Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It's useless science Friday in my head - Welcome to the show.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Strychnine
    replied
    Bad news for the Standard Model?


    Potential New Particle Shows Up at the LHC, Thrilling and Confounding Physicists

    The gigantic accelerator in Europe has produced hints of an exotic particle that defies the known laws of physics




    A little wiggle on a graph, representing just a handful of particles, has set the world of physics abuzz. Scientists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Switzerland, the largest particle accelerator on Earth, reported yesterday that their machine might have produced a brand new particle not included in the established laws of particle physics known as the Standard Model. Their results, based on the data collected from April to November after the LHC began colliding protons at nearly twice the energy of its previous runs, are too inconclusive to be sure—many physicists warned that the wiggle could just as easily represent a statistical fluke. Nevertheless, the finding has already spawned at least 10 new papers in less than a day proposing a theoretical explanation for the particle, and has the halls and blackboards of physics departments around the world churning.

    “This is something that we’ve been waiting for for a long time,” says Adam Falkowski, a physicist at the Institute of Theoretical Physics in Warsaw and a member of the CERN Theory Group. “Of course we are aware this could be nothing. But for my generation, this is the first time there is a very large, quite reliable signal of physics beyond the Standard Model, so it’s definitely very exciting.” Of course, others echoed the usual refrain of caution: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and this is not that,” Columbia University physicist Peter Woit wrote on his blog.

    If the LHC truly has seen a new particle, however, the question looming large is: What is it? From its signature at the LHC, the particle must weigh roughly 750 giga-electron volts (GeV), around 750 times the mass of the proton, and would fall into the class of bosons, meaning its spin has an integer value. Some theorists say the newcomer looks like a heavier cousin of the Higgs boson, which similarly first showed up at the LHC as a highly intriguing blip in the data about four years ago. Or it could be a kind of portal particle into the dark matter sector—because this particle decays almost immediately, on its own it cannot account for the invisible matter that seems to be ubiquitous in space, but it may be a messenger that communicates with the dark matter particle, theorists suggested. Another hypothetical alternative is that it is a graviton, the predicted carrier particle for the force of gravity.

    “There’s a long list of possible things it could be beyond what we already know the universe contains,” says Jim Olsen, a Princeton University physicist who presented the CMS results. “Before today there was no theory paper that predicted we would find this.” Many scientists have been hoping the LHC would manifest proof of a theory called supersymmetry, which predicts many additional “partner” particles to match the ones we already know of. The 750-GeV particle, however, would not be one of these partners. “Even if this signal turns out to be right, it does not yet obviously tell us anything about whether there is supersymmetry,” says Peter Graham, a theorist at Stanford University.

    The most striking thing about the results, scientists say, is that two experiments at the LHC—ATLAS and CMS (for Compact Muon Solenoid)—which use different setups and conduct wholly separate analyses of their independent sets of data, saw signs of roughly the same thing. “It’s a significant excess in ATLAS alone and that would be interesting by itself, however additional credence is given by the fact that two experiments see it in the same place,” Falkowski says. “It reduces the chance that it’s a random fluctuation by a large factor.” There is still cause, however, for skepticism. “If you look in a lot of places there’s a decent chance you’ll see a fluctuation in at least one place,” says Ken Bloom of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, a member of the CMS team. “My own personal guess is that it’s most likely a fluctuation. We see relatively low-significance things like this all the time.” Physicists also say that such a particle probably should have shown up in the earlier runs at the LHC. Although those runs were operating at lower energies, they still would have been sufficient to create a particle in the 750-GeV mass range, but researchers saw only a very minor hint of anything there. Statistical flukes, however, run both ways, and perhaps those runs just happened to come up relatively empty.

    The signal ATLAS saw amounted to about 10 particles more than would be expected from “background”—that is, normal particles within the standard canon—after around a billion proton collisions. CMS saw roughly three, according to plots scientists presented yesterday. Those tallies may sound meager, but the experiments are so sensitive, and have such precise predictions for the number of particles of any given mass they expect to see, that the results were statistically significant. Still, “it is not a discovery—it’s a potential discovery,” Olsen says.

    Impatient physicists will not have to wait long to learn the truth. The data coming back from the LHC next year should soon either confirm or disprove the possible new particle. “I certainly hope we’ll get something interesting in the future, but we don’t know,” Bloom says. “If these results turn out to be the first hint of that, then we’ll look back on this day a few years from now and say, ‘that’s when we first started seeing things.’ I consider this something of a teaser.”

    Leave a comment:


  • Grimpala
    replied
    Originally posted by mstng86 View Post
    So they just flipped the switch on this bish.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/german...154554400.html
    Originally posted by Strychnine View Post
    Nice!

    Here's a pic I saw posted somewhere else


    10th December 2015: The first plasma in Wendelstein 7-X. It consisted of helium and reached a temperature of about one million degrees Celsius. (coloured black-and-white photo)

    http://www.ipp.mpg.de/3984226/12_15

    What a time to be alive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strychnine
    replied
    Nice!

    Here's a pic I saw posted somewhere else


    10th December 2015: The first plasma in Wendelstein 7-X. It consisted of helium and reached a temperature of about one million degrees Celsius. (coloured black-and-white photo)

    Start of operation and first plasma in the Wendelstein 7-X fusion research device at IPP Greifswald

    On 10th December, the day had arrived: the operating team in the control room started up the magnetic field and initiated the computer-operated experiment control system. It fed around one milligram of helium gas into the evacuated plasma vessel, switched on the microwave heating for a short 1,3 megawatt pulse – and the first plasma could be observed by the installed cameras and measuring devices. “We’re starting with a plasma produced from the noble gas helium. We’re not changing over to the actual investigation object, a hydrogen plasma, until next year,” explains project leader Professor Thomas Klinger: “This is because it’s easier to achieve the plasma state with helium. In addition, we can clean the surface of the plasma vessel with helium plasmas.”

    The first plasma in the machine had a duration of one tenth of a second and achieved a temperature of around one million degrees. “We’re very satisfied”, concludes Dr. Hans-Stephan Bosch, whose division is responsible for the operation of the Wendelstein 7-X, at the end of the first day of experimentation. “Everything went according to plan.” The next task will be to extend the duration of the plasma discharges and to investigate the best method of producing and heating helium plasmas using microwaves. After a break for New Year, confinement studies will continue in January, which will prepare the way for producing the first plasma from hydrogen.

    Leave a comment:


  • mstng86
    replied
    Originally posted by Strychnine View Post
    OK, fuck this.


    I hate you, Aaron.














    So they just flipped the switch on this bish.

    Leave a comment:


  • mstng86
    replied
    In a new round of testing, NASA confirms yet again that the 'impossible' EMdrive thruster works

    Engineer Roger Shawyer’s controversial EM Drive thruster jets back into relevancy this week, as a team of researchers at NASA’s Eagleworks Laboratories recently completed yet another round of testing on the seemingly impossible tech. Though no official peer-reviewed lab paper has been published yet, and NASA institutes strict press release restrictions on the Eagleworks lab these days, engineer Paul March took to the NASA Spaceflight forum to explain the group’s findings. In essence, by utilizing an improved experimental procedure, the team managed to mitigate some of the errors from prior tests — yet still found signals of unexplained thrust.

    Isaac Newton should be sweating.

    Flying in the face of traditional laws of physics, the EM Drive makes use of a magnetron and microwaves to create a propellantless propulsion system. By pushing microwaves into a closed, truncated cone and back towards the small end of said cone, the drive creates the momentum and force necessary to propel a craft forward. Because the system is a reactionless drive, it goes against humankind’s fundamental comprehension of physics, hence its controversial nature.

    On the NASA spaceflight forums, March revealed as much as he could about the advancements that have been made with EM Drive and its relative technology. After apologizing for not having the ability to share pictures or the supporting data from a peer-reviewed lab paper, he starts by explaining (as straightforward as rocket science can get) that the Eagleworks lab successfully built and installed a 2nd generation magnetic damper which helps reduce stray magnetic fields in a vacuum chamber. The addition reduced magnetic fields by an order of magnitude inside the chamber, and also decreased Lorentz force interactions.

    However, despite ruling out Lorentz forces almost entirely, March still reported a contamination caused by thermal expansion. Unfortunately, this reported contamination proves even worse in a vacuum (i.e. outer space) due in large part to its inherently high level of insulation. To combat this, March acknowledged the team is now developing an advanced analytics tool to assist in the separation of the contamination, as well as an integrated test which aims to alleviate thermally induced errors altogether.

    While these advancements and additions are no doubt a boon for continued research of the EM Drive, the fact that the machine still produced what March calls “anomalous thrust signals” is by far the test’s single biggest discovery. The reason why this thrust exists still confounds even the brightest rocket scientists in the world, but the recurring phenomenon of direction-based momentum does make the EM Drive appear less a combination of errors and more like a legitimate answer to interstellar travel.

    At this time, it’s unknown when Eagleworks Laboratories intends to officially publish its peer-reviewed paper, however, hearing of the EM Drive’s advancements from one of its top engineers bodes well for the future of this fascinating tech.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strychnine
    replied
    Originally posted by YALE View Post
    It doesn't make radioactive waste material like a fission reactor.
    It does, but it's indirectly. There is no "spent fuel", per se, but there will be items that require proper disposal at some point..


    The direct "waste products" are Helium-4 and the neutron. The Helium-4 is nothing to be concerned about - it's ordinary stable Helium. What is of concern is that 14.1 MeV neutron - or more specifically - what that 14.1 MeV neutron hits. That's where the "waste" of a fusion reactor is going to come from - the radioactivity induced by the neutron that comes out of the reaction

    The 14.1 MeV neutrons irradiate the surrounding structure, and when the neutron is ultimately absorbed, the absorbing nuclide generally becomes radioactive In this sense, fusion does produce waste products in the form of irradiated (and activated) structural materials, which ultimately have to be disposed in some appropriate facility.

    Absolutely minuscule when compared to fission reactors though; like 1%.
    Last edited by Strychnine; 11-03-2015, 09:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ruffdaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by YALE View Post
    Are you talking about the possibility that the large hadron collider might create a black hole? That isn't a risk. It was a theory supported by bad math.


    We still need it for space travel.


    It doesn't make radioactive waste material like a fission reactor.

    Lets go ahead and define the term need here....haha

    Leave a comment:


  • Grimpala
    replied
    Originally posted by YALE View Post
    It doesn't make radioactive waste material like a fission reactor.
    I think he's talking about a melt down in space which then rains radioactive debris into the atmosphere.

    Leave a comment:


  • YALE
    replied
    Originally posted by Denny
    Yes. Kill them with fire!
    Are you talking about the possibility that the large hadron collider might create a black hole? That isn't a risk. It was a theory supported by bad math.

    Originally posted by Ruffdaddy View Post
    Itll be ready about the time renewables are main stream enough to make it obsolete
    We still need it for space travel.

    Originally posted by Craizie View Post
    A hail of radioactive debris sounds lovely.
    It doesn't make radioactive waste material like a fission reactor.

    Leave a comment:


  • Strychnine
    replied
    Originally posted by Denny
    It's like the CERN Project. If a group of scientists screw up, we all go. I wouldn't mind it if someone killed every one of them.
    I'm confused. Are you saying you think the science being done at CERN poses a threat to humanity and that you would rather see the scientists dead than continue their work

    Leave a comment:


  • Grimpala
    replied
    Originally posted by Denny
    It's like the CERN Project. If a group of scientists screw up, we all go. I wouldn't mind it if someone killed every one of them.
    I believe, but don't hold me to it, that they have created a few very small black holes. I don't think they were very stable and did not last very long.

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Craizie
    replied
    Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
    I'm really waiting for things like this to be done in orbit so if they go out of control, it's not that big of a deal. Tritium in the water supply sounds like a very bad thing

    A hail of radioactive debris sounds lovely.

    Leave a comment:


  • Forever_frost
    replied
    I'm really waiting for things like this to be done in orbit so if they go out of control, it's not that big of a deal. Tritium in the water supply sounds like a very bad thing

    Leave a comment:


  • Strychnine
    replied
    Originally posted by Grimpala View Post
    Sounds like this is significantly safer than fission. How long before this is a viable mass energy source?
    There are a bunch of companies out there working on fusion reactors and I think all are targeting 2020-2025

    LPP Fusion (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics) - the target is to make LPP Fusion with a commercial system 4 years after net energy gain is proved. The hop is two years to prove net energy gain. Then 2019-2022 for a commercial reactor (2022 if we allow for 3 years of slippage). They could lower energy costs by ten times.

    Lockheed Compact Fusion has a target date of 2024 and made big news recently with some technical details and an effort to get partners.

    Helion Energy 2023 (about 5 cents per kwh and able to burn nuclear fission waste)

    Tri-Alpha Energy (previously talked about 2015-2020, but now likely 2020-2025)

    General Fusion 2023 (targeting 4 cents per kwh)

    EMC2 Fusion (Released some proven physics results, raising $30 million)

    Dynomak Fusion claims that they will be able generate energy cheaper than coal. They are not targeting commercialization until about 2040.

    MagLIF is another fusion project with good funding but without a specific target date for commercialization.

    There is Muon Fusion research in Japan and at Star Scientific in Australia.
    There is the well funded National Ignition facility with large laser fusion and there is the International Tokomak project (ITER).

    General Fusion in Vancouver has its funding with Jeff Bezos and the Canadian Government. (As of 2013, General Fusion had received $45 million in venture capital and $10 million in government funding)

    IEC Fusion (EMC2 fusion) has its Navy funding (about $2-4 million per year)

    As of August 15, 2012, the Navy had agreed to fund EMC2 with an additional $5.3 million over 2 years to work on the problem of pumping electrons into the whiffleball. They plan to integrate a pulsed power supply to support the electron guns (100+A, 10kV). WB-8 has been operating at 0.8 Tesla
    Lockheed Martin Skunkworks is developing a compact fusion reactor concept, CFR. The novel magnetic cusp configuration would allow for stable plasmas in a

    Leave a comment:


  • Ruffdaddy
    replied
    Originally posted by Grimpala View Post
    Sounds like this is significantly safer than fission. How long before this is a viable mass energy source?
    Itll be ready about the time renewables are main stream enough to make it obsolete

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X