Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

So I haven't been around [....]

At my school, if this happened to me, I'd just talk to the head of the physics department (just walk in whenever his office hours are), explain the situation, and it would get resolved. I'm guessing it will be similar where you are. They'll probably let you in the class despite it being full if you explain the situation. I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

[BerenTebogo]

At my school, if this happened to me, I'd just talk to the head of the physics department (just walk in whenever his office hours are), explain the situation, and it would get resolved. I'm guessing it will be similar where you are. They'll probably let you in the class despite it being full if you explain the situation. I'd be very surprised if they didn't.

I finally got to talk to the head of the astrophysics section and he agreed to take me on as an advisee and is looking into the problem for me but he said it's still up in the air about whether they are "full" or really full. So, just have to wait and see.

[Max™]

Gl with the classes Sath, the advice about checking for openings after the first couple of days/first test is very good, it is actually common enough to be surprising if it doesn't happen.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...iously-thought

*cough*

Wasn't someone saying the magma that formed the moon would have retained enough water to qualify as "a significant amount", only to be informed that this was a ridiculous idea, which didn't make sense, especially because "shit you thought up from scratch" isn't scientific.

>.>

Spoiler: show

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showpost.php?p=3100985&postcount=948

Plate tectonics requires a cloud of material to condense in such a manner that it locks up much of the energy of the collapse as heat, it requires rocky material, and it requires water.

The moon was a cloud of debris originally, at one point the Earth most likely had a spectacular ring, that ring had some chunks which were larger than the rest, they swept the rest up, and the moon is the result of this process.

We know plate tectonics requires a significant amount of internal pressure and heat, and we know that smaller bodies cool faster.

Mars is not large enough to have sustained tectonics for long, though there are signs that it may have had limited plate shifting activity.

The Moon is much smaller, but again, it is made of the same material as the Earth.

If you went and grabbed a rock in your backyard and baked it, you'd get some amount of water most likely.

Not a large amount per rock, but a pile of them the size of North America would have at least a large sea of water locked up in their structure.


If the material was not able to generate significant internal heating due to the pressures caused by gravitational collapse, and it was not able to maintain what little heat it generated as it coalesced originally, it would cool rapidly.

The surface is baked, but if you dig down a few tens of meters, I'm certain you'd find relatively virginal material down there.

In that material, I'm confident you will find water in roughly the same quantities as we find in rocks from deep within the Earth's crust.

The most recent models explain its creation with a huge planetoid that hit the Earth and sent all the material flying in the air. Matter do cool fast in space far from the sun, but when there is a large quantity of hot molten rock blased by strong particles (since we are pretty close from the sun), there is a good chance it will dry out. The Moon's gravity can't hold gaseous water, so for your theory to be accurate, it would need to be formed from weak collision between icy material.


Where did you get the idea for your model anyway? Is it something you thought up, or it's based on serious study (because quite frankly, everything model I heard about exclude large quantity of water on the moon. I'm not saying your idea is a bad one, but is it something you thought up from scratch, or something you heard somewhere else.

[Kaylia]

Wasn't someone saying the magma that formed the moon would have retained enough water to qualify as "a significant amount",

5 parts per million

Water ratio on the Moon (when it was formed): 0.000005%
Water ratio on Earth: 1.52%

This ratio is even higher if you only consider Earth crust (that's where the moon come from)

100 time more is significantly more than their last standard, it's still not a significant amount by my standard.



If my numbers are correct here, that's 1 water particle that survived the magma for every 200 000 particles. Do you still think it's significant?

[Kaylia]

Secondly, as far as I understand, they are talking about the ratio of water contained in the magma when it froze. It gives very little informations about the actual quantity of water you can find on the surface right now.


You were trying to explain the water observed with the one one contained in the magma entirely, which still doesn't match.

[Max™]

No, I said "similar water content to that found in rocks deep in the earth", which is a significant amount.

5 parts per million of water, in millions of tons of rock, is a lot of water.

People are freaking out over an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, but 5 ppm of water in solid moon rock isn't significant?


Regarding the water on the surface, I said there should be no surprise that we would find the moon is not in fact bone dry, and that there should be similar amounts of water locked up in it's rocks as we find in volcanic magma on earth, for example.

If it is just 1 part per million, that means there should be nearly 100,000 tons of water locked up in the moon, which can't be attributed to impacts after it was formed, which is technically about the same as a large well would pull up in a day on Earth.

Did I say mostly water, or packed full of water, or anything other than "significant amount"? Nope, did they find a significant amount? I mean, if you want to say 20 or 30 olympic swimming pools is not enough to say the moon isn't bone dry, that's cool... but I was still right that there was water in moon rocks when they cooled, as that magma shows.

[Kaylia]

Your argument is all over the place, I don't know where to start...


First, could you please find a source that state the quantity of water found in the silicate magma is the same as the one we found on the Moon. I just spent 30min looking for one and didn't find anything. Is there any meaning to this number (maxiimum?)?

Secondly, trace of water in the magma 4 billions years ago doesn't say anything about the current quantity of ice found in craters on the surface. It's not a simple straigth line connecting both thing. Some water was obviously going to be carried on the Moon when it was created, there is no argument here, but it should still be less than what was blasted off the earth crust.



It annoy me how you pretend thing like this are obvious. For one, the magma can't hold water at 0 pressure, which is probably going to be the case when it's floating in space during its formation. How fast is it going to freeze and how much water is it going to trap before forming the Moon, I do not know, but it's not "obvious" physics. Not for you, not for me.

[Max™]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r66827g577kl6136/
"We consider it unlikely that the H2O content of large granitic magma bodies exceeds about 1.5% H2O; these magmas are H2O-undersaturated through most of their histories."


http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5m310043030n35k/
"The vesicularity data, when related to experimentally determined solubility of water in basalt, indicate that K-poor oceanic tholeiites originally contained about 0.25 percent water, Hawaiian tholeiites of intermediate K-content, about 0.5 percent water, and alkali-rich basalts, about 0.9 percent water. Analyses of fresh basalt pillows show a systematic increase of H2O+ as the rocks become more alkalic. K-poor oceanic tholeiites contain 0.06–0.42 percent H2O+, Hawaiian tholeiites, 0.31–0.60 percent H2O+, and alkali rich basalts 0.49–0.98 percent H2O+. "

These findings now suggest that the lower limit for total water on the moon could be 100 times greater.
"When the rocks were first returned from the Apollo missions, it was pretty obvious that they were really dry," Francis McCubbin, lead author of the study, told SPACE.com.
"A lot of people attributed the dry nature to something fundamental about how the moon formed. I think an estimate was thrown out there of less than 1 part per billion (ppb) water, because the presumption was that there was almost no water on the moon."


"If we were to take all the water that is locked up inside the moon, and put it in a homogenous layer on the lunar surface, it would cover the moon to about a meter depth," he explained.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37695392...science-space/


I don't pretend they're obvious, simply conclusions from the models I've built in my head regarding the event, have you never done this?

It annoys me how you pretend that everyone has exactly the same cognitive capacities, and the idea of someone doing something which they are innately good at, but you aren't, is impossible. The idea that physics makes sense, and that I can see the implications of certain combinations of conditions and materials well enough to model various phenomena accurately is not that far fetched.

What the fuck do you think Einstein was doing when he pondered how a clock would appear as he receded from it at light speed? Do you think the ability to think logically about the results of physical processes according to known laws using a thought experiment is rare?

How else do you want to explain that I said they would find results like this, I didn't go into enough rigor to state with certainty that they would find exactly 335 kilotons of water, but I could tell that it would be a large enough amount to make calling the moon dry absurd.

A 1 meter covering of water on the entire surface of the moon isn't a vast amount, but it's significant, and deep (Earth) mantle rock should have a similar water content, quite a bit less than surface magma, but I didn't say crust rock. Nor did I say it was the reason why all of the ice was in the crater shadows.

I said "they should expect to find a significant amount of water in moon rocks."

[Tristam]

Max gets bonus crackpot points for comparing himself to Einstein.

You're also dead wrong about comparable amounts of water on rocks on the moon to rocks in the papers you cited. A few parts per million isn't even close to the percentages you show. You also keep using significant in the subjective sense, and not in the statistical sense. Stop that, we already know there's statistically significant amounts of water on the moon. But it's still dry relative to any rock on the earth. Hell it's still dry relative to mars, according to your sources.

[Shiroikage]

maybe max is really fucking smart and is the next einstein

[Kuya]

Are we talking about max's super human abilities and assburgers?

[Shiroikage]

i think we're talking about his super human assburgers

[Max™]

Max gets bonus crackpot points for comparing himself to Einstein.

You're also dead wrong about comparable amounts of water on rocks on the moon to rocks in the papers you cited. A few parts per million isn't even close to the percentages you show. You also keep using significant in the subjective sense, and not in the statistical sense. Stop that, we already know there's statistically significant amounts of water on the moon. But it's still dry relative to any rock on the earth. Hell it's still dry relative to mars, according to your sources.

No, I was pointing out that thought experiments are not unheard of, and the first example that came to mind was that particular one Einstein used. I figured it would be more recognizable than if I had spoken of Dirac's belt trick, or Maxwell's demon. You gotta be pretty dense to so completely misread the thought experiment example as a comparison of the people doing the thought experiments, unless you're just deliberately doing it. Particularly as I stated that this isn't a super amazing ability no one else could possibly have.

Those papers were in response to a question about the amount of water in surface magma, as Kaylia kept mentioning how the moon was mostly crust material.

I posted those, while noting I had actually stated that there should be amounts like you find in some deeper mantle rocks. The loss of water due to heating/vacuum effects was implied as the explanation for the difference between crust amounts, and what was found on the moon.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../255/5050/1391

Most minerals of Earth's upper mantle contain small amounts of hydrogen, structurally bound as hydroxyl (OH). The OH concentration in each mineral species is variable, in some cases reflecting the geological environment of mineral formation. Of the major mantle minerals, pyroxenes are the most hydrous, typically containing http://www.sciencemag.org/math/sim.gif200 to 500 parts per million H2O by weight, and probably dominate the water budget and hydrogen geochemistry of mantle rocks that do not contain a hydrous phase. Garnets and olivines commonly contain http://www.sciencemag.org/math/sim.gif1 to 50 parts per million. Nominally anhydrous minerals constitute a significant reservoir for mantle hydrogen, possibly accommodating all water in the depleted mantle and providing a possible mechanism to recycle water from Earth's surface into the deep mantle.

Significant; adj
...
4. Fairly large in amount or quantity

I wouldn't say it is a large amount in comparison to the amount of rock (81 quintillion tons), but I would still say that 16 trillion tons is a fairly large amount of water, one might even call it... a significant amount.

As the usage was not about the likelihood of finding water, it would be incorrect to use the statistical sense, you're right. I wasn't doing that.


The assumption here is that this thing I do, which you're calling superhuman, is something which anyone should be capable of. So obviously you guys should be able to do it as well.

[Kaylia]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r66827g577kl6136/
"We consider it unlikely that the H2O content of large granitic magma bodies exceeds about 1.5% H2O; these magmas are H2O-undersaturated through most of their histories."


http://www.springerlink.com/content/j5m310043030n35k/
"The vesicularity data, when related to experimentally determined solubility of water in basalt, indicate that K-poor oceanic tholeiites originally contained about 0.25 percent water, Hawaiian tholeiites of intermediate K-content, about 0.5 percent water, and alkali-rich basalts, about 0.9 percent water. Analyses of fresh basalt pillows show a systematic increase of H2O+ as the rocks become more alkalic. K-poor oceanic tholeiites contain 0.06–0.42 percent H2O+, Hawaiian tholeiites, 0.31–0.60 percent H2O+, and alkali rich basalts 0.49–0.98 percent H2O+. "


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37695392...science-space/

If you smash 1/8th of the Earth away with a planetoid, what the magma would be like? The conditions are so different from typical granitic magma on Earth that any analogy is just wrong. What the mixture is like (homegeneous or not)? How hot is this shit right after the collision? How long it take to freeze in space? How long does it takes to condnsate into the Moon? These questions are going to have a serious impact on the amount of water found in the rock. It should be far from the 1:1 which was implied in your old argument that I disagreed with.

This new research show the "low limit", but it's also an upper limit for the amount of water carried through stone.


I really don't want to go any farther with this space geology debates, because it's getting retarded. I can't do the physics behind it even if I had the data, but the ratio still show a huge ass drop between what it's on Earth and what it's in the end. Most number you brought up are above 0.1% fratio (actually, most are around 1.4%, which coincidentally is the same amount of water you find on Earth). If everything on Earth is above that, you can't say a large quantity of water survived the trip to the Moon. It's a fucking tiny fraction.

I don't pretend they're obvious, simply conclusions from the models I've built in my head regarding the event, have you never done this?

It annoys me how you pretend that everyone has exactly the same cognitive capacities, and the idea of someone doing something which they are innately good at, but you aren't, is impossible. The idea that physics makes sense, and that I can see the implications of certain combinations of conditions and materials well enough to model various phenomena accurately is not that far fetched.

What the fuck do you think Einstein was doing when he pondered how a clock would appear as he receded from it at light speed? Do you think the ability to think logically about the results of physical processes according to known laws using a thought experiment is rare?

How else do you want to explain that I said they would find results like this, I didn't go into enough rigor to state with certainty that they would find exactly 335 kilotons of water, but I could tell that it would be a large enough amount to make calling the moon dry absurd.

A 1 meter covering of water on the entire surface of the moon isn't a vast amount, but it's significant, and deep (Earth) mantle rock should have a similar water content, quite a bit less than surface magma, but I didn't say crust rock. Nor did I say it was the reason why all of the ice was in the crater shadows.

I said "they should expect to find a significant amount of water in moon rocks.

I'm very good at figure skating. I've never done it, but I'm very good.... You can't pretend being very good at something without any accomplishment to back it up. Don't pull that shit in an argument. Anyone in this thread is able to do the same reasoning as you, so stop comparing yourself to einstein for fuck sake. Secondly, this shit is applied solid state physics mixed with astrophysics (planet creation), not theoretical physics.

Your 1 meter analogy is pretty bad. It's a density thing, end of the story. One meter is only a tiny fraction of the radius, so the volume is still small in the end. If you want to demonstrate that most of this water is actually close to the surface, please do.


I'm arguing because there is nothing to back up your statement. You predicted there would be more water on the moon than what? You don't even know how they came up with 1 part per billion in the first place, and your "theoretical model" doesnt make the difference between 0.1% water or 0.00000001%. Obviously, it couldnt be 0.0000000001%, it was 0.00000001%...

These number are nothing like they are on Earth, so no, it's not obvious

[Max™]

Never said it was obvious, it's something I spent a while thinking about after first hearing about the massive impact hypothesis, I also wasn't comparing myself to Einstein, you're making that leap.

Never said it was 1:1, just that it shouldn't be as dry as they were assuming, garnets and olivine in deep magma tend to be in the 1~50 ppm range, there are of course wetter rocks, but let's just say I had a hunch that it would be at the low end of water content in mantle rocks.

The 1 meter analogy isn't mine, it is from the guys who reported this, I didn't calculate out exact amounts that should remain after the event, but I somehow managed to figure out that it should be within the range of deep mantle rock water content, didn't I?

[Tristam]

No, I was pointing out that thought experiments are not unheard of, and the first example that came to mind was that particular one Einstein used. I figured it would be more recognizable than if I had spoken of Dirac's belt trick, or Maxwell's demon. You gotta be pretty dense to so completely misread the thought experiment example as a comparison of the people doing the thought experiments, unless you're just deliberately doing it. Particularly as I stated that this isn't a super amazing ability no one else could possibly have.

Those papers were in response to a question about the amount of water in surface magma, as Kaylia kept mentioning how the moon was mostly crust material.

I posted those, while noting I had actually stated that there should be amounts like you find in some deeper mantle rocks. The loss of water due to heating/vacuum effects was implied as the explanation for the difference between crust amounts, and what was found on the moon.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../255/5050/1391






I wouldn't say it is a large amount in comparison to the amount of rock (81 quintillion tons), but I would still say that 16 trillion tons is a fairly large amount of water, one might even call it... a significant amount.

As the usage was not about the likelihood of finding water, it would be incorrect to use the statistical sense, you're right. I wasn't doing that.


The assumption here is that this thing I do, which you're calling superhuman, is something which anyone should be capable of. So obviously you guys should be able to do it as well.

Good fucking god dude, your "thought experiment" was riddled with elementary flaws that Kaylia attempted to point out.

The paper is open access, here's the punchline:

They found hydroxyl in two rocks, rock #1 was estimated to have water content of ~60 parts per BILLION, rock #2 was the rock that has the higher parts per MILLION number. So there's a damn big range you're misreporting based on a whopping N of 2. Not saying it's not significant, but let's be realistic here, we're still looking at trace amounts.

Secondly, as Kaylia already pointed out, comparing rocks from different bodies isn't necessarily valid the way you're doing it because the solubility of water in magma is dependent on a number of things. For instance olivine on mars

http://www.springerlink.com/content/8jmx7f87geunfqpm/

has different water content than olivine on earth. Furthermore, simple google searches can find examples of olivine on earth which have water content in the thousands of ppm. Most of the magma on the moon that cooled quickly couldn't have had water in it because water was just not soluble in it (citing the PNAS paper itself).

Finally, the magma from which these rocks were derived cooled over a period of 500 million to a billion years (again, citing the PNAS paper). The magmatic moon was likely bombarded with comets containing water ice over this period, so the fact that these rocks had water is not evidence of terrestrial origin of the water.

You can do all the thought experiments in the world, but unless you show your work, you're still just an imaginary scientist.

[Eliseos]

Guys, come on. He's Einstein, are you really going to argue with him?

[Kaylia]

Never said it was obvious, it's something I spent a while thinking about after first hearing about the massive impact hypothesis, I also wasn't comparing myself to Einstein, you're making that leap.

Never said it was 1:1, just that it shouldn't be as dry as they were assuming, garnets and olivine in deep magma tend to be in the 1~50 ppm range, there are of course wetter rocks, but let's just say I had a hunch that it would be at the low end of water content in mantle rocks.

The 1 meter analogy isn't mine, it is from the guys who reported this, I didn't calculate out exact amounts that should remain after the event, but I somehow managed to figure out that it should be within the range of deep mantle rock water content, didn't I?

I'm not saying the ideas you posted are completely ridiculous or unthinkable. Water being carried one way or the other is obviously a possibility since the H2O won't simply dissapears. What is annoying is how you pretend that your "model" actually took all these factors into consideration, when I know pretty well that you simply did a 1:1 substitution before looking at the number or anything. We still don't fucking know how the Moon was formed exactly, and while we have a decent ideas, there is still many unknown variables that that make it impossible to simply build a model in your head and call it a day. That was the previous argument. Even if the previous "low min" was wrong by 2 orders, it was still better than any random guess, since it was actually based on serious data (I hope).


Now you come back 5 months after the fact and wave this research paper like it was proving you right. Fine, but I don't see how it does. Even if you were saying the Moon should be wetter, if you can't put number to your thought, you're just taking a wild shot in the dark. Anyone who says they came up with number when it involve "part per billions" for such complex event is bullshitting.

I still don't see where it show the same ratio in these paper (not to mention most arent even about deep mantle). Every number I've seen were a few magnitude higher than what it is on the Moon.

[Max™]

I didn't sit and write out exact amounts, I just worked out that the sort of drying which would happen to chunks of the crust in this type of catastrophic impact should be similar to that of crust material which gets subducted into the mantle. Hence why I said "similar to deep mantle rocks" in the first place.

The only reason it even came up is because the assumption that the moon should be bone dry popped up, the mission looking for water in the craters found more than was expected, and I said that should be the tip of the iceberg regarding lunar water.

Lots of bitching happened, my claim that I could see that there should be more water in lunar rocks from working it out in my head got picked at, and now a more rigorous study pops up saying there should be more water in lunar rocks than was previously assumed.

I never said my gedanken was the end all be all of everything scientific, that I was the reincarnation of Einstein, or whatever the fuck else has been wrongly attributed to me.

A thought experiment is a means to consider new avenues for research, a way to try and suss out interesting things to focus on. I simply said I was able to perform a thought experiment based on the various parameters at hand, and that it suggested an interesting possibility. I was then informed that apparently I can not actually sit and think real hard about shit, and that I was just making it up for who knows what reason.

Now it seems that either I happened to randomly guess and get close, or I actually modeled the shit in my head and got close. I never said it would be perfect, it wasn't an absolute statement of fact, after all. Lots of "should be", and "I suspect", and "similar to", type phrases in that sort of stuff.


Who knows, fuck it, let's go with I guessed that they would find something showing that the moon is not as dry as previously thought, I must be psychic!

[Kaylia]

When you say thing like this

What the fuck do you think Einstein was doing when he pondered how a clock would appear as he receded from it at light speed? Do you think the ability to think logically about the results of physical processes according to known laws using a thought experiment is rare?

to defend your opinion, you obviously think highly of your thought experiments. If you werent using that defense in every arguments, I would ignore it, but it's not the first time. You always mention how great mind were persecuted, how similar your thought process is to Xth genius...etc.

Thought experiments are obviously common in science, but you don't write paper with that. You can't pretend something is obvious from a thought experiment either if there is nothing to back it up. Before the scientific methods, that's what people were doing pretty much...whoever came up with the best thought process was "right". However, we all know how it ended.



I mean, seriously, it doesn't even bother you that our Earth contains 1.5% water? Explain me what happened to this 1.5% in your thought process? The planetoid only hit the mantle of the Earth, but avoided the crust? I could make educated guess, but shit, don't tell me your brain computed all that already...that's just not possible.