Message boards : LHC@home Science : ADMIN : What about a negatively charged strangelet?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Aaron Finney

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 140,661
RAC: 0
Message 11808 - Posted: 4 Jan 2006, 9:44:33 UTC
Last modified: 4 Jan 2006, 9:44:48 UTC

What happens if we create a negatively charged strangelet with the LHC?

What happens if it is also metastable?

What does all that mean anyway?
ID: 11808 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
David Stites
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,406,469
RAC: 0
Message 11819 - Posted: 4 Jan 2006, 16:34:37 UTC - in response to Message 11808.  

What happens if we create a negatively charged strangelet with the LHC?

What happens if it is also metastable?

What does all that mean anyway?


Are you talking about quarks again? What have you been told about that?


--
David Stites
Mount Vernon, WA USA
ID: 11819 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Aaron Finney

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 140,661
RAC: 0
Message 11834 - Posted: 5 Jan 2006, 3:31:12 UTC - in response to Message 11819.  



Are you talking about quarks again? What have you been told about that?



No... strangelets.

http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-faq.html
ID: 11834 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
David Stites
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,406,469
RAC: 0
Message 11839 - Posted: 5 Jan 2006, 15:54:21 UTC - in response to Message 11834.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2006, 15:54:54 UTC



Are you talking about quarks again? What have you been told about that?



No... strangelets.

http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-faq.html


I found this

Strangelets (A ) and strange nuggets
Strange quark matter in this range is still large enough to be treated as a Fermi gas, but small enough that effects relating to its finite size must be considered. The radius of such a strangelet is approximately 200 fm, which is less than the Compton wavelength of an electron. Unlike bulk strange matter, electrons will not be found within strangelets, but will be found `orbiting' the strangelet as in an atom. As a result, coulomb forces within the strangelet may no longer be neglected. In addition, surface effects must also be considered.


What language is this? It almost looks like English, at least at the word level, but it makes no sense to me.


--
David Stites
Mount Vernon, WA USA
ID: 11839 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile david gunnells

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 10
Credit: 23,608
RAC: 0
Message 11849 - Posted: 6 Jan 2006, 16:32:05 UTC

Perhaps this may have more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelets
ID: 11849 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Aaron Finney

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 140,661
RAC: 0
Message 11909 - Posted: 13 Jan 2006, 18:31:50 UTC - in response to Message 11849.  

If a neutral or negatively charged metastable strangelet (NNCMS) is created, the odds that it will cause the destruction of the earth are almost certain. One hope is that the positron decay period after proton absorbtion is quite long, but there is no way to compute that. If an NNCMS causes the destruction of the Earth, It could take years however. The strangelet will be pulled down to the core of the Earth by gravity (because it will be much denser than normal matter) as it eats its way through the rock. Because the strangelet will get more stable as it grows, energy will be given off in the form of gamma rays that will heat the surrounding rock. The energy released from each absorbed proton or neutron will be comparable to that of a hydrogen-hydrogen fusion reaction. Eventually, the heating will cause the core of the Earth to expand causing earthquakes and seismic waves in the oceans that will steadily worsen. People will die from earthquakes, tsunamis, or poison gasses released from rampant volcanic activity. At some point, the core of the Earth will contract again as its mass is consumed in the growing strangelet, until finally the whole Earth will be reduced to a strange mass about 100 meters in diameter.

So I ask again... What happens if the LHC creates a negatively charged metastable strangelet?
ID: 11909 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
David Stites
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,406,469
RAC: 0
Message 12069 - Posted: 15 Jan 2006, 22:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 11909.  
Last modified: 15 Jan 2006, 22:48:46 UTC

If a neutral or negatively charged metastable strangelet (NNCMS) is created, the odds that it will cause the destruction of the earth are almost certain. One hope is that the positron decay period after proton absorbtion is quite long, but there is no way to compute that. If an NNCMS causes the destruction of the Earth, It could take years however. The strangelet will be pulled down to the core of the Earth by gravity (because it will be much denser than normal matter) as it eats its way through the rock. Because the strangelet will get more stable as it grows, energy will be given off in the form of gamma rays that will heat the surrounding rock. The energy released from each absorbed proton or neutron will be comparable to that of a hydrogen-hydrogen fusion reaction. Eventually, the heating will cause the core of the Earth to expand causing earthquakes and seismic waves in the oceans that will steadily worsen. People will die from earthquakes, tsunamis, or poison gasses released from rampant volcanic activity. At some point, the core of the Earth will contract again as its mass is consumed in the growing strangelet, until finally the whole Earth will be reduced to a strange mass about 100 meters in diameter.

So I ask again... What happens if the LHC creates a negatively charged metastable strangelet?

It seems you have answered your own question. The short version is we all die. We are all going to die anyway so that isn't a problem but if we all die at once the human race will die out too (assuming all of us are on this one planet). I'm not sure if that is a bad thing or a good thing.

If we assume the universe will come to an end someday and the race would die out sooner or later then that doesn't really matter either.

Have a nice day,

--
David Stites
Mount Vernon, WA USA
ID: 12069 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Aaron Finney

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 140,661
RAC: 0
Message 12070 - Posted: 15 Jan 2006, 22:55:15 UTC - in response to Message 12069.  


It seems you have answered your own question. The short version is we all die. We are all going to die anyway so that isn't a problem but if we all die at once the human race will die out too (assuming all of us are on this one planet). I'm not sure if that is a bad thing or a good thing.

If we assume the universe will come to an end someday and the race would die out sooner or later then that doesn't really matter either.

Have a nice day,


Then.. if that's the case then why are we helping build the LHC, if it leads to our annihilation?
ID: 12070 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
David Stites
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,406,469
RAC: 0
Message 12091 - Posted: 16 Jan 2006, 20:09:22 UTC - in response to Message 12070.  


It seems you have answered your own question. The short version is we all die. We are all going to die anyway so that isn't a problem but if we all die at once the human race will die out too (assuming all of us are on this one planet). I'm not sure if that is a bad thing or a good thing.

If we assume the universe will come to an end someday and the race would die out sooner or later then that doesn't really matter either.

Have a nice day,


Then.. if that's the case then why are we helping build the LHC, if it leads to our annihilation?

Because it doesn't matter. We all die sooner or later.
--
David Stites
Mount Vernon, WA USA
ID: 12091 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Aaron Finney

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 60
Credit: 140,661
RAC: 0
Message 12100 - Posted: 17 Jan 2006, 3:29:39 UTC - in response to Message 12091.  
Last modified: 17 Jan 2006, 3:30:02 UTC


Because it doesn't matter. We all die sooner or later.


Well, I mean.. I'm all for designing the LHC, (so long as it doesn't destroy us), and I'm sure that they have a logical reason for deciding to go ahead with it, but couldn't we get a professional answer from the physicist guys as to what they think about this?

Why can't we build the LHC or VLHC on mars or the moon?
ID: 12100 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12124 - Posted: 17 Jan 2006, 15:00:35 UTC - in response to Message 12100.  
Last modified: 17 Jan 2006, 15:02:12 UTC


Because it doesn't matter. We all die sooner or later.


Well, I mean.. I'm all for designing the LHC, (so long as it doesn't destroy us), and I'm sure that they have a logical reason for deciding to go ahead with it, but couldn't we get a professional answer from the physicist guys as to what they think about this?

Why can't we build the LHC or VLHC on mars or the moon?


It is not actually all that likely that there would be any danger from the LHC. If it were sufficiently easy to make stangelets that they were likely from the lHC we'd also see them being made in the explosive stages of suprnovae, etc. It is possible that they do exist, are formed in supernovae, and that one hits the Earth every so often -- but in that case we know that the planet survives such impacts.

In my estimation there is less risk of such a particle being possible than the risk of there being an extremely nasty virus on Mars. Or even on the moon - just because none of the Apollo's landed in a virus field doesn't mean there ain't one.

So to build the VLHC on Mars might turn out to be exactly the *wrong* thing to do, unless we forbid the VLHC staff from coming home.

In short, we do not know waht we don't know. Anything we haven't doen before might kill us - look at the Curies, both died of the effects of radiation poisoning / radiation sickness / radiation induced cancer.

In my opinion we should be much more cautious when signs start to show that we are taking a real risk (eg global warming where even if the jury is still out there is certainly a case to answer). In my judgment the biggest risks to humans being alive in 100 years are

1) global nuclear war,
2) other hi tech weapons (which seem *more* likely to be used now than in the cold war),
3) runaway global warming,
4) an asteroid strike.

Those are in my order of risk, the worst being first. The last of those is the interesting one. The first three are all artifical risks generated by our science being beyond our wit to control for the benefit of all humanity.

The fourth is a case where we are close to having the science to save the biosphere from a catastophe. We never know what risks are really there till we try, but equally we never know what benefits we might produce till we try.

It also illustrates that we don't know what natural risks are out there till we look. We can imagine that what we learn from the LHC might teach us how to survive an impact from a cosmic stragelet - in principle possible.

So i agree that we should be more circumspect about science, we should be less willing to let military or economic advantage outweigh risk; but at the end of the day the risk of not doing any science at all is the biggest risk of all.

So I'd be saying to the scientists: go ahead, but as far as you can know what to look out for and have some ideas how to contain it.

River~~
ID: 12124 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sleestak

Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 05
Posts: 3
Credit: 52,078
RAC: 0
Message 12322 - Posted: 23 Jan 2006, 18:59:07 UTC

I'd put asteroid strike above global warming. If you look at the temperature map for the last several tens of thousands years, you'll find that we are at an average temperature on an up trend. Everything looks normal on the chart. The reason that we where on a down trend before was due to a large volcanic eruption spewing sulfer into the air which turns into acid rain but actually reflects cosmic rays. Burning coal would produce the same effect if we did not scrub the sulfer except it would be at a steady rate instead of large release. If, anything this would tend to temper large changes. But since we scrub the sulfer, we interrupt the natural process and release the part that captures the heat of the cosmic rays (CO2) and scrub that part that would reflect it (sulfer) because it would eventually dissolve our limestone buildings in the form of acid rain. Our actual attempt to be "environmentally friendly" could be killing us. Be "environmentally friendly" today and ignore the tree huggers.
ID: 12322 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
juan.canham

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 06
Posts: 3
Credit: 1,749
RAC: 0
Message 12654 - Posted: 6 Feb 2006, 18:32:11 UTC

strangelets? I know I probably shouldn’t mock what I don’t fully understand yet, but doesn’t it sound like a load of rubbish to anybody else.

in particular I find http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-faq.html confusing

Question: If a metastable strangelet is created, what are the odds that it's neutral or negatively charged?

Answer: It will definitely not be strongly positively charged (or it wouldn't be strange)

‘Strange’ there I assume referring to the strange quark (which has a negative charge) but the strange in stranglete refers to the strange phase of matter, coupled with this wikipidea says
"Strangelets are thought to have a net positive charge, which is neutralized by the presence of degenerate electrons extending slightly beyond the edge of the strangelet"

also throughout the article, it says that certain events cannot be predicted by qcd, however the article is about an entirely hypothetical particle that has been theorised by off-shoots of qcd!

is this another scaremongering attempt to stop science? Based on the fact the article misleads you about a very unlikely particle(as the strange phase of matter is unlikely to be stable in small strangelets anyway(just as mini-black holes are unlikely)) and ends with a classic 'raise public awareness' quote I think it is!

p.s the flying spaghetti monster will save all the pastafarians anyway

ID: 12654 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile David Lahr

Send message
Joined: 27 Dec 05
Posts: 7
Credit: 461,367
RAC: 0
Message 12681 - Posted: 8 Feb 2006, 22:22:15 UTC - in response to Message 12654.  

I've this before myself. I love junk science arguments that are full of non-sequitars. Let me break that paragraph up into numbered sentences:

1. Strange quark matter in this range is still large enough to be treated as a Fermi gas, but small enough that effects relating to its finite size must be considered.

2. The radius of such a strangelet is approximately 200 fm, which is less than the Compton wavelength of an electron.

3. Unlike bulk strange matter, electrons will not be found within strangelets, but will be found `orbiting' the strangelet as in an atom.

4. As a result, coulomb forces within the strangelet may no longer be neglected. In addition, surface effects must also be considered.


Sentence 1, first half: It's large enough to be treated as a fermi gas? A fermi gas is a statistical mechanics concept. I've encountered it studying solid state physics. If you assume a collection of electrons are "free" (like gas molecules) but still obey fermi-dirac statistics, you have a fermi gas. It's useful for understanding what happens in conduction in solids, especially good conductors like metals, where in fact to a good approximation the electrons are pretty free to move around.
Soooooo...I don't see how particle "size" has anything to do with qualifying for being treated as a fermi gas. The 2 requirements are a) the partilcles are fermions and b) they are free to move about like a gas.

Sentence 1, second half: Small enough that it must be treated as a particle? That's exactly the opposite conclusion that is drawn from every quantum mechanical and statisitical mechanical lecture, book, paper I've ever read. If you're studying a system at a certain distance/energy scale, and something is "small" on that scale, then you usually make the approximation that instead of being particles, you have a continuum. So saying that b/c its very small we need to treat it as a particle defies logic!

Sentence 2: the compton wavelength of the electron is 2.43 pm, or 2,430 fm.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/quantum/compton.html)
It's not the wavelength of an electron! That is given by the de-broglie equation h/p (h is planck's constant, p is momentum). But I digress...this has nothing whatsoever to do with sentence 1. I could make a wild guess that this is being used to justify sentence 3...but that's all it would be, as the author offers no justification or proof.

Sentence 3: According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranglet), bulk strange matter is hypothesized to exist in ultra dense neutron stars. The idea is basically that the nuclei of the neutron star have fused so that the individual quarks of each nuclei are now bonded to each other, forming one extremely massive nuclei. This is probably what the author meant by "bulk" strange matter, and in this case, the author is "correct" in stating that the electrons do permeate to the interior of this giant nuclei (this is the hypothesis - wheter any of it is correct remains to be determined). So in effect, a strangelet is a small chunk of this type of matter. But because it is small doesn't necessarily mean that the electron won't penetrate into it. And they certainly won't "orbit" it - they don't do orbits, that's the old Bohr model.

Sentence 4: Well, generally coulomb forces are neglected when talking about nuclei, b/c the strong nuclear force is so much, well, stronger, that they can be neglected. And in that case there certainly isn't any negative charge *from electrons* to be dealt with. So, if we beleive sentence 3 from the author, how is the situation any different than a regular atom? And then why are we worrying about coulomb repulsion?
ID: 12681 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile [B^S] Molzahn

Send message
Joined: 21 Jan 06
Posts: 46
Credit: 174,756
RAC: 0
Message 12697 - Posted: 10 Feb 2006, 7:30:04 UTC - in response to Message 12124.  
Last modified: 10 Feb 2006, 8:13:29 UTC


1) global nuclear war,


I don't know anything about strangelets but i really doubt that global nuclear war is a serious concern at the time or even presently in the world. (at least the next twenty-five years, unless a global power spends a great portion of their wealth/prosperity on increasing their nuclear arsenal; which no one even seems to be interested in doing; no one seems to want to challenge the US nuclear might, since things are so stable (on a large scale), there is little reason to. I also think it's a waste of money and time; there is no reason to build a nuclear arsenal that would be a threat to the US/EU...

I wrote a long two page response about this question and decided not to post it (it wasnt relevant to the discussion). If anyone responds or is interested in what i have stated, (i doubt that will happen), i will post it...

All Im saying is: Don't lose any sleep over global nuclear war (I have a political science professor who does, and he is nuts; he admits that much...)


ACLUguy
AKA: Mike Molzahn

blog pictures
ID: 12697 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
River~~

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 456
Credit: 75,142
RAC: 0
Message 12699 - Posted: 10 Feb 2006, 10:49:01 UTC - in response to Message 12697.  


1) global nuclear war,


I don't know anything about strangelets but i really doubt that global nuclear war is a serious concern at the time or even presently in the world....


I disagree

I wrote a long two page response about this question and decided not to post it (it wasnt relevant to the discussion).


I share the concern that this debate does not belong on this thread, and congratulate you on your self-moderation Mike. In the same spirit, I have "moved" my longer reply over to this new Cafe thread.

I look forward to seeing your longer posting and having a thought proviking debate.


All Im saying is: Don't lose any sleep over global nuclear war (I have a political science professor who does, and he is nuts; he admits that much


There are nutters on all sides of this debste.

Can I ask for a ground rule that we debate the merits of the argumants on each side from the premise that at least some of those on each side have sane and sincere views, and take it as granted that this includes present company.

I am not interested in a debate that consists of trying to outbid each others nutter-count.

R~~
ID: 12699 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : LHC@home Science : ADMIN : What about a negatively charged strangelet?


©2024 CERN