can come up with, for now.:) I need to digest this.
 
Now they'll look foolish? :D

ETA: Speaking of which, where are the usual anti-LHC-it's-going-to-kill-us-all kooks at? Have they said anything publicly?


I know what they are doing, they are still fear mongering.

I said to Walter Wagner on another forum that they should give an apology to the public because they have made many people afraid of this experiement and people have really been nervous about it.

His answer was.

NO.

Why?

Because it is a 8 TeV the **** is about to go down :cool:

According to Walter.
 
I know what they are doing, they are still fear mongering.

I said to Walter Wagner on another forum that they should give an apology to the public because they have made many people afraid of this experiement and people have really been nervous about it.

His answer was.

NO.

Why?

Because it is a 8 TeV the **** is about to go down :cool:

According to Walter.

And he bases this assertion on what, exactly? A crystal ball? :rolleyes:

You know, he visited my blog (below in my signature) and commented on a recent post I'd made about the LHC. He seemed to be implying exactly what you said, so I amended my post to say the following...

**Addendum (3/22/2010): Shortly after I wrote the post below, it came to my attention that the proton-proton beams in the LHC haven’t yet actually collided at the 3.5 TeV level yet, but I think that point is moot. It’s also true that the LHC has already conducted proton-proton collisions at greater than TeV levels (up to about 2.36 TeV, it seems)…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Current_results

And despite this fact, we’re all still here. Of course, I expect the scare mongers to come back with something like “But we don’t know that the planet won’t be destroyed at the next energy level!” By that same token, we don’t know that the Earth won’t be destroyed if we don’t turn the damn thing on, right?

Arguments from ignorance can be used in such silly ways. ‘Nuff said.

Walter didn't bother to return in an attempt to counter this argument of mine. What could he do, claim that I'm part of The Conspiracy? Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing to see in action...
 
Last edited:
I've never quite understood the rationale behind those who think that the LHC will create a black hole or whatever the devil it is they're saying these days. The strangest part is that it's completely refutable, although I often find myself lacking the technical finesse to do so.
 
Now they'll look foolish? :D

ETA: Speaking of which, where are the usual anti-LHC-it's-going-to-kill-us-all kooks at? Have they said anything publicly?

Perhaps they were protesting near the LHC and got sucked into the first black hole that popped out.
 
I've never quite understood the rationale behind those who think that the LHC will create a black hole or whatever the devil it is they're saying these days. The strangest part is that it's completely refutable, although I often find myself lacking the technical finesse to do so.

Weeellllll......


According to some variations of string theory, the possibility exists that a microscopic black hole could be created. It's unlikely, but it is NOT outside current theory.

Of course, this microscopic black hole would be mostly harmless, and so small as to evaporate almost immediately (in fact, as it would be smaller than an atomic nucleus, the chances of it encountering ANY other matter before evaporation are essentially nil), they're still woo for thinking it would pose some sort of danger.

But it could create a black hole, if the a certain theory is correct.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom