Another Way the LHC Could Self-Destruct 367
KentuckyFC writes "Just when you thought it was safe to switch on the LHC (though it won't be for a while yet), another nightmare scenario has emerged that some critics worry could cause the particle accelerator to explode. The culprit this time is not an Earth-swallowing black hole but a 'Bose supernova' in the accelerator's superfluid helium bath. Physicists have been playing with Bose Einstein Condensate (BECs) for over 10 years now. But in 2001, one group discovered that placing them in a powerful magnetic field could cause the attractive forces between atoms to become repulsive. That caused their BEC to explode in a Bose supernova — which they called a 'Bosenova,' a name that fortunately did not catch on. This was little more than a curiosity when only a microscopic blob of cold matter was involved. But superfluid liquid helium is also BEC. And physicists have suddenly remembered that the LHC is swimming in 700,000 liters of the stuff while being zapped by some of the most powerful magnetic fields on the planet. So is the LHC a Bose supernova waiting to go off? Not according to the CERN theory division, which has published its calculations that show the LHC is safe (abstract). They also point out that no other superfluid helium handling facility has mysteriously blown itself to pieces."
let me assure you... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:let me assure you... (Score:5, Funny)
You had me going there for a moment, but I just checked the webcams and everything seems fine:
http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html [cyriak.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:let me assure you... (Score:5, Funny)
While the LHC might be perfectly safe, the LHC I'm building in my basement will be extremely volatile.
Dubbed the Large Hatred Collider, its function is to see what happens when enraged 'haters' are collided at speed.
First into the test chamber are a Daily Mail [google.com] reader (who is also a confirmed supporter of the BNP [wikipedia.org]) and an enraged Digg user, who's just discovered that not everybody likes Macintosh compters as much as he does.
It is expected that the two will cancel each other out when they collide. What is unknown is how much energy will be released when this happens. Does anyone on Slashdot have an equation for this?
Re:let me assure you... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:let me assure you... (Score:5, Funny)
e=mc^2
Where e = energy, m = the marketing power of Apple Corp. and c = the certainty of Apple fanboys exploding in a fiery rage whenever their platform choice is called into question.
In short- a hell of a lot.
This is easy (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean we can just blame it on the Bosenova [wikipedia.org]?
Re:This is easy (Score:5, Funny)
BLAME IT ON THE BOSENOVA
Blame it on the Bosenova,
That blew up so well.
Blame it in the Bosenova,
That we're in hell.
Super-cooled He and big magnets
Turned attractive forces
Right around.
Blame it on the Bosenova,
That CERN went boom!
Blame it on the Bosenova,
That blew up so well.
Blame it in the Bosenova,
That we're in hell.
How we ended up as just a pile of ash,
When the Large Hadron Collider
Made a flash.
Blame it on the Bosenova
Pheno-omenon.
(to the tune of... well, that should be obvious!)
That would be bad (Score:2)
About how big of a crater would 700,000 liters of liquid helium make?
Phase change (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Phase change (Score:5, Funny)
Or it could split the planet wide open if the uninformed hyperbole gets to hot and detonates.
Re:Phase change (Score:5, Funny)
And now we finally know how the ancient Atlantians created the moon and killed off the dinosaurs all at once.
Re:Phase change (Score:5, Informative)
also, lolwtfsig
Re:Phase change (Score:5, Insightful)
If you have a cup of super-cooled water, and tickle it so that it suddenly freezes, it's going to release a lot more energy that you used to trigger it. I don't understand the math here, but I think that (even though a BEC is a "cooler" phase than liquid) transition from a BEC to a liquid releases energy. Perhaps liquid helium just takes up more space than superfluid helium, so a rapid transition would be bad? In any case, rapid state changes in a material can release or consume more energy than is used to trigger the state change.
Re:Phase change (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For a BEC (Bose Einstein Condensate) to form you require temperatures at a millionth of a degree Kelvin, where as liquid helium is at about 2 degrees Kelvin. BECs are extremely difficult to create, even in the best of conditions. I just don't see this as an issue.
The whole black hole scenario is much more interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't find any definite numbers, but the impression I get is that the explosion would wreck the accelerator, but wouldn't blow open the tunnel it's in.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
well in the experiment in question 50% of the matter 'disappeared' or in other words was converted to energy. a standard fission reactor is converting ounces of matter into energy.
in other words, we're talking about an explosion about 350,000 times larger than hiroshima. i think that's enough energy to crack the earth in half. on the plus side, they were working with rubidium-85, not super fluid liquid helium, oh yeah, and they got the temperature all the way down to 3 billionths of a degree above absolu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets look at a worst case then -- how bad could it get? Lets assume half of the liquid helium gets converted directly to energy -- just how bad could it be? As it turns out, pretty bad -- not bad like converting the entire universe into strange matter, but bad enough for us -- not any better than sucking the whole planet into a what would eventually be a pea sized black hole. (ok, ok -- black holes don't really have a size, but the event horizon would be pea sized.)
The amount of liquid helium in question? 7
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instanteously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Re:That would be bad (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what she said.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They should have seen this one coming, what usually follow a large hardon collision? All this talk about tunnels and holes don't help either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That would be bad (Score:5, Funny)
Depends which side you ask.
None, because after careful analisis we've determined it won't happen
-Science
An explosion that would likely cause the END OF THE UNIVERSE AND KILL GOD! (add video clip of a van exploding)
-Fox News (story at 11)
More Cassandra warnings... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Insightful)
When testing a car for the first time, the worst that could happen is the tester of the car dies.
It is very easy to find one person who believes the science - and therefor is willing to test the car.
We should not expect the entire planet to be happy to "test" the LHC and its physics. We know they are safe...and don't mind testing. But some people aren't, and you can't really complain about that.
Oh and the bombs where made to end WWII, so there was obviously a very imminent need for the nuke...unlike the LHC physics...which are immensely interesting, but not really important for everyone.
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Funny)
The problem is that the LHC has caused the production of strange moron particles, which seem to bump into normal people and turn them into more strange morons. The collective outgassing of stupidity causes a supernova brain implosion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With the "arrow", we have invented the weapon that makes war too terrible to wage!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If anyone remembers, atomic bombs were originally estimated to have a 15% chance to cause complete atmospheric ignition on a planetary scale.
I believe the phrase you are looking for is "cascading exothermal inversion".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cassandra's predictions were right (Score:5, Informative)
That's the point of the myth: Apollo granted her the gift of prophesy, then cursed her by making it so nobody would ever believe her predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point of the myth: Apollo granted her the gift of prophesy, then cursed her by making it so nobody would ever believe her predictions.
Mod. Parent. Up.
Re: (Score:2)
Does LHC ever say "no" to anything? Would they, even if they knew there were risks?
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Insightful)
the LHC is not a commercial corporation. it's not even an organization. it's a particle physics experiment/apparatus
CERN is the organization that funds the LHC. and they are not a commercial corporation either. they're a particle physics laboratory and research institution. they're concerned with scientific & academic research, not making money. they're driven by the desire for knowledge, not the desire for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're confusing an idea popular when steam locomotives were first developed.
Especially since by the time cars were invented, pretty much everyone had gone 50 mph or higher riding a train.
Those afraid of LHC apocalypse are like atheists (Score:2)
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Insightful)
oh and BTW, the windshield is necessary to allow a human driver to continue breathing at today's highway speeds. it's very hard to properly exhale at 50-60 mph.
This is getting way OT, but I thought a windshield was also to protect my face from flying objects (stones, bugs, etc.). Considering my windshield just got chipped by a stone the other day, I'd rather not have to endure something like that hitting me in the eye.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Insightful)
For your information, I have no problems breathing while falling at 120mph. Goggles help though if you want to open your eyes.
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More Cassandra warnings... (Score:5, Informative)
Uh huh. And the various (admittedly foolish) motorcycle drivers I see riding on their bikes at 80mph without helmets are just holding their breath?
Re: (Score:2)
Breathing through their nose mostly, or just forcing their lungs harder. It is not a relaxed activity.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that hard. After a little practice it becomes second nature, it doesn't take that much more effort. You can even learn to have the wind do most of the work for you, forcing air in when you inhale and suck it out when you exhale.
Now if we get gale force winds I go about my way with no problem while the people next to me are gasping for air.
And to the GP: it's motorcycle riders
You drive a car, pilot a plane, sail a boat, and ride a motorcycle.
Re: (Score:2)
You're crazy. Well, I'm crazy too. I used to routinely ride my bike up to 85mph with only goggles and a half-helmet. And no windshield whatsoever. For several minutes at a time. Took it up over 110 on a few occasions. Not for long enough to suffocate, but certainly long enough to notice if I couldn't breath.
It takes ones breath away in only a f
Re: (Score:2)
"it's very hard to properly exhale at 50-60 mph"
No it's not. Try it for yourself.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That isn't a very good example either. Hurricanes typically gust up to 100+ MPH. Sustained winds are often less than that, 60% or so of the maximum gust speed. But more importantly, nobody really rides out a hurricane unshielded, and if anything, you can turn 180 degrees away from the winds if you need to breathe inside a storm. It's a little difficult to turn 180 degrees in a car, not to mention dangerous. I guarantee you'll have trouble breathing behind the wheel of a car without a windshield at 30MPH.
Reg
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. I jump out of airplanes every weekend and fall through the air at 120-180 mph, and am able to breathe just fine without anything over my face.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why all motorcycles are equipped with windshields. And why WWI era open-cockpit biplanes topped out at much less than 60mph airspeeds.
Where is the stock windscreen [honda.com] on my bike? Easy answer... there isn't one.
Forgive me, I just realized you have to be sarcastic, nobody makes generalizations like that in the era of Google and Wikipedia.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we please have a Godwin's Law for Car Analogies?
A better way to have ended WWII rather than the nuke, would have been to have driven all the bad guys down the autobahn at top speed without a windshield?
Re: (Score:2)
No Engineer on the planet would design the helium containment so it either A) wasn't strong enough to keep helium liquid through pressurization in the event of a refrigeration failure, and/or B) hadn't any pressure relief valves to prevent it from blowing up like a cheap water heater.
I mean, even the CHINESE would keep PRVs in their design.
We're scientists, trust us. (Score:5, Insightful)
True, but, no other SFH2 facility was wielding a 1Tev particle beam like it was a toy light saber, either.
Re: (Score:2)
bad physics, bad press (Score:5, Informative)
An expanding BEC isn't anywhere close to a supernova. This would be similar to snapping the valve off of a liquid helium tank. The guys at CERN could blow themselves up with this, but that's about it. They could blow themselves up lots of ways.
It was called a "bosenova" because it shrinks before it expands, not because it's super destructive.
the monkey's are afraid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the monkey's are afraid (Score:5, Funny)
Moonwatcher said to ask you to please quite disparaging semi-simian anthropoids. After all, HE's not frightened, and he's got a big black (or clear, if you prefer the book) slab to back him up.
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid f%^%$* monolith...
Look at your CPU (Score:5, Insightful)
The physics that allow us to build 5GHZ chips at 5nm is due to a thorough understanding of the atom. Our understanding of the atom is due to work done in 'atom smashers' like these.
This is not pointless science. Yes, we don't know what we will find, or how we will use it, but we will find something, and we will find it useful.
I can't say what history will record about the LHC. But it will be important, I can grant yo that.
Re:the monkey's are afraid (Score:4, Insightful)
Throwing a single molecule of H20 into the Pacific ocean would have a much larger effect than what the LHC is capable of.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But you're wrong. We're recreating big band like conditions.
Boogie woogie daddy, 8 branes to D bar.
One wrong Bosenova and there ain't no there where you are.
You may think it strange, but it's got its own charm.
The galaxy would still swing with one less arm.
Wail on that sassy brass, Satchmo.
Play it cool right down to 0 K.
Let's make everything one big Quantum Event.
Who needs this planet anyway?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me assuage your fears with a simple statement.
The big bang was caused by something that had enough energy to create all matter in existence. The LHC does NOT have enough energy to create all matter in existence.
QED
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LHC Joke of the Day! (Score:5, Funny)
A: Nothing
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If he's cleaning the inside of it, then he's not a janitor, he's a vacuum cleaner.
- RG>
Bose Nova?? (Score:2)
At least it will have terrific stereo sound.
Worser (Score:5, Informative)
Could it be worse than melting a 40-ton magnet, which actually happened?
First Law? (Score:5, Insightful)
In this (imaginary) case, the energy in would be that of the magnetic field. Trying to spin this as a possible supernova plays on ignorance, is scaremongering, and is just plain wrong.
When did Slashdot turn into Fox News?
Re:First Law? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:First Law? (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, magnets have been run at that temperature before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Law of conservation of energy (Score:5, Interesting)
I know it's out of vogue, but I'd like to point out that if the LHC were to explode in a fireball whose energy exceeded the energy we put into it, it'd be a good thing for science -- imagine a new energy source we can use to power our further expansion into the universe?
The law of conservation of energy makes for some very unsexy conclusions, like the lhc is probably fairly safe from destroying the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but I'd like to point out that if the LHC were to explode in a fireball whose energy exceeded the energy we put into it, it'd be a good thing for science
Yes, ultimately the discovery would mean cheap energy for any remaining continents.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I take it you didn't read the article describing the first BEC "explosion". Assuming it is accurat
Re:Law of conservation of energy (Score:5, Funny)
I'm from a small town (Score:5, Funny)
and we used to blow stuff up for fun when I was a kid. Now I work in an MRI research lab.
This sounds like something I need to try tomorrow.
Another way the LHC could self destruct (Score:2, Funny)
If perchance, the beams were improperly calibrated and they missed the normal intercept point and ended up crossing at another point in the collider.
Crossing the streams, that would be bad.
Give me a friggin' break... (Score:4, Interesting)
.
At best, this is one notch above voodoo....
Why is this news? (Score:5, Interesting)
From the summary:
"So is the LHC a Bose supernova waiting to go off? Not according to the CERN theory division, which has published its calculations that show the LHC is safe. They also point out that no other superfluid helium handling facility has mysteriously blown itself to pieces."
So, a "Bosenova explosion" under LHC-like conditions (1) can't happen according to theory, and (2) hasn't happened according to experiment either. Sheesh. I can concoct LHC disaster scenarios that are impossible according to theory and experiment too. Can I get on the Slashdot front page?
Resonance Cascade? (Score:2, Funny)
Calculations (Score:2)
> So is the LHC a Bose supernova waiting to go off? Not according to the CERN theory division, which has published its calculations that show the LHC is safe (abstract). They also point out that no other superfluid helium handling facility has mysteriously blown itself to pieces."
Yes, but did they account for a resonance cascade in the calculations? I know the chances of one occurring is extremely small, but I know I've seen one happen before.
Ok, obvious question (Score:3)
Does a bosanova put out more energy then you need to put in to cause the reaction? I'm assuming not.
If it does then this a possible energy source, huh? Shouldn't we be looking at harnessing this ala fusion?
If it doesn't, then I gather that no reaction the LHC could pour enough energy into to make happen would do much to the planet.
Trust Top Geeks (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure glad there's more certainty in economic and finance theory than physics; otherwise banks would be ....... we're fucked
Pun (Score:3, Interesting)
which they called a 'Bosenova,' a name that fortunately did not catch on.
Speak for yourself! I like it.
But it DID destroy the planet. . . (Score:5, Funny)
It went on line and the economy crashed.
Coincidence? I think not. Clearly it takes unbalanced chaotic systems and collapses them into the state most likely to actualize. The cloud of dreams which has been our economy since Reagan began inflating it with voodoo has been begging to collapse for some time. Thank-you Higgs Boson! Clearly, the LHC is a kind of Probability Drive.
I look forward to seeing what will happen next when they get it up and running again. If they run it in reverse, maybe it will turn missiles into potted plants and whales.
-FL
Yeah, right. (Score:4, Funny)
Doomsayer from "Little Nicky" (Score:4, Insightful)
Holy shit! We really ARE all gonna die!
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Pardon my snark. We've had particle particle accelerators for HOW long now? This is simply a bigger and better one.
Did we all die from those?
Did we all die when trains got faster than 50Mph?
Did we all die when we were finally able to surpass the sound barrier?
Did we all die in an ignited atmosphere when the Trinity test went off?
This stupid fucking technophobic bullshit is REALLY wearing on my nerves.
If you don't like it, move to Mars already and set up a hunter-gatherer utopia there. Just stop yammering in my fucking ear about how we're going to all kill ourselves fiddling with low mass particle collisions.
What's with all these "woogy-boogey" stories onLHC (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, next think you know the secretary of state for the bush administration and the heads of the christian coalition and the mackinac conservative think tank are going to announce the LHC is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we're dispatching a carrier group to the area.
Bull (Score:3, Informative)
Also, people have been constantly working on this stuff since then, with even larger currents (hence larger magnetic fields) and I think it's pretty safe to assume that the LHC is gonna be fine (at least this part of the machine).
Sure! Okay! Yeah right! (Score:4, Funny)
The kind who actually understand science?
Man... are you in for a surprise. Sorry, but we're just the general public, who can't be bothered to learn how our garbage disposal really works. Too gross.
Press/Public Wants it Stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit that in not fully understanding as a whole the general science behind the LHC that I'm hesistant in having the experiment go on. I studied biology but particle physics lost me a long time ago. I think its neat that the technolgy, knowledge and scientists are available to have this experienment come to fruition. Moreover, the contruction of the LHC is amazing.
The problem: The public sees the media as being the credible source of information. Not the physicists at CERN nor independent ones.
I think that the public and media are hesitant to have the experiment go on because they really don't understand or remeber anything about science past 9th grade (if that even). Whether the reason (religion, education, moral, fear, end of the world, conspiracy theory, etc.) it seems that this is the same resistance to other science experiments of the past. Nuclear weapons had the same public reaction (and the world is definately not the same since then). But more comparatively 'simple' things in complexity either science-wise or the ability for the public to understand the science behing it like the Human Genome Project, Stem Cell research, Robotics have met the same media and public resistance. The world will end with Dolly the Sheep.
Particle physics is tough to understand. I've read the articles in the AP and watched some slightly more detailed interviews with CERN scientists. The general public isn't buying it. I think the CERN guys should do a piece for a major magazine(s) or newspaper. PR is where it's at.
Helium Bose Nova are Impossible. (Score:3, Informative)
It's impopssible for superfluid helium to 'go nova'. This impossibility is well understood by theory - It's not that there's a miniscule-but-nonzero chance, as there is that the LHC could spontaneously produce tiny dragons - In this case it's *impossible*.
Here's the explanation:
http://anticrackpot.blogspot.com/2008/09/there-will-be-no-bose-novae-at-lhc.html
And a personal request: Take a second to look some of this stuff up before you post an article like this that fuels unfounded (indeed, indefensible) fears.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking ~4.238 years. December 21.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not according to the CERN theory division,... They also point out that no other superfluid helium handling facility has mysteriously blown itself to pieces."
The CERN theory department is correct. They seem to be aware of conservation of energy, which is to say, you don't get more energy out of it than you put into it.
Science journalists, on the other hand, seem to be a little fuzzy on the concept.
Re:I was worried, but am ok now (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know how this FUD even came up. It's such a ridiculous idea to begin with.