Zu Stranglets wurde in deutschsprachigem Raum, so weit ich weiss, gar nicht diskutiert - bis erst diese Tage, beispielsweise hier und hier wo in gewohnter Manier meine laienhafte Besorgnis als Ausdruck von Wissenschaftsfeindlichkeit dargestellt wird.

—————–

Nichts aber ist unangebrachter als mich als tumben Wissenschaftsfeind dazustellen. Ich bin in grosser Besorgnis über unwissenschaftlich hastig vorangetriebene Experimentiererei am weltstärksten head-on-Beschleuniger, zumal zunehmende seismische Aktivitäten unbedingt VOR weitergehender Erdkernanreicherung mit eventualiter bereits am RHIC seit 10 Jahren erzeugten und nicht-detektiert in die Erde gesunkenen Strangelets, gesichert als statistische Ausreisser erkannt werden müssen.

Ich bitte hier weiterzulesen und sich gegebenfalls an dieser Diskussion sinnvoll zu beteiligen.

—————–

Hier Hyperlinks auf ein paar relevantere Paper betreffs Strangelets:

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0112027v1

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0003014v1

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0206145v2

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0209080v2

http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0602047v3

—————–

Papers beyond are good papers, but what happens by nature is always much simpler.

RHIC showed that most particles evolved inside the atom, by relativistic mass from uud udd into uds hyperons

So in colliding point there will be a lot of proton-proton collisions, which will be in fact hyperon-hyperon collisions.
And those collisions create stable dibaryons, whisch as beeing neutral are undetectable.

So there could be a constant, copious production of stable dibaryons, the atoms of strangelets, falling towards the center of the Earth and accumulating there. Everyday thousands of undetectable stable dibaryons can be created at RHIC and now at LHC too.

All those other ‘exotic’ combinations don’t matter, as nature is simple.

Weren’t there at RHIC as many hyperons as helium atoms found?
Won’t there be massive conversion of protons into hyperons?
And won’t those collisions of hyperons create dibaryons?

LHC can be considered as a factory of strangelet-liquid.

And as polutioning of Earth’s core is anyhow irreversable, the first proof will be the last proof: the moment we will see the first 10 richter earthquake, we are done.
And this could happen at anytime, there is no possible way to know when…

—————–

Leider traue ich den Chef-Maschinisten am LHC nicht zu, dass sie den ‘Mut’ haben werden, Unsicherheit einzugestehen.

Diese Menschen interpretieren die ‘Verpflichtung’ für erhaltene Subventionen endlich ‘Resultate’ vorzuweisen wohl noch immer als weitaus grösser als die Verpflichtung den Fortbestand des Planetens auch nicht ‘nur’ mit 0,00001% Wahrscheinlichkeit zu riskieren.

Zudem sollen im Jahr 2012 umfangreiche Umbauten an der Havarie-Maschine durchgeführt werden - da braucht es wohl endlich Resultate um weitere Finanzmittel zu erhalten. Angesichts dessen, dass am LHC spätestens bei den Experimenten mit den Blei-Ionen-Kollisionen Strange-Quark-Rekombinationen in weitaus höherem Ausmasse als am RHIC möglich entstehen werden, ist die Eile der Experimentatorenschaft nun endlich mit den höheren Energien loszulegen nurmehr fahrlässig, solange die Detektions-Data des RHIC nicht gründlich nach ‘fehlenden Energien’ und Indizien für nicht-detektierte weil stabilverbliebene Strangelts abgesucht worden ist.

Es ist tatsächlich die Fortexistenz dieses Planeten bedroht.
Marc Fasnacht

2010-03-12 | achtphasen | 23:00:49 | Email | 5 comments




 

Comment from: Kondensat [Visitor]
8phasen! NICHT DISKUTIERT?! sie lügen wie gedruckt! auf astronews.com wurde schon 2008 LANG UND BREIT über strangeletes diskutiert. auch IHNEN sind die fakten darüber bekannt! wer nach SO VIEL AUFKLÄRUNG strangelets noch immer für gefährlich hält, muss demagoge sein!

sorry....
PermalinkPermalink 2010-03-12 | 23:30
Comment from: ralfkannenberg [Visitor]
"tumben Wissenschaftsfeind"

Herr Fasnacht,

es liegt an Ihnen, dieses Image zu korrigieren. Mit Ihrer beständigen selektiven Zitierung - wenn ich mich nicht verzählt habe bereits zum vierten Male ! - eines Satzes aus der Sicherheitsanalyse, der überhaupt nicht für die Sicherheitsabschätzungen verwendet wird und mit Ihrem Zitieren von Zahlen wie:

"auch nicht ‘nur’ mit 0,00001% Wahrscheinlichkeit zu riskieren" ,

die jeglicher Grundlage entbehren, indes verstärken Sie dieses zweifelsohne unvorteilhafte Image.


Dass Sie das dann noch mit suggestiven Vermutungen anreichern wie:

"da braucht es wohl endlich Resultate um weitere Finanzmittel zu erhalten." (Bemerkung: endlich ist im Original kursiv dargestellt)

wird kaum jemanden, der ein bisschen naturwissenschaftlichen Hintergrund hat, zu überzeugen vermögen.


Ralf Kannenberg
PermalinkPermalink 2010-03-16 | 12:23
Comment from: Eric [Visitor]
Here are two paper consider the strangeness distribution from the qgp

a) From figs 3 and 5 of 'Int Jrnal Mod Phys A' March 2009, Song, Shao and Xie model strange baryons to be most likely produced from the centre of mass of collision for the so far highest energy heavy nuclei collisions (200GeV(sqrtSNN)RHIC). As this differs from the slight trends away from c.o.m for uds lambda at lower energies, we should now expect a further increasing c.o.m trend at LHC for the strange baryons (due I think to a compensatingly increased involvement of centrally compacted quarks at collision). Hence this would likely tend to rule out possibility of astrophysical reassurance arguments at LHC for the larger strangelets - as the c.o.m. peak accentuates increasingly for greater relative atomic masses.


This is clear enough proof of the unavoidable dangers of LHC strangelets.


b) Middle row of fig 7 http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0602047v3 (Letessier and Rafelski 2007) indicates that strangeness is most concentrated (see top left of image - 'gammaS' or 'strangeness occupancy') in the slowest emerging part of the qgp from collision.


For me, these papers, both whose sets of authors have shown existing data more accurately corroborates their models, than do those authors that CERN relies on (Andronic et al.). This is clear enough proof of the unavoidable dangers of LHC strangelets.
PermalinkPermalink 2010-03-16 | 19:25
Comment from: ralfkannenberg [Visitor]
"'Int Jrnal Mod Phys A' March 2009, Song, Shao and Xie"

Hello Eric,

I assume you refer to: "Hadron production by quark combination in central Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 17.3 GeV",
Chang-en Shao, Jun Song, Feng-lan Shao and Qu-bing Xie
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0902/0902.2435v2.pdf


"model strange baryons to be most likely produced from the centre of mass of collision for the so far highest energy heavy nuclei collisions"

I don't see any assessment to the likelihood in the paper - a center-of-mass frame just occurs in equation (6).


"As this differs from the slight trends away from c.o.m for uds lambda at lower energies, we should now expect a further increasing c.o.m trend at LHC for the strange baryons (due I think to a compensatingly increased involvement of centrally compacted quarks at collision)."

Due to the missing likelihood assessment above, I do not understand why you see anything differ from slight trends away from c.o.m (centre of mass ? (of collision ? (model ?)))


"we should now expect a further increasing c.o.m trend at LHC for the strange baryons (due I think to a compensatingly increased involvement of centrally compacted quarks at collision)."

Before understanding this "trend" the questions above need to be answered.


"Hence this would likely tend to rule out possibility of astrophysical reassurance arguments at LHC for the larger strangelets - as the c.o.m. peak accentuates increasingly for greater relative atomic masses."

Assuming your open points above all are correct - why does this rule out the possibility of astrophysical reassurance arguments ?


Sorry for these questions, but from your description I just have not gotten your point yet.


Best regards, Ralf
PermalinkPermalink 2010-03-17 | 12:40
Comment from: Eric Penrose [Member] Email
Ralf

Apology for delay, message of this post didn't seem to get through.

"model strange baryons to be most likely produced from the centre of mass of collision for the so far highest energy heavy nuclei collisions" [me]
..
'I don't see any assessment to the likelihood in the paper - a center-of-mass frame just occurs in equation (6). '

I based that statement on the graphs in the paper which you can see. Highest production likelihood, per unit increase in rapidity (a relatistic velocity measure), or dN/dy, is at y=0

'Due to the missing likelihood assessment above, I do not understand why you see anything differ from slight trends away from c.o.m (centre of mass ? (of collision ? (model ?))) '

As I stated, when compared to earlier less c.o.m dominant production at lower energies (with 10 - 20GeV range nucl-nucl) and on the basis of more likely c.om. strange baryon prediction in this paper, the implied trend is towards the centre of mass. Unfortunately I haven't recorded the reference for the earlier one as it is. But the trend seems implied on this basis (though I don't claim this is certain- & the prediction itself isn't certain).

'Assuming your open points above all are correct - why does this rule out the possibility of astrophysical reassurance arguments ? '

In the case of CR striking the moon, centre of mass strangelet production only, or statistically insignificant production outside this range, implies the strangelet moves too quickly in the moon to survive subsequent collision with nuclei. This is in Jaffe et al. and other reviews (Dar eta l..).

Though this last argument I am clear applies, I am less sure now of the real relevance of argument (a) than I have been - the question here is more the potential for accumulation of nucleons (incl strange quark(s)). But still (b) is strongly relevant and also whether the higher density per volume at the core of post collision is necessary for the more tightly bound strangelet, as opposed to an 'ordinary' strange hypernuclei with as many quarks in it as the strangelet. This to me is worrying.

Eric
PermalinkPermalink 2010-04-26 | 01:59
*
* your email address will not be displayed
  your URL will be displayed