Today in science and space

[HangLow]

Have you ever seen a paper written that assures us the colliding of two particles at such super high speeds won't cause a kind of explosion that would wipe out a huge part of the Earth?

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy Earth?​

News published October 26, 2012

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy Earth?

Whether the world's largest atom smasher will destroy Earth is just one question buzzing around on the eve of LHC's opening.

www.livescience.com

The LHC is not likely to create a black hole, a strangelet or destroy the earth. (Image credit: CERN)

The potential for the world's largest atom smasher to destroy Earth is one question weighing on the minds of some lay people as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) prepares to go online Wednesday.

Don't worry, say the experts, who are more concerned with whether the 17-mile-long particle accelerator underground at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva, Switzerland, will work as planned and, perhaps, reveal the existence of the so-called God particle.

 

[medi]

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy Earth?​

News published October 26, 2012

Will the Large Hadron Collider Destroy Earth?

Whether the world's largest atom smasher will destroy Earth is just one question buzzing around on the eve of LHC's opening.

www.livescience.com

The LHC is not likely to create a black hole, a strangelet or destroy the earth. (Image credit: CERN)

The potential for the world's largest atom smasher to destroy Earth is one question weighing on the minds of some lay people as the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) prepares to go online Wednesday.

Don't worry, say the experts, who are more concerned with whether the 17-mile-long particle accelerator underground at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research near Geneva, Switzerland, will work as planned and, perhaps, reveal the existence of the so-called God particle.

Thank you.

I seem to be kicking some memory cells into an awake stage now and remember that one of those colliders some years ago (in France, maybe) had some sort of maintenance issues that kept it from being used for a long time.

And now I am remembering a recent article I ran into that indicated some sort of big surprise resulted when they did some of that colliding work.

Seriously complicated work those folks are into.

 

[HangLow]

Thank you.

I seem to be kicking some memory cells into an awake stage now and remember that one of those colliders some years ago (in France, maybe) had some sort of maintenance issues that kept it from being used for a long time.

And now I am remembering a recent article I ran into that indicated some sort of big surprise resulted when they did some of that colliding work.

Seriously complicated work those folks are into.

Please note that the article I posted was from 2012...
A lot has happened since then and most concerns about blowing up the planet have subsided...

 

[Gordy327]

Have you ever seen a paper written that assures us the colliding of two particles at such super high speeds won't cause a kind of explosion that would wipe out a huge part of the Earth?

People said similar things about the LHC.

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[ralfy]

 

[HangLow]

​

03-24-2024

Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old​

The fabric of the cosmos, as we currently understand it, comprises three primary components: ‘normal matter,’ ‘dark energy,’ and ‘dark matter.’ However, new research is turning this established model on its head.

A recent study conducted by the University of Ottawa presents compelling evidence that challenges the traditional model of the universe, suggesting that there may not be a place for dark matter within it.

Core of the new CCC+TL model​

Dark matter, a term used in cosmology, refers to the elusive substance that does not interact with light or electromagnetic fields and is only identifiable through its gravitational effects.

Despite its mysterious nature, dark matter has been a fundamental element in explaining the behavior of galaxies, stars, and planets.

At the heart of this research is Rajendra Gupta, a distinguished physics professor at the Faculty of Science. Gupta’s innovative approach involves the integration of two theoretical models: the covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired light” (TL), known together as the CCC+TL model.

This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances.

This theory has been rigorously tested and aligns with various astronomical observations, including the distribution of galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.

Study: Dark matter does not exist and the universe is 27 billion years old

The fabric of the cosmos, as we understand it, comprises three primary components: 'normal matter,' 'dark energy,' and 'dark matter.'

www.earth.com

 

[HangLow]

​

 

[medi]

This loss of memory trouble is seriously frustrating, but I finally found which email account the JStage articles are sent to and found that it was, indeed, the LHC that I was remembering had early troubles and I have the JStage link for the pdf I received back then and checked and it can still be had, I think without a subscription:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jcsj/45/7/45_7_344/_pdf

But just in case, I also found this:

https://www.science.org/content/article/europes-lhc-run-half-energy-tightening-race-higgs

In September 2008, just 9 days after it first circulated particles, the LHC suffered a catastrophic breakdown when an interconnect between two magnets melted. That problem took 14 months to correct.

Now the other matter I made a reference to was not related to science arising from work done with colliders, but it seems it arose from data the telescopes have been collecting.

First, let me place something here:



So that is a rough standard used up to about this date or so.

And then this came to me from a journal, but trying to use the link caused all sorts of trouble and I went looking for another summary of that information and found nothing that was quite as good as that which was sent to me, so I will simply have to use the quote box without the link because I don't want to cause anyone any trouble like I just had with that link.

Here is what I am on about with regard to maybe we are not understanding the Universe quite as we thought we should be:

Astronomers have used the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes to confirm one of the most troubling conundrums in all of physics — that the universe appears to be expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where we look.

This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy.

Now, a triple-check by both telescopes working together appears to have put the possibility of any measurement error to bed for good. The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe.

The link I have to that Feb, 6th study is not very good and I am not sure why. But the last sentence above is a good summary for just one sentence; maybe we are "seriously wrong" and that is hardcore vocabulary usage that fits.

 

[HangLow]

​