CERN, LHC, strangelet = droplet of death.

I reread the LSAG report once more and found there another error. The
binding energy of constituent element of strangelet is not several
MeV, as they wrote there, but about 500 MeV. So, all their talks about
thermal bath are erroneous. Strange matter is very dangerous!

The value 500 TeV, as a binding energy of (uds) in a strangelet N(uds)
can easily be received from comparison with the rest energy of kaons K
+ and K0, which are correspondingly 493 MeV and 497 MeV.
Kaons (K+ = us~; K0 = ds~) can be side products, occurring at the time
of proton (p=uud) and neutron (n=udd) capture by strange matter
N(uds):

N(uds) + p = (N+1)(uds) + K+ = (N+1)(uds) + e+ + 500 MeV.
(N+1)(uds) + n = (N+2)(uds) + K0 = (N+2)(uds) + 500 MeV.
…
Extremely powerful explosion.

This explosion has specific energy output, which is hundred times
bigger than under the nuclear explosion.

By the way, at the time of November-December collisions there were
more Kaons output that it was theoretically predicted. That means that
we are very close to creation of this dead droplet which can transform
the whole Earth into 10-meterr lump of strange\dead matter.
Space observations says us that periods of pulsars are almost do not
change. That means that strange matter is very stable.

Read about strange matter, strangelets, and strange stars in
Wikipedia. I think that our civilization is crazy. From one hand, it
already knows about a deadly dangerous strange matter; from the other
hand, it tries to create that dead droplet at colliders. I do not
understand you, people.

I wish you to become mentally healthy and STOP all powerful colliders.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/

Stranglets cannot be created in the LHC because the probability of the
creation of strangelets decreases at higher energies. As the LHC
operates at higher energies than the RHIC or the heavy ion programs of
the 1980s and 1990s, the LHC is less likely to produce strangelets
than its predecessors. Furthermore, models indicate that strangelets
are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures. Strangelets are
bound at low energies (in the range of 1-10 MeV), while the collisions
in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of
thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an
order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be
illustrated by the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling
water.

Furthermore, the behavior of quark-gluon plasmas may remove the
possibility of strangelets forming in particle accelerators at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_...ron_ Collider

Mo

http://doc.cern.ch/yellowrep/2003/2003-001/p1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.3414
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/LHC/Safety-en.html

On Mar 1, 11:38 am, Urion wrote:
Stranglets cannot be created in the LHC because the probability of the
creation of strangelets decreases at higher energies. As the LHC
operates at higher energies than the RHIC or the heavy ion programs of
the 1980s and 1990s, the LHC is less likely to produce strangelets
than its predecessors. Furthermore, models indicate that strangelets
are only stable or long-lived at low temperatures. Strangelets are
bound at low energies (in the range of 1-10 MeV),

Binding energy of one element “uds” in strangelet N(uds), if N of
order of a 100 or 1000, can be about 500 MeV.

while the collisions
in the LHC release energies in the range of 14 TeV. The second law of
thermodynamics precludes the formation of a cold condensate that is an
order of magnitude cooler than the surrounding medium. This can be
illustrated by the example of trying to form an ice cube in boiling
water.

At p-p inelastic of-central collision in the region between fling by
protons two droplets can be formed from “sea-quarks” (from Dirac sea).
One droplet N(u~d~s~) will annihilate with matter; another droplet
N(uds) will capture our mater and grow.
Droplet, formed from “sea quarks”, is cold. So the “ice cube in
boiling water” is crude error.

----------
Frm another forum:



Somebody says: “Also the mass of a proton is 938.272 MeV/c^2 and the
mass of a uds is 1,115.683 MeV/c^2.”

I answer:
Mass of a free proton is 938.272 MeV/c^2.
Mass of a proton in deuteron is several MeV/c^2 less.
Mass of a proton in He is several MeV/c^2 less.
Mass of a proton in C is several MeV/c^2 less.
Mass of a proton in Fe is several MeV/c^2 less, and minimal.

These mass differences say us about binding energy.

Strange droplet consisting of a several (uds) is unstable and decay.

AFAIK some authors said that droplet could be stable if it has at
least 10 elements.
The more number of “strange nucleons” inside the droplet, the more
binding energy.
I think that its binding energy properties are analogues to those of a
magnetic hole. So I think that specific binding energy has a limit and
it lays somewhere near 500 MeV (or about of 1/2 of protons rest
energy).

Note. My computation for magnetic hole gives: energy of ruined protons
splits per two parts: 2/3 goes into creation of magnetic field; 1/3
goes into binding energy or simply emitted with radiation.

Strange matter has fermionic structure.
Magnetic hole has bosonic structure.

CERN physicist can create dead droplet, having fermionic, bosonic or
scirmionic structure. Any such condensate is dangerous, because it can
transform the whole Earth into dead extremely dense matter.


http://darkenergy.narod.ru/

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

On 3/1/10 8:57 AM, Magnetic wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:35 pm, Sam wrote:
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Thank for links.
But I hate bb-dogma.

That's why I included
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Empirical testing is at the heart of science.

On Mar 1, 10:02*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 3/1/10 8:57 AM, Magnetic wrote:





On Mar 1, 3:35 pm, Sam *wrote:
* * No Center
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

* * Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
* * *http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

* * WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

* * WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

Thank for links.
But I hate bb-dogma.

* *That's why I included
* *WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
* * *http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

* *Empirical testing is at the heart of science.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

LHC Creates great high temperature and this heat is its killer.
Splice wires NG Swiss engineering went NG Wire obeys the inverse
square law,and that is reality Swiss engeneering O Universe
physica 10 Oi va TreBert

Magnetic wrote:

I reread the LSAG report once more and found there another error.
[snip crap]

1) http://physics.aps.org/articles/v2/104
2) idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Magnetic wrote:

[snip all]

Perhaps you should see a doctor for your paranoid schitzophrenia.

On 3/2/10 3:15 AM, Magnetic wrote:
copy and send!
save your children and mothers!

That's spammer talk!

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

On Mar 1, 12:32*am, Magnetic wrote:
I reread the LSAG report once more and found there another error. The
binding energy of constituent element of strangelet is not several
MeV, as they wrote there, but about 500 MeV. So, all their talks about
thermal bath are erroneous. Strange matter is very dangerous!

The value 500 TeV, as a binding energy of (uds) in a strangelet N(uds)
can easily be received from comparison with the rest energy of kaons K
+ and K0, which are correspondingly 493 MeV and 497 MeV.
Kaons (K+ = us~; K0 = ds~) can be side products, occurring at the time
of proton (p=uud) and neutron (n=udd) capture by strange matter
N(uds):

N(uds) + p = (N+1)(uds) + K+ = (N+1)(uds) + e+ + 500 MeV.
(N+1)(uds) + n = (N+2)(uds) + K0 = (N+2)(uds) + 500 MeV.
…
Extremely powerful explosion.

This explosion has specific energy output, which is hundred times
bigger than under the nuclear explosion.

By the way, at the time of November-December collisions there were
more Kaons output that it was theoretically predicted. That means that
we are very close to creation of this dead droplet which can transform
the whole Earth into 10-meterr lump of strange\dead matter.
Space observations says us that periods of pulsars are almost do not
change. That means that strange matter is very stable.

Read about strange matter, strangelets, and strange stars in
Wikipedia. I think that our civilization is crazy. From one hand, it
already knows about a deadly dangerous strange matter; from the other
hand, it tries to create that dead droplet at colliders. I do not
understand you, people.

I wish you to become mentally healthy and STOP all powerful colliders.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/

Perhaps the 98% missing proton mass at LHC will eventually come back
around and kick those LHC wizards in the butt.

~ BG