×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Another Way the LHC Could Self-Destruct

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the no-physics-whatsoever dept.

Science 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

367 comments

let me assure you... (5, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199841)

Let me assure you, there is nothing to be worried about. I'm watching a couple of guys fiddle with some of the magnets right now and they assure me that nothing can go wro

Re:let me assure you... (5, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200011)

oh yeah, take a really sharp magnet and touch a helium balloon with it. KABOOM! Now imagine that except a million times bigger. Scary stuff! By the way, I'd feel better if that statement was from the CERN safety division not the CERN theory division, whose favorite saying is "we don't really know what's going to happen"

Re:let me assure you... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200217)

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?

This is easy (5, Funny)

SamMichaels (213605) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199847)

Does this mean we can just blame it on the Bosenova [wikipedia.org] ?

The Left will blame it on the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25199967)

As a Democrat, I will blame it on the Jews and the Jew Puppet Bu$Hitler Chimpy McHaliburten.

Re:This is easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200161)

If the scientists date gals like this one [lyricsfreak.com] then no telling what might happen the morning after at the LHC. If she could push Elvis past his limits,,,

Blame.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25199853)

Blame it on the Bosenova.

That would be bad (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199861)

About how big of a crater would 700,000 liters of liquid helium make?

Phase change (3, Insightful)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199875)

It doesn't seem like there would be a sudden phase change in every part of the condensate. I bet there would be a tiny explosion here and there as little bits of it explode. It would manifest as a slight outgassing.

Re:Phase change (1)

mofag (709856) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200023)

You've got me convinced but I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion and what qualifies you to make it.

---
Paying for child porn either directly or indirectly (through viewing adverts say): complicity in and commissioning of actual horrific crime

Re:Phase change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200067)

...I'd be interested to know how you came to that conclusion and what qualifies you to make it.

Remember where you're posting. You might as well be asking about sports or women...

Re:Phase change (5, Informative)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200193)

Helium isn't explosive, it's the most inert material you can get. If you want to make it explode it's going to have to be taking in energy from the magnetic field it is in, so the LHC's helium can never explode any more powerfully than a loss of superconductivity in the magnets would do anyway. Conservation of energy.

also, lolwtfsig

Re:Phase change (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200369)

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:That would be bad (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199933)

About how big of a crater would 700,000 liters of liquid helium make?

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:That would be bad (2, Interesting)

kesuki (321456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200157)

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 absolute zero. the abstract does say that liquid helium doesn't have a chance in hell of becoming attractive, as well.

also, in order for half of it to 'disappear' all of the liquid helium would have to become attractive, so i doubt that even if the condition became favorable that enough helium would become attractive to make any big bang... we got a 2 month extension in case the scientist at cert are wrong about helium, and enough of it could become active for enough of it to to convert to energy to create a big enough of an explosion.

Re:That would be bad (2, Funny)

Nazlfrag (1035012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200283)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200393)

Sounds like quite an orgasm.

More Cassandra warnings... (4, Interesting)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199887)

Isn't amazing that whenever a new technological breakthrough occurs, it's instantly assumed that the End Is Nigh? If anyone remembers, atomic bombs were originally estimated to have a 15% chance to cause complete atmospheric ignition on a planetary scale. Also, it was a "generally well known fact" when cars were invented that going above 50 mph would cause the driver's lungs to collapse from wind pressure, as well as tear off his face. Don't you just love all those nightmare scenarios that keep popping up? It takes all the challenge out of creating new science fiction apocalypse scenarios!

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (5, Insightful)

tehniobium (1042240) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199953)

I believe the LHC is perfectly safe...but your comparisons aren't that good...and here's why:

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... (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200015)

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:More Cassandra warnings... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200087)

What's this mumbo-jumbo about an RNC convention?

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (0, Offtopic)

Kagura (843695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200277)

Mod parent informative so he gets the good karma. Funny mods do not affect karma!

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (1)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200201)

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:More Cassandra warnings... (0)

kesuki (321456) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200211)

"Also, it was a "generally well known fact" when cars were invented that going above 50 mph would cause the driver's lungs to collapse from wind pressure,"

I call bullshit. there's something called a hurricane that cause wind speeds above 100 miles per hour ever single year. the highest recorded wind speed in a hurricane is 194 miles per hour.

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.

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (5, Insightful)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200315)

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:More Cassandra warnings... (2, Informative)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200583)

Having run my kit car the other day without it's windscreen I can attest to this. 80mph breathing is fine; it's the gravel that makes you wish for glass.

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (5, Insightful)

blitziod (591194) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200343)

>>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. tell that to bikers riding at 125 without helmets on every day..at 50 mph they arelikely smoking ciggs or doobies..lol

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (5, Informative)

Bob The Cowboy (308954) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200355)

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.

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:More Cassandra warnings... (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200743)

motorcycle drivers I see riding on their bikes at 80mph without helmets are just holding their breath?

Breathing through their nose mostly, or just forcing their lungs harder. It is not a relaxed activity.

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200443)

This is why all motorcycles are equipped with windshields. And why WWI era open-cockpit biplanes topped out at much less than 60mph airspeeds.

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (1)

Sebilrazen (870600) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200645)

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:More Cassandra warnings... (3, Insightful)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200265)

Diffidently I point out that while Cassandra was not believed, she was correct in her doom filled predictions.

Cassandra's predictions were right (5, Informative)

Reality Master 201 (578873) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200307)

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:Cassandra's predictions were right (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200695)

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:More Cassandra warnings... (1)

Hao Wu (652581) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200345)

Companies run by Yes-men and public relations are assumed to be greedy, reckless hazards to public health. Because they are.

Does LHC ever say "no" to anything? Would they, even if they knew there were risks?

Re:More Cassandra warnings... (4, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200607)

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:More Cassandra warnings... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200527)

Also, it was a "generally well known fact" when cars were invented that going above 50 mph would cause the driver's lungs to collapse from wind pressure, as well as tear off his face.

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.

We're scientists, trust us. (5, Insightful)

actionbastard (1206160) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199895)

"They also point out that no other superfluid helium handling facility has mysteriously blown itself to pieces."

True, but, no other SFH2 facility was wielding a 1Tev particle beam like it was a toy light saber, either.

Re:We're scientists, trust us. (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199939)

neither are they. if they can build it i'm betting they have a pretty good handle on what might occur.

Re:We're scientists, trust us. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25199997)

neither are they. if they can build it i'm betting they have a pretty good handle on what might occur.

Holy shit, re-read not only the title of this post again, but your history books. Regardless of cranium size or IQ, scientists are human too. Pretty sure that quite a few accidents in scientific history were followed up with an "oops" from the theory division.

bad physics, bad press (5, Informative)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199905)

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.

intelligence is not democratic (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25199923)

when anyone on the planet can whine an irrational complaint into the web-2.0 intertubes and expect someone to take them seriousy, reasonable discource doesn't scale. at some point, the people who know what they are doing in science simply need to tell the rest of the creationista, black-hole theorizing, dinosaur-living-with-people idiots to STFU and go away

[/rant]

the monkey's are afraid (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199975)

can we please stop grunting like frightened chimps every time we are on the verge of a new scientific break through?

Re:the monkey's are afraid (0, Flamebait)

kylemonger (686302) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200327)

Look, I don't claim to understand nuclear physics but when I read that a) we don't really understand what caused the Big Bang, and b) we're trying to recreate conditions that existed shortly after the Big Bang, I get nervous. It doesn't seem like you have to be all that wrong about your assumptions to make a really big mess of things. This combined with my lack of interest whether this Higgs boson exists or not makes me wonder why we need to screw around with this. I don't think I'm alone in this line of reasoning.

Look at your CPU (4, Insightful)

robbak (775424) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200593)

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 (3, Insightful)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200609)

Okay, you know the e=mc^2 equation for converting mass to energy. Now imagine the mass of entire Earth, plus the moon, plus Mars and the asteroids. Now throw in the mass of Jupiter, Saturn and the other gas giants. Now add to that the mass of the sun, and alpha centauri and the rest of the stars in the local group. Now add in the mass of the western spiral arm, and the eastern spiral arm of the galaxy. In fact, add in the combined mass of all of the other galaxies and convert that all into energy. Now add all of the energy of all the photons that are being emitted from every star and every quasar and toss in the energy from the cosmic background radiation. All of that energy was present at the big bang.

Throwing a single molecule of H20 into the Pacific ocean would have a much larger effect than what the LHC is capable of.

Re:the monkey's are afraid (2, Insightful)

hairykrishna (740240) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200639)

But you're wrong. We're recreating big band like conditions. These conditions are also being replicated in our upper atmosphere all the time. Google 'high energy cosmic ray' and do some reading. Why not do something that is certainly safe just to appease the uninformed?

Re:the monkey's are afraid (4, Funny)

dpilot (134227) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200523)

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.

LHC will self-destruct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25199979)

due faulty capacitors, flawed theories and the current physics circus, in the end LHC is only a huge waste of money.

LHC Joke of the Day! (5, Funny)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199985)

Q: What's funnier than running the world's largest particle collider while the janitor is inside, cleaning the pipes?

A: Nothing

Re:LHC Joke of the Day! (2, Informative)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200623)

If he's cleaning the inside of it, then he's not a janitor, he's a vacuum cleaner.

- RG>

When large hardons collide! (-1, Troll)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#25199993)

The device will push large, energised hardons [today.com] through a ring repeatedly, faster and faster, as smoothly and tightly as possible, until they spray Bose-Einstein condensate in all directions, in an explosive Bose supernova. ... What?

Faulty reasoning? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200031)

Not according to the CERN theory division,... They also point out that no other superfluid helium handling facility has mysteriously blown itself to pieces."

Nevermind that no other superfluid helium facilities will be operating magnets at the same amounts of power?

no other superfluid helium handling facility has m (1)

Ardipithecus (985280) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200035)

the Tralfamadorians say the same thing before they destroy the universe by mistake

---W -----T ------F (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200045)

wtf is this doing on slashdot? this is STUPID

retraction, please

a rapid heating of the magnets without proper venting of the rapidly expanding gasses would cause more damage than this

First Law? (5, Insightful)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200093)

Energy doesn't magically come from nowhere.

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? (5, Informative)

Scubaraf (1146565) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200167)

Excellent point. Add to that the fact that superfluid helium is not a uniform Bose-Einstein Condensate and you have full debunking.

Re:First Law? (4, Informative)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200377)

Exactly. Besides, isn't it rather difficult to make a Bose-Einstein Condensate - you need to be fractions of a degree close to absolute zero, the liquid helium used is hotter than that, like 1.9K.

In addition, magnets have been run at that temperature before.

Re:First Law? (1)

darthwader (130012) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200323)

Not that I think this is likely to happen, but I think the idea is that there is energy inside the helium, lots of lots of quarks, quacks, glue-ons, thingies and pico-atomic dohickies. And when those dohickies do the Bosonova, then some of the atoms disappear, which means matter is being converted to energy. If there was a chain reaction that caused all of the 96 tonnes of liquid helium to be converted to energy, that would be a very big boom. Specifically, if 96 tonnes of He4 were to be fully converted to energy, that's about 8 x 10^21 J of energy, which is a hundred times more energy than the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (ref [wikipedia.org] ). That's still a lot less energy than a real supernova, which is 10^44 J of energy.

Re:First Law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200731)

E=MC^2

When a bosenova happens, about half of the mass in the BEC will disappear, converted into energy.

Law of conservation of energy (4, Interesting)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200133)

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:Law of conservation of energy (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200541)

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:Law of conservation of energy (2, Interesting)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200605)

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.

I take it you didn't read the article describing the first BEC "explosion". Assuming it is accurate, the BEC boom would be a nuclear effect, involving ~50% of the matter involved being converted to energy. The magnetic field would be nothing more than a trigger.

Got to admit, though, that it would be a pretty neat new power source, if it were reasonably harnessable. Which, frankly, it sounds like it is.

Re:Law of conservation of energy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200633)

Conservation has little to do with it. Remember that differences of potential are more important than the total energy sum of any given system (which if spread out to maximum entropy, can do precisely no work, no matter how much energy is present.)

But anyway, the Z Machine has already produced more energy than put in, in one experiment. This wasn't all that shocking, the assumption being that something unknown and only theoretically accounted for was involved. In fact, the difference in output was the measure of energy involvement of that very unknown. The same interpretation would be made if the LHC somehow produced more energy than was accounted for in input.

Re:Law of conservation of energy (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200669)

I don't want the LHC to power our expansion into space. I quite like the planet where it is.

I'm from a small town (5, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200169)

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.

I was worried, but am ok now (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200197)

We evaluate speculation about the possibility of a dangerous release of energy within the liquid Helium of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) cryogenic system due to the occurrence of a "Bose-Nova". Bose-Novae are radial bursts of rapidly moving atoms which can occur when a Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) undergoes a collapse due the interatomic potential being deliberately made attractive using a magnetic field close to the Feshbach resonance. Liquid 4He has a monatomic structure with s-wave electrons, zero nuclear spin, no hyperfine splitting, and as a consequence no Feshbach resonance which would allow one to change its normally repulsive interactions to be attractive. Because of this, a Bose-Nova style collapse of 4He is impossible. Additional speculations concerning cold fusion during these events are easily dismissed using the usual arguments about the Coulomb barrier at low temperatures, and are not needed to explain the Bose-Einstein condensate Bose-Nova phenomenon. We conclude that that there is no physics whatsoever which suggests that Helium could undergo any kind of unforeseen catastrophic explosion.

Well, I am glad that is made clear.

Bose Supernova? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200329)

"No highs, no lows" at least.

resonance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200331)

a small droplet might be the right volume(length) for the magnetic field to cause a resonance that would lead to repulsion. As I understand it a condensate acts like one large atom. The wave character could be resonated and the thing could gain energy until it pops apart. Maybe the large volume of the LHC would be able to dissipate that kind of thing. But wouldn't it be awesome if the whole thing blew up?

Another way the LHC could self destruct (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200383)

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.

Big Bang (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200433)

where's the Big Bang tag?

Give me a friggin' break... (3, Interesting)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200447)

I thought this was tagged as "science"????
.

At best, this is one notch above voodoo....

Why is this news? (4, Interesting)

Ambitwistor (1041236) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200467)

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? (2, Funny)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200473)

What happens when I put the crystal in with the super fluid helium and the magnetic fields? Will the Combine show up and take over the world in less than 24 hours?

Another, albeit less likely way (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25200481)

It could go on national TV and make ludicrous claims about it's foreign policy experience and parrot republican campaign points.

How it happens. (-1)

suck_burners_rice (1258684) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200505)

To figure this out, I jumped into my time machine, compliments of the Flux Transformer from the movie Blast To The Future, and I went to the future to the location of the LHC to find out what happens. What happens is that the LHC does, in fact, blow itself to smithereens as described in this story due to the magnetic currents and the whole Bose sound system thing. The explosion is so big that Europe and Asia, which are currently parts of one super huge continent, split apart to form two separate continents. There forms a rather large canal between the two land masses, which is convenient for passing large ships through. Unfortunately, the Alps are blasted all the way to China, and the Eiffel tower is upside-down in India. The explosion is attributed by conspiracy theorists to be the result of Ahmadinejad's nukes, which, due to the total inaction and ineptitude of the world's governments, he will have within a year, and he'll use it to hold the entire world hostage.

Calculations (1)

Stickerboy (61554) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200521)

> 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.

Are there any end of these ? (0)

kentsin (225902) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200551)

Searching for truth is not wrong.

But are there any end for these ?

You ask for more money build more powerful machine to do these tests.

And all of us know there is no end!

Even it is safe, even it is affordable, but

ARE THERE AN END of THESE?

When you stop these ?

Can we have alternative way to search for truth? Are these test essential?

Ok, obvious question (2)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 5 years ago | (#25200653)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...