Transition in the Energy Level of Space

Problem is, that CERN evaluates risks by it's own knowledge. Problem is, that all they do not (want to) know seems to bring NO risk with it, even if high-energetic collision-densities occure as never before in the cosmos, since the so called big-bang.

Eric, i do not realy understand your calculation:
//
concerning the 150 million high energy collisions that would occur per second within a volume of less than 1/100th of a cubic millimetre [32] at each (of the four) collision points at the LHC. This gives 22.4 billion (2.24 x 10^10) collisions per cubic millimetre every second.
//
as i learned there are 600'000'000 collisions per second at each (of the four) collision points at the LHC - further i do not understand how 4x150'000'000 (resp. 4x600'000'000) collisions should give 22'400'000'000 collisions?
If you would like to explicate your calculation towards the audience, this could maybe be helpful.

Anyhow, the collison-densities at each of the four detectors at the LHC are tremendous.

Risk-neglectioning by mentioning collisions due to cosmic-rays are (at least concerning collision-density) in no way accurate, because in no way similar to what shall be 'created' at the LHC.

As far as i know, there are no accepted theories explaining possible outcomes of collision-densities that could bring the 'vacuum' aka 'fields' aka 'ether' in vibrations which could lead to desaster(s) maybe nobody has thought of ---> what's about time? could the linear flow of time be corrupted?
Could there be some more hidden because compactified time-like dimensions that could rhythmically get triggered to unfold? And which could be the resulting effects to life?

Anyhow, one doesn't need to be a musician to wonder about rhythmic effects onto media - as trumpets around Jericho should have been the reason to break walls and soldiers marching over bridges can bring them to collapse there should be some precautional considerations of the experimentator concerning rhythms onto supposed fields (for example the so called 'higgs-field'). Are there any precautional considerations from CERN about rhythmic effects on the fabric of space-time?

According to CERN's LHC Facts and figures page http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Facts-en.html."Altogether some 600 million collisions will take place every second." So with four collision points that is 150million per second at each.

The volume of (.01)x (1 cubic mm) was not the one that I used for later result - but just to give a sense that the volume was less than this (but more than (.001)x (1 cubic mm)). The volume that allows for collision at each collision point was calculated from an article (Nature 448 p.285) that gave 320 micro radians angle between beams and a 16microns diameter, as basis for my collision volume - approximating to two cones each with 16micron diameter).

My 22.4 billion collisions per second per cubic mm was for within a larger volume than above, so I extended the same high energy collision frequency/density as before, but out for this more standard measure of volume, by multiplying the no. of collisions by the same factor ie by 100. I don't have my original value for the volume for the 150million collisions per sec, in easy reach, in other words I word have to calculate it again.

Rhythmic effects, well the standard view of what could be a basis for transition of energy level in space completely neglects simultaneity or nearness in time with nearby high energy collisions; hence completely neglecting implications from the time aspect of 'space-time' ; along with the implication of accumulations of collision in density per volume terms. The latter seems odd itself, given that particularly energy density was the original criteria.

But unfortunately we and an anthropology Professor are the wrong people to say these things. But being Plaga or Rossler with their issues doesn't seem to help either.

"This then creates a significantly different circumstance than that of isolated cosmic ray collisions."

Hello Eric,

also the LHC-events are isolated:

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1165534/files/CERN-Brochure-2009-003-Eng.pdf, page 35

"When the bunches cross, there will be a maximum of about 20 collisions between 200 billion particles. Bunches will cross on average about 30 million times per second (see previous question), so the LHC will generate up to 600 million particle collisions per second."

The point is, that "per second" is misleading; "per year" were misleading as well. The appropriate quantity is "per collision".


Best regards, Ralf

Yes! Unfortunately 'we' and an anthropology Professor (Paul Dixon) ARE obviously the wrong people to even talk about risks that eventually could arise out of experimentating with high-energies in densities never-ever reached anywhere in the cosmos since parts of billionsth of a second after the so called 'big bang' - the extraordinary moment when 'inflation' of this universe is said to have begun.

But neverless - as me too, i am a potential object of collateral-damage of a company's particular interests, i at least continue telling them here in 'my' weblog, why i do NOT agree with starting the LHC in a few days and ramping up energies asap:

Security-specialists are never in doubt, - but as history shows -, they quite often have been proven wrong, later. Didn't they, Mr. Kannenberg?

Since the famous fault of the experiments Michelson and Morley have undertaken a century ago, the 'main-stream' of the physicists-community accepted, that there wouldn't be any 'Ether' at all and for sure - just since a few decades there are 'speculations' about a 'Vacuum' and so-called 'Fields' - nothing else than a reinvention of an 'Ether' due to formulaic-necessities.
As an example the 'Higgs-Field' Professor Rujula mentions, by expliciting that due to collisions at the LHC this 'field' should be set in 'Vibrations' and thus the ominous and doubtable 'Higgs-particle (God-Particle) should finally become detectable.

Hooray and Halleluja!

Since all nuclear-physicist seem to be 100% sure and certain that each collision and each resulting 'fireball' MUST be a single event - Mr. Rujula's vibrations in the 'Higgs-Field' MUST therefore couldn't be anything else, than just a very local-effect ...

but

... latest if there eventually should be found a 'thing' between the 'things'
(if humans/scientists perception of isolated 'things', as electrons and hadrons (quarks and gluons) with (in relation to their size) astronomical distances between them, should be found as a not 100% accurate explication of interferences of (maybe unknown-)'Fields')

, than all stultificationing of worries about experimentating with high energies in highest densities ever could eventually have found a sudden END by timelike ore spacelike resonances (vibrations) through the 'Vacuum' aka 'Fields' aka 'Ether'.

And so could humanity indeed find a sudden END, all life on Earth or even Earth itself (and, might be, the hole cosmos) suddenly could have found an END.

Fe-ion collisions will take place at LHC with 28 times more energy as at RHIC - the collision-density will be 10'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000'000 higher than trough cosmic-rays onto Earth's stratosphere - denser as anywhere in the hole universe since the so called 'big-bang'.

Out of their own perception of reality the experimentators are obviously without any worries. I hope their perception will indeed be as nature 'works'.

My proposals are:
1) an immediat stopp of the LHC. 2) having respect from the unknown (the New Frontiers of Physics) and so 3) continuing to understand the universe by collecting data from the many sources where by nature collisions of sub-atomic particeles are happening - in nature's own 'safe' mode.
(since 4'5 billions of years in this solar-system).

There's NO need risking micro-black-holes, strangelets, or vacuum-instabilities by colliding smallest particles with highest energies in a density as it only once since the beginning of this universe had been: immediatly after the 'big-bang' when the inflation of the cosmos is said to have begun.

There is NO reason to accept uncalcuable risks through simulating 'small'-'big-bangs' on earth in multitude.
Marc Fasnacht

p.s. maybe, as chances that anything catastropic will happen at all, are indeed quite intact, it might indeed be much wiser, not at all to reflect about any kind of risks concerning the LHC ... and so it could indeed be much wiser to continually trust (without any doubt!) into the infallibility of scientific knowledge, at least concerning the most powerfull collider ever.

So, sheeps may stay fooding, shoppers may be should continue their shopping, workers may be continue their working, bankers may be continue their banking - the only reason to worry about should be, who - later - will eventually pay the bill(s), if ever.

"Since the famous fault of the experiments Michelson and Morley have undertaken a century ago, the 'main-stream' of the physicists-community accepted, that there wouldn't be any 'Ether' at all and for sure - just since a few decades there are 'speculations' about a 'Vacuum' and so-called 'Fields' - nothing else than a reinvention of an 'Ether' due to formulaic-necessities."

Sehr geehrter Herr Fasnacht,

ehe Sie solche "Vermutungen" anstellen lohnt es sich, die berühmte Rede Albert Einsteins zu diesem Thema zu lesen. Er hat sie 1920 an der Universität von Leiden gehalten und sie ist an ein Auditorium gerichtet, welches nicht aus Fachleuten bestand. Dass die Einstein-Kritik diese falsche Behauptung in regelmässigen Abständen ins Internet stellt, heisst ja noch lange nicht, dass sie richtig ist !

Und einmal mehr sehen Sie, wie wichtig Aufklärungsarbeit ist, damit nicht auch Sie noch diesem längst widerlegten Unsinn aufsitzen !

Wenn Sie sich nicht die Mühe machen möchten, diese Rede - die ich persönlich sehr zur Lektüre empfehle - nachzulesen: Im Laufe der Zeit hat es verschiedene Vorstellungen über den "Äther" gegeben, je nach dem damaligen aktuellen Kenntisstand. Albert Einstein hat die wichtigsten in seiner Rede genannt. Und tatsächlich schlägt auch er einen sehr verallgemeinerten Ätherbegriff vor, der aber nichts mit dem Ätherbegriff des Michelson-Morley Experimentes zu tun hat !


Freundliche Grüsse, Ralf Kannenberg

Mr. Kannenberg, don't you mind reformulating your very important statement in english, please.

Sure, Michelson&Morley were experimentating to finally proof what all physicists were believing since Aristotle: a medium to transport light - the so called Ether.

By failing to proof this media to transport light by interference-experimentationing the physicist's community had a problem.

But Albert Einstein, a couple of years later, managed to explain many open questions of physics with his special theory of relativity - i heard there were many anymosities from (at this time well established) physicians towards Einstein.
Weren't there?

Sure, you are right, Albert Einstein himself re-invented an 'Ether' which was NOT an 'Ether' to transport light, but other kinds of informations.

Am i correct with my statements explaining your answer for non-german-speaking audience?

best regards,
Marc Fasnacht

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

could you please tell me the statement in which Albert Einstein "re-invented" an ether ?

Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Mr. Kannenberg, i do not like to waste my time by chatting around here.

You were the one who, just above, already gave the historically relevant information about Einstein's speach at Leyden.

Discussion is on topic "Transition in the Energy Level of Space" where there once was a stultified Professor Paul Dixon warning about risks of colliding smallest pieces of subatomic matter with high energies in highest densities.

Further i was talking about the so called 'Vacuum', ('Higgs' and other)-'Fields' also known as 'Ether' - all this are proofes, that nuclear physicists too suppose that something in-between of the 'things', merely all risk-evaluations are talking of, might eventually exist.

Fact is, as you may have learnt from one of the few reasonable forum-users in your home-forum, that at the LHC there indeed will be 600'000'000 collisions/second in two of the four detectors:

Der LHC liefert pro Hochluminositäts-Kollisionspunkt bei nominellen Strahlparametern eine Luminosität von etwa 1E34 cm^-2 s^-1. Die Erzeugungsrate interessanter (d.h. inelastischer) Ereignisse bekommt man durch Multiplikation mit dem Wirkungsquerschnitt. Der liegt bei etwa 6*10^-26 cm^-2.

Man erhält die bereits erwähnten 600.000.000 Ereignisse pro Sekunde.

Allerdings gilt das pro Kollisionspunkt! Es gibt zwei dieser Punkte, bei denen nach den besonders seltenen Ereignissen gesucht wird. Und in jedem Punkt werden die Strahlen zur Kollision gebracht. Da die Ereignisse doch sehr selten sind, wird auch nur sehr wenig vom Strahl verbraucht. D.h. auch am zweiten Punkt steht die volle Ladung für Kollisionen zur Verfügung. Demnach bekommt man an beiden Punkten zusammen also schon mal das doppelte: 1.200.000.000 Ereignisse pro Sekunde! Hier stehen übrigens die beiden großen Detektoren ATLAS und CMS.

http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=30676#30676

Looking at this, it is not so irrelevant to discuss, if twice 20 collisions happening all 30'000'000th part of a second (in toto 1'200'000'000 collisions/second) at the speed of light in spaces thinner than a human hair could eventually trigger either the 'Vacuum' aka 'Field(s)' aka 'Ether' in vibrations or trigger some compactified (space- or timelike) dimensions to unfold.

In the whole universe nowhere else as at the LHC are such ultra-high-densities of high-energetic particle collisions occuring - nowhere and never since the so called 'inflation' is said to have begun; do you agree, Mr. Kannenberg?

Do you have an idea, what eventually could arise of such ultrahighdensity-collisions?

Please try to stay on topic, Mr. Kannenberg, i am not at all interested to trash Einstein by continuing a misleading discussion about his view onto the necessity of a media to transmit information. His speak at Leyden was 90 years ago - at this time there was no collider as the LHC even imaginable.

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

if you provide incorrect information about Albert Einstein which arises from the well-known Einstein-critic then it is recommended to correct this.

There is no benefit for the safety discussion concerning the LHC in distributing wrong information about the Michelson-Morley experiment and wrong information about Albert Einstein.

I emphasize that it was you who entered this wrong issue into the discussion, not me !


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

So, mr. Kannenberg, great!!!

You did the great job to correct incorrect information, that, as you think, would arise from the well-known Einstein-critic, which i didn't mention, didn't mean and what is absolutly NOT topic here.

Either you focus on topic, or you go back to your home-forum to chat around there.

Topic is:
if 2 times 20 collisions happening all 30'000'000th part of a second
(in toto 1'200'000'000 collisions/second)
at the speed of light in a volume thinner than a human hair could eventually
i) trigger either the 'Vacuum' aka 'Field(s)' aka 'Ether' in vibrations or
ii) trigger some compactified (space- or timelike) dimensions to unfold.

In the whole universe nowhere (and never) else (before) as at the LHC did such ultra-high-densities of high-energetic particle collisions occure - nowhere and never since the so called 'inflation'.

Do you agree, Mr. Kannenberg?

No.

Thank you, Ralf Kannenberg!

No. ... this, indeed, is a good statement. My humble congratulations.

I guess you just need a little more time to find the relevant documents to explain to the audience why you do not agree with my above statement, mentioning, that nowhere else and never before since the so called 'inflation' (that is said to have happened parts of a millionth of a second after the so called 'big-bang') would have occured any lhc-similar high-energetic particle collisions in any lhc-similar ultra-high-densities as they will happen at the LHC - nowhere in the whole universe and never before.

Now i am quite impatiently waiting for your answer, as this topic is probably the most interesting question in the whole of our many conversations.

Thank you!
Marc Fasnacht

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

your statement consists of so many components that I would need to verify each of them first to be able to agree.

I have not done this. - Furthermore I do not know our universe well enough to confirm your scenarios and I am very surprised that you seem to know about all the high-energy processes of our universe.

Thus it is not possible to agree: I can neither agree nor disagree.

But still the question arises if your statement is of relevance for the safety discussion of the LHC. As the LHC collisions are single collision-events I assess that they are not.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

"I guess you just need a little more time to find the relevant documents to explain to the audience why you do not agree with my above statement"

Nice to read your guessings, Mr.Fasnacht.

Indeed it took me less than half an hour but you have not released my response yet (current time: 16:06) despite your impatience mentioned above. Please note in this context that I am not always online.

By the way: I would appreciate if you were not editing your text while I am writing an answer. Furthermore I would have appreciated to answer to Mr.Boux: a simple text is easy to enter, but it seems that some text-pattern has been restricted, similar to the former case where I was unable to enter my funny multi-x-name created by you, which I had wanted to use as a citation. You will surely agree that such technical issues do not make discussions easier.

Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

it seems that the string "Benutz-ung" without this "-" cannot be processed by the webpage-software.

Mr.Boux was able to enter it, but my attempt of citation resulted in an error:


"Kann Kommentar nicht verarbeiten, bitte korrigiere diese Fehler:

Der angegebene Kommentar ist ungültig."


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Einstein did accept what he called a 'gravitational ether' - it is in a paper of his middle to late period, that is included in S Hawking's complition of his works.
Of course he did disagree with the static ether notion that Michelson Morley rejected, but I don't think anyone is questioning that. Presumably, such a gravitational ether though would somehow rotate with or around the earth, such that collisions shortly after another could occur nearby within such.
Christian Huygens had outlined a dynamic ether that spun around gravitational sources - carrying planets for example around within it, like the view of physicists Mottola and Mazur today.

You quote:
"When the bunches cross, there will be a maximum of about 20 collisions between 200 billion particles. Bunches will cross on average about 30 million times per second (see previous question), so the LHC will generate up to 600 million particle collisions per second."
then state:
'The point is, that "per second" is misleading; "per year" were misleading as well. The appropriate quantity is "per collision". '

What about CERN's own discussion about infinitesimal risks of just about anything happening because of quantum tunnelling (I can't quite remember where this was maybe Dr Ellis)? But in the case we look at the distances in time and space are extremely small.. Atleast, in this case, no study has been made of what these risks could be.

The highest energy cosmic ray has been measured 3 x 10^20 eV. Using CERN's own disputed figures, at each crossing point lhc would be providing 150,000,000 x (1 x 10^17eV) = 150 x 10 ^20eV per millisecond. (1 x 10^17eV is the available energy correlated to 14 x 10^12eV).

IN other words 50 x the collision energy of the highest recorded cosmic ray (3x10^20eV) within a volume of less than 1/100 cubic millimetre - extremely unlikely for such rare high energy cosmic rays.

Eric

Hello Eric,

please remember that the diameter of a proton, where these single events happen, is much smaller than all the sizes you have mentioned. And the diameter, where the Quarks are involved, are even smaller !


"Of course he did disagree with the static ether notion that Michelson Morley rejected, but I don't think anyone is questioning that."

I have never doubted that you know these things, but many readers of this page do not.


Best regards, Ralf

Nice to read your guessings, Mr.Fasnacht.

isn't it, Mr.Kannenberg?

Indeed it took me less than half an hour

That's great!

but you have not released my response yet (current time: 16:06) despite your impatience mentioned above. Please note in this context that I am not always online.

Sorry!!! Me too, sometimes i have other things to do, sometimes even urgently - since about 19pm CET your non-answer is published.

By the way: I would appreciate if you were not editing your text while I am writing an answer.

Sorry, again! But i just changed orthografical mistakes and typos. English is not my language and changing mistakes afterwards should be acceptable, isn't it???

Furthermore I would have appreciated to answer to Mr.Boux: a simple text is easy to enter, but it seems that some text-pattern has been restricted, similar to the former case where I was unable to enter my funny multi-x-name created by you, which I had wanted to use as a citation. You will surely agree that such technical issues do not make discussions easier.

Yes, Mr. Kannenberg, i do agree at 100%: discussions would be easier with a better infrastructure!

Maybe you are going to ask Mr.Bleicher if at CERN they would be so friendly to install a website where this 'making-not-easy' of discussions could be avoided?

If Cern would finaly do so - this website, where you received hospitality to post your nebulae longer than one and a half year, could finally become my private yoga- and art-website again.

Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

ok, thank you.


And having 'discussed' all this foggy-chatty nebulae it's obvious urgent to get back onto your 'astronomical' non-arguments:

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

your statement consists of so many components that I would need to verify each of them first to be able to agree.

I have not done this. - Furthermore I do not know our universe well enough to confirm your scenarios and I am very surprised that you seem to know about all the high-energy processes of our universe.

Thus it is not possible to agree: I can neither agree nor disagree.

My question to you, dear Mr.Kannenberg, - in easy words - is:

Do you know about any place(s) in the cosmos where particle collisions with similar energies in similar densities as at the LHC occure?

This shouldn't be that difficult to answer, isn't it?

I want to thank you very much (in advance) for answering as easy and accurate as possible onto this not so complex but nevertheless quite important question.
Marc Fasnacht

"Do you know about any place(s) in the cosmos where particle collisions with similar energies in similar densities as at the LHC occure?

This shouldn't be that difficult to answer, isn't it?"


Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

before answering your question I would like to know of which relevance an answer to this question is.

Because ... - both natural collisions and LHC-collisions are single events.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg


And to fulfill your curiosity: No, I do not know about such places. Possibly in supernovae, in hypernovae, in the merger of 2 neutron stars, in the merger of 2 stellar black holes or in the origins of gammy ray bursts ? - I have not calculated the energy balance of these events and I do not intend to do so. But as mentioned above: This is of academic interest and has nothing to do with an safety assessment about the LHC.

Here i do indeed thank you, Mr. Kannenberg, for your clear and honest answer.

I'll comme, as soon as possible, back onto topic.

I wish you a nice evening.
Sincerly,
Marc Fasnacht

"Here i do indeed thank you, Mr. Kannenberg, for your clear and honest answer."

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

service ! By the way - this was the reason why I had wanted (and insisted !) to understand all the citations in this long thread http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/2009/08/21/p1293 first before making any assessment.

Best regards and also a nice evening to you, Ralf Kannenberg

"My question to you, dear Mr.Kannenberg, - in easy words - is:

Do you know about any place(s) in the cosmos where particle collisions with similar energies in similar densities as at the LHC occure?"


I have a question for you, dear Mr. Fasnacht, - in easy words - as well:

Do you know about any place(s) in the cosmos where G2 mainsequence stars like our sun are surrounded by planets in similar densities (i.e. quantity and mass distribution) as in our solarsystem occur ?


Maybe the lifetime of G2 mainsequence stars is biased by this parameter; the only known similar planetary systems to ours are PSR B1257+12 and possibly PSR B0329+54. In both cases the central star is a pulsar which might be an indication that sun-like stars surrounded by solarsystem-like planets have a shorter lifetime.

From a theoretical point of view taking current star models into consideration you can argue that planet-system densities (i.e. quantity and mass distribution) are of no relevance to the lifetime of the central star, but from an experimental confirmance the data basis supports a theory that sun-like stars surrounded by solarsystem-like planets have a shorter lifetime, which would require immediate securing of energy provision on earth independent from sun !


This is not a stultification, it is just the identical logical flow of your arguments: In case of the LHC you take it serious, in case of our sun you deny any risk, although the argument is the same.

But possibly you have better source of information than I have, thus let me repeat my question to exclude any prejudice from my side:

Do you know about any place(s) in the cosmos where G2 mainsequence stars like our sun are surrounded by planets in similar densities (i.e. quantity and mass distribution) as in our solar system occur ?


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

This is not a stultification, it is just the identical logical flow of your arguments: In case of the LHC you take it serious, in case of our sun you deny any risk, although the argument is the same.

Sure, your question IS an absolute unique kannenberg-like stultification, dear Ralf Kannenberg, because NO experimentator is experimentating with G2-mainsequence-stars, these days; but CERN is going exactly these days to produce hadron-collision-densities as they NEVER and NOWHERE in this universe did or do occure.

As 'we' are disussoning neglected (or maybe forgotten) risks - in this blog-entry on topic Risk(s) of Vacuum-Instability due to high-energetic collisions in NEVER before and NOWHERE else since parts of a second after the Big-Bang reached densities - your questioning about G2-mainsequence-stars IS stultificationing, because only of academic but not at all of lhc-security related interest.

Your question is, sorry!, just another foggy nebula.

honestly and sincer
Marc Fasnacht

Cern on its 'Safety-Site' (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html) says:

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) can achieve an energy that no other particle accelerators have reached before, but Nature routinely produces higher energies in cosmic-ray collisions. Concerns about the safety of whatever may be created in such high-energy particle collisions have been addressed for many years. In the light of new experimental data and theoretical understanding, the LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) has updated a review of the analysis made in 2003 by the LHC Safety Study Group, a group of independent scientists.

LSAG reaffirms and extends the conclusions of the 2003 report that LHC collisions present no danger and that there are no reasons for concern. Whatever the LHC will do, Nature has already done many times over during the lifetime of the Earth and other astronomical bodies. The LSAG report has been reviewed and endorsed by CERN’s Scientific Policy Committee, a group of external scientists that advises CERN’s governing body, its Council.

and about

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.

but NO word at all about it's collision-densities, which are nowhere and never reached before in this universe since the so called big-bang.

"absolute unique kannenberg-like stultification"

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

your response just documents to the reading public that you have not understood the underlying logical conclusions.


"because NO experimentator is experimentating with G2-mainsequence-stars, these days"

Surely you agree that the sun is providing energy permanently whereas the experiments at the LHC are only done timewise; thus also from this point of view the urgency were higer.


By the way: Logical conclusions have nothing to do with the LHC and are known for milleneums ! I do not expect that the readers know these things in detail but as well I do not accept that these analogies are disqualified as stultifications !


"Your question is, sorry!, just another foggy nebula."

I do not like polemics: Please prove this statement. Remember that nobody has yet been able to disprove any of these so-called stultifications; maybe you are the first one who is able to do so.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Sure! the Sun is of more importance than the LHC - the Sun gives Life. The LHC doesn't.

But at the sun there are no machine-based-human-expertiments going on, these days.

At the LHC there are a few specialists preparing their machine to smash hadrons together in never ever before - since the big-bang! - reached densities.

On this website we are discussioning neglected or forgotten risks at the LHC.

In this blogentry topic is 'Transition in the Energy Level of Space'.

Topic is not, what just goes through just another risk-neglectors fantasy.

Mr. Kannenberg, either you stay on topic - or you post your further nebulae in your home-forum: http://www.relativ-kritisch.net/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=15

"Mr. Kannenberg, either you stay on topic "

Hello Mr.Fasnacht,

I can assure you, it is on topic. I would not invest so much time if it were not.

Remember that it was you who brought up a question where a lack of experimental data is of no relevance and I have provided another, easy understandable analogous question where as well a lack of experimental data is of no relevance.

Once more I emphasize that this has nothing to do with any stultifications; it is just an example that two analogous situations result in different safety assessments, although no further argument is provided.


Best regards, Ralf Kannenberg

Ralph
“please remember that the diameter of a proton, where these single events happen, is much smaller than all the sizes you have mentioned. And the diameter, where the Quarks are involved, are even smaller !”

But it does not seem that quarks in particular are relevant, as the admitted criteria is in energy per nucleon units - which lsag referred to for this case.

But you reinforce the point I made, when we see that lsag/ Wilzcek et al. were considering energy densities that already refer to multiple particles to achieve such space energy transition (in theory).

The point of quantum tunnelling is that it reaches beyond a range of what would otherwise be a limit due to electric potential. It would be useful to see what distances have been attained in this way by electrons in the diodes where this occurs. I suspect it would be found such distances would be not nearly so restricted as you suggest. According to CERN themselves, decreasing likelihood with distance, but there is no limit.

Eric

"But it does not seem that quarks in particular are relevant, as the admitted criteria is in energy per nucleon units "

Hello Eric,

this has already been discussed here by other people than me: http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/2009/10/21/p1358, starting Nov 3rd, 2009 at 13:53:

http://www.achtphasen.net/index.php/plasmaether/2009/10/21/solkar_zeigt_auf_dass_gaamp_m_in_ihrer_r#c1514


Best regards, Ralf