Large Hardon Collider

[Eliseos]

Speaking of water on the moon:

ScienceDaily (Mar. 2, 2010) — Using data from a NASA radar that flew aboard India's Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, scientists have detected ice deposits near the moon's north pole. NASA's Mini-SAR instrument, a lightweight, synthetic aperture radar, found more than 40 small craters with water ice. The craters range in size from 1 to 9 miles (2 to15 km) in diameter. Although the total amount of ice depends on its thickness in each crater, it's estimated there could be at least 600 million metric tons of water ice.

"The emerging picture from the multiple measurements and resulting data of the instruments on lunar missions indicates that water creation, migration, deposition and retention are occurring on the moon," said Paul Spudis, principal investigator of the Mini-SAR experiment at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. "The new discoveries show the moon is an even more interesting and attractive scientific, exploration and operational destination than people had previously thought."

During the past year, the Mini-SAR mapped the moon's permanently-shadowed polar craters that aren't visible from Earth. The radar uses the polarization properties of reflected radio waves to characterize surface properties. Results from the mapping showed deposits having radar characteristics similar to ice.

"After analyzing the data, our science team determined a strong indication of water ice, a finding which will give future missions a new target to further explore and exploit," said Jason Crusan, program executive for the Mini-RF Program for NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate in Washington.

The Mini-SAR's findings are being published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The results are consistent with recent findings of other NASA instruments and add to the growing scientific understanding of the multiple forms of water found on the moon. The agency's Moon Mineralogy Mapper discovered water molecules in the moon's polar regions, while water vapor was detected by NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS.

Mini-SAR and Moon Mineralogy Mapper are two of 11 instruments on the Indian Space Research Organization's Chandrayaan-1. The Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md., performed the final integration and testing on Mini-SAR. It was developed and built by the Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, Calif., and several other commercial and government contributors.

For more information about NASA's Mini-SAR, also known as Mini-RF, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/mini-rf

For more information about the Moon Mineralogy Mapper, visit: http://m3.jpl.nasa.gov

For more information about LCROSS, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/lcross

For more information about Chandrayaan-1, visit: http://www.isro.org/Chandrayaan

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0302085214.htm

[Woozie]

Pluto is not a planet.

Dead to me.

Edit:

What did he says about terraforming? Talked about the harsh reality, or did he cultivate everyone wetdream with vague information.

He was pretty realistic about it. He said something along the lines of "We have trouble predicting the weather on Earth a week into the future. How do we expect to know how to change an entire planet?"

Edit 2:

Streaming rights for this series will expire March 9th

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Eliseos]

Also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ges-Earth.html

Pretty nuts to see how much technology has changed in the past 55 years.

[Woozie]

Also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ges-Earth.html

Pretty nuts to see how much technology has changed in the past 55 years.

Wow, that is so awesome. I think I just found a new desktop pic.

Also, cracked has an article today about ways to save the world. Some of the solutions that have been proposed for astroid threats were pretty ridiculous interesting.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18433...planet_p2.html

[Mizango]

Kick ass.

[Eliseos]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Should still be up on www.thedailyshow.com and www.colbertnation.com

Also, mechanics exam today, thermo exam tomorrow which includes an in-class exam and a take home exam to do over the weekend. I think I may have aced mechanics, but for thermo the average score in the class on the homeworks is 40% lol.

[Woozie]

Hmm, good point...now I'm wondering why I ever watched them on Hulu in the first place.

[Eliseos]

No commercials once the show starts is the best part. Also, someone sciency is going to be on Colbert again soon, let me find the link.

EDIT: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...edy02_ST_N.htm

Sean Carroll from Caltech, promoting his new book From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. The article itself was pretty good too.

Another edit: the comedy central websites now stream the past episodes in HD, whereas I don't know if Hulu does.

[Woozie]

I found an interesting article in NewScientist. It basically surveys the proposed unification theories. It goes over the stuff we're all familiar with like Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory, but then it talks about some stuff I've never heard of.

Knowing the mind of God: Seven theories of everything

15:33 04 March 2010 by Michael Marshall
For similar stories, visit the Cosmology and Quantum World Topic Guides

The "theory of everything" is one of the most cherished dreams of science. If it is ever discovered, it will describe the workings of the universe at the most fundamental level and thus encompass our entire understanding of nature. It would also answer such enduring puzzles as what dark matter is, the reason time flows in only one direction and how gravity works. Small wonder that Stephen Hawking famously said that such a theory would be "the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God".

But theologians needn't lose too much sleep just yet. Despite decades of effort, progress has been slow. Rather than one or two rival theories whose merits can be judged against the evidence, there is a profusion of candidates and precious few clues as to which (if any) might turn out to be correct.

Here's a brief guide to some of the front runners.

String theory
This is probably the best known theory of everything, and the most heavily studied. It suggests that the fundamental particles we observe are not actually particles at all, but tiny strings that only "look" like particles to scientific instruments because they are so small.

What's more, the mathematics of string theory also rely on extra spatial dimensions, which humans could not experience directly.

These are radical suggestions, but many theorists find the string approach elegant and have proposed numerous variations on the basic theme that seem to solve assorted cosmological conundrums. However, they have two major challenges to overcome if they are to persuade the rest of the scientific community that string theory is the best candidate for a ToE.

First, string theorists have so far struggled to make new predictions that can be tested. So string theory remains just that: a theory.

Secondly, there are just too many variants of the theory, any one of which could be correct – and little to choose between them. To resolve this, some physicists have proposed a more general framework called M-theory, which unifies many string theories.

But this has its own problems. Depending how you set it up, M-theory can describe any of 10500 universes. Some physicists argue that this is evidence that there are multiple universes, but others think it just means the theory is untestable.

Loop quantum gravity
Although it hasn't had the same media exposure, loop quantum gravity is so far the only real rival to string theory.

The basic idea is that space is not continuous, as we usually think, but is instead broken up into tiny chunks 10-35 metres across. These are then connected by links to make the space we experience. When these links are tangled up into braids and knots, they produce elementary particles.

Loop quantum gravity has produced some tentative predictions of real-world effects, and has also shed some light on the birth of the universe. But its proponents have so far struggled to incorporate gravity into their theories. And as with string theory, a true experimental test is still some way off.

CDT
Causal dynamical triangulations looks pretty similar to loop quantum gravity at first glance. Just as loop quantum gravity breaks up space into tiny "building blocks", CDT assumes that space-time is split into tiny building blocks – this time, four-dimensional chunks called pentachorons.

The pentachorons can then be glued together to produce a large-scale universe – which turns out to have three space dimensions and one time dimension, just as the real one does. So far, so good, but there's a major drawback: CDT as it currently stands cannot explain the existence of matter.

Quantum Einstein gravity
This idea, proposed by Martin Reuter of the University of Mainz, Germany, takes a rather different tack.

Part of the problem with unifying gravity and quantum mechanics is what happens to gravity at small scales. The closer two objects are to each other, the stronger the gravitational attraction between them; but gravity also acts on itself, and as a result, at very small distances a feedback loop starts. According to conventional theories the force should then become ridiculously strong – which means there's something wrong with the conventional theories.

However, Reuter has come up with a way to generate a "fixed point": a distance below which gravity stops getting stronger. This could help solve the problem, and lead to a quantum theory of gravity.

Quantum graphity
All the theories above assume that space and time exist, and then try to build up the rest of the universe. Quantum graphity – the brainchild of Fotini Markopoulou of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, and colleagues – tries to do away with them.

When the universe formed in the big bang, Markopoulou says, there was no such thing as space as we know it. Instead, there was an abstract network of "nodes" of space, in which each node was connected to every other. Very soon afterwards, this network collapsed and some of the nodes broke away from each other, forming the large universe we see today.

Internal relativity
Developed by Olaf Dreyer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, internal relativity sets out to explain how general relativity could arise in a quantum world.

Every particle in the universe has a property called "spin", which can be loosely thought of as what happens to the particle when it is rotated. Dreyer's model imagines a system of spins existing independently of matter and arranged randomly. When the system reaches a critical temperature, the spins align, forming an ordered pattern.

Anyone actually living in the system of spins will not see them. All they see are their effects, which Dreyer has shown will include space-time and matter. He has also managed to derive Newtonian gravity from the model: however, general relativity has not yet emerged.

E8
In 2007 the physicist (and sometime surfer) Garrett Lisi made headlines with a possible theory of everything.

The fuss was triggered by a paper discussing E8, a complex eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points. Lisi showed that the various fundamental particles and forces known to physics could be placed on the points of the E8 pattern, and that many of their interactions then emerged naturally.

Some physicists heavily criticised the paper, while others gave it a cautious welcome. In late 2008, Lisi was given a grant to continue his studies of E8.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

[Kryssan]

I was recently shown the E8 thing by another enthusiast. Didn't know about the CDT stuff, but the rest of it I've read or heard of from one source or another. Still a bit 'out there' from my level though, until they get something more conclusive than wishful thinking at least.



News stuff: Yucca Mountain officially died yesterday. License applications have been withdrawn. $10 Billion wasted. But its just another drop in the flood of wasted spending, right? Article Link



Now onto other things:

Reactor that has a particular research asset in transmutation. Or as I like to call it, transmogrification, because Calvin & Hobbes fits in so well.

Approval for Myhhra

Crossposted:

Belgian nuclear scientists have been given the go-ahead to work towards an advanced new research reactor system with a role in researching the transmutation of wastes.


Myhhra Approval came yesterday from the cabinet of the federal government for its share of spending on the Multipurpose Hybrid Research Reactor for High-tech Applications (Myrhha).

The reactor would be built by SCK-CEN at its site in Mol in the north of Belgium. The organisation has said it is hoping to start construction in 2015 and begin the first phase of operation in 2023. SCK-CEN said the total budget could be around €1 billion ($1.3 billion) and the project should create about 2000 long-term jobs.

Myhhra would be unique as a sub-critical assembly relying on an accelerator to achieve periods of criticality. It would use a core of low-enriched uranium and would develop 57 MWt, using lead-bismuth as coolant. Later, the accelerator could be removed for separate use and the reactor could become a more conventional fast-neutron irradiation facility.

After separation, the accelerator could carry out fundamental physics research and neutron science, with the reactor used in materials research for fusion reactors as well as the doping of silicon and production of medical and industrial radioisotopes. As a lead-bismuth cooled unit, Myhhra would be particularly suited to research into Generation IV designs based on the same coolant.

SCK-CEN already produces 25% of the world's medical isotopes using the BR2 reactor and Myhhra would "consolidate its key role", said the organisation.

One particular use of Myhhra would be in the research of transmutation. This is when certain radioactive isotopes with long half lives are made to 'catch' a neutron and thereby change into a different isotope that will decay quickly to a stable form with no radioactivity.

Although it would be a very challenging practice, an industrial scale method of transmutation would greatly simplify the permanent geologic disposal of radioactive waste. A European project to explore this has called for the demonstration of accelerator-driven transmutation and Myhhra fits the role.

[Woozie]

I really need to learn more about nuclear energy. I always read these articles you post, but I never feel like I understand them. You should give some sort of explanation as to what exactly these things mean to us when you post them. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has difficulty understanding them.

It's not just the technical stuff that I have trouble with, but it's knowing exactly what it means for us, if that makes sense. For example if I hear that the new reactor can do some process I've never heard of, I'm not sure why it's better than the old reactors (or how much better it is). It would be like if I told a kid that my machine can produce 2000 more joules of energy than the machine their mom has, they don't know if 2000 is a lot, or if it's negligible. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. I can't think of a better way to put it.

Basically, just pretend I'm an idiot (because I am) and explain it the way you'd explain it to one.

The questions I have in this particular article is

Later, the accelerator could be removed for separate use and the reactor could become a more conventional fast-neutron irradiation facility.

What exactly is a fast neutron irradiation facility?

As a lead-bismuth cooled unit, Myhhra would be particularly suited to research into Generation IV designs based on the same coolant.

This might be a stupid question, but do we have any GenIV reactors right now? Or is this one of those concepts that has yet to be implemented for some reason or another?

Although it would be a very challenging practice, an industrial scale method of transmutation would greatly simplify the permanent geologic disposal of radioactive waste.

How exactly does this work?

Also, I read an article about nuclear energy on NewScientist today that I found interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ar-option.html

I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I do, I'm probably going to have a bunch of questions to ask. I really want to understand nuclear energy better. I'm applying for an REU that has a nuclear physics research project that I may get into (though it was only my third choice. They had quantum braid groups and superconductors, two things I just can't pass up).

[Kryssan]

What exactly is a fast neutron irradiation facility?

Just a fast reactor research plant, really. Basically, they use the reactor as a giant neutron gun to test the embrittlement of materials they plan on using in reactor designs to see if they can stand up to it over time. Neutrons cause interstitial point defects in the crystalline structures of metal, which makes a metal harder, stronger, more brittle, less ductile, less tough. A lot of design consideration has to go into ensuring the material used in a reactor can not only withstand high pressures and temperatures and corrossion and radiation fluxes (of both the neutron and gamma kinds) but also the aftereffects of said fluxes. Of course, this isn't the only thing they test, but one of the more major examples.

This might be a stupid question, but do we have any GenIV reactors right now? Or is this one of those concepts that has yet to be implemented for some reason or another?

We have no approved GenIV designs. We only have one GenIII+ design approved that I know of, the AP1000 by Westinghouse. GenIV designs are almost all fast reactors utilizing brayton cycles or liquid metal coolants, though there were still a few thermal superheated latent vapor rankine designs.

How exactly does this work?

Very similar to the transnuclide source neutrons present in high endurance reactors after having burned for an appreciable time. This is not an example of making elements that are less reactive, but it shows you the general principle. (The elements in this example are the radioactive products made by neutron captures and their subsequent decays that produce source neutrons in nuclear reactors - taken from a scan of a set of notes I made to explain some nuclear basics to a friend).

Spoiler: show

http://www.aethernavale.net/Media/images/tn.jpg

Also, I read an article about nuclear energy on NewScientist today that I found interesting

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ar-option.html

I haven't read the entire thing yet, but when I do, I'm probably going to have a bunch of questions to ask. I really want to understand nuclear energy better. I'm applying for an REU that has a nuclear physics research project that I may get into (though it was only my third choice. They had quantum braid groups and superconductors, two things I just can't pass up).

I'll look at it later, right now doing a couple things around the house, but if you ask specific questions I'll try to answer them quicker.

[Max™]

Internal relativity
Developed by Olaf Dreyer of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, internal relativity sets out to explain how general relativity could arise in a quantum world.

Every particle in the universe has a property called "spin", which can be loosely thought of as what happens to the particle when it is rotated. Dreyer's model imagines a system of spins existing independently of matter and arranged randomly. When the system reaches a critical temperature, the spins align, forming an ordered pattern.

Anyone actually living in the system of spins will not see them. All they see are their effects, which Dreyer has shown will include space-time and matter. He has also managed to derive Newtonian gravity from the model: however, general relativity has not yet emerged.

That sounds interesting, haven't heard it yet, though I get the feeling it's just another way of stating the configuration space concept in physical terms.

I'm a fan of the CDT type method, which LQC, the Graphity, and whatnot are all roughly equivalent to, kinda like Type I, II, A, AB, and uh... wtf is the fifth stringy holotype again?

[wop]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8556621.stm

The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) must close at the end of 2011 for up to a year to address design and safety issues, according to an LHC director.

Dr Steve Myers told BBC News the faults will delay the machine reaching its full potential for two years.

The atom smasher will reach world record collision energies later this month at 7 trillion electron volts.

But the tunnel must be made safe before proton collisions planned at twice that level can commence.

The Geneva-based machine only recently restarted after being out of action for 14 months following an accident in September 2008.

Dr Myers said: "It's something that, with a lot more resources and with a lot more manpower and quality control, possibly could have been avoided but I have difficulty in thinking that this is something that was a design error."

He said: "The standard phrase is that the LHC is its own prototype. We are pushing technologies towards their limits."

"You don't hear about the thousands or hundreds of thousands of other areas that have gone incredibly well.

"With a machine like the LHC, you only build one and you only build it once."
He said the second problem is not with the most complex technology but involves the copper sheaths around the superconducting joints in the tunnel.

The copper sheaths are a failsafe mechanism designed to take up the current if one of the magnets in the Large Hadron Collider warms up - an incident known as a "quench".

The 2008 accident caused one tonne of helium to leak into the tunnel and resulted in a series of "quenches" and a 40m Swiss franc (£24m) repair bill.

Engineers believe the machine is now safe to run at 7 trillion electron volts (TeV) but are anxious to avoid another breakdown.

So they have taken the decision to run the machine for 18 to 24 months at half-maximum power before switching it off for a year to carry out improvements to the 27km tunnel.

Dr Myers said the decision was taken jointly with the physicists working on the four giant particle detectors on the LHC.

He said they appreciate the chance to test their own equipment while the machine is running at half its maximum power.

Collisions at enormous energy

The Large Hadron Collider sends beams of protons in opposite directions around the tunnel at close to the speed of light. These cross and collide, smashing into each other with enormous energy.

The ultimate aim is to collide particles head on at 14TeV to recreate the conditions in the moments after the Big Bang.

Scientists hope they will see new subatomic particles in the debris and gain insights into how the universe came into being, billions of years ago.

The machine is buried 100m below the French-Swiss border.

Cern officials say running the LHC at 7TeV will enable physicists to explore another secret of the universe, namely the nature of the "dark matter" that accounts for most of the mass in the observable universe.

[Max™]

*sigh*

Least we're getting halfpower boomboom for a while.

[Kaylia]

I'm glad 7TeV will be enough. I hope everything goes well until then.

[Eliseos]

The LHC is such a tease.

[Effluo]

Well, LHC won't be cauing the End of Times for sure now. Is the government trying to hide the fact they are indeed scared of 2012? Seems a little odd they'd keep it running, then shut it down for all of 2012? Or, is the Higgs trying to stay hidden to save us from ourselves?

Once is an Anomaly, twice is coincidence, three times is a pattern, four times = serial killer.

[Eliseos]

Must not feed the troll.

[Woozie]

Does the LHC running at half power mean it will only destroy half the world?