“So you’re saying there’s a chance?”

With a spectacular opening ceremony underway in Beijing, and Sarah Brightman currently centre-stage singing in Mandarin, spare a thought for the hard-working scientists at Cern. They’ll be spending their weekend testing the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) accelerator to ensure it’s properly synchronised with the Large Hadron Collider ahead of the official ‘switch-on’ on September 10. And there is some fascinating speculation on what the LHC will find here. All of which is more or less an excuse to repost the particle physics rap.. in case anyone missed it.. Hey, it’s Friday!
Adds I should, perhaps, identify the quote used in the title – from here.

Black Holes: 0.1%. One of the intriguing aspect of brane-world models is that gravity can become strong well below the Planck scale – even at LHC energies. Which means that if you collide particles together in just the right way, you could make a black hole! Sadly, “just the right way” seems to be asking for a lot – it seems unlikely that black holes will be produced, even if gravity does become strong. (And if you do produce them, they will quickly evaporate away.) Fortunately, the relevant models make plenty of other predictions; the black-hole business was always an amusing sidelight, never the best way to test any particular theory.

Stable Black Holes That Eat Up the Earth, Destroying All Living Organisms in the Process: 10-25%. So you’re saying there’s a chance?

Heh.

, , ,

  • So, they didn’t ban it then…? 😉

  • Pete Baker

    Patrick

    For a minute there I thought you meant the particle physics rap ;op

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    “So, they didn’t ban it then…?”

    Yeah but banning things and petty rule enforcement against opinions that aren’t in line with your own surely makes people seem intolerant and humourless. Especially if you want to have a blog about life in a divided society. Surely difference is going to be the essence of such a blog. Let’s be glad we don’t get on like that around here, eh?

    *High fives*

  • It was Sammy McNally what done it

    2 billion Chinese watching the opening ceremony on just 43 TVs – that is some achievment – only joking – I know the yangsee imperialsts are about to overtake the yankee imperialist as the new running dogs of capitalism to become the 2nd wealthiest country on Earth – after the ROI of course.

    Here’s a serious(ish) scientific point though – what is the evolutionary reason that the eye shape of orientals is different from westerners( nothing to do with wide screen tv I take it) – I presume it a climatic thing?

    Back to the olympics – how many Non Ironers/We Sixers are representing the papal south?

  • Harry Flashman

    What channels are showing the opening ceremony? I’m flicking around and can’t find it anywhere. CNN bluntly stated that they hadn’t got rights to it and whilst the Beeb said nothing it was pretty clear they also haven’t got access either.

    The Chinese Politburo must be regretting that decision as all the news channels are now leading with the South Ossetia crisis instead of beaming pictures of China’s triumph.

    Arthritic Russian bear upstages adolescent China’s coming out party. You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh!

  • dewi

    Why arn’t you there Harry? It’s only down the road mun.

  • Pete Baker

    Harry

    I’ve been watching it live on BBC1.

    But you could try here.

  • Harry Flashman

    So BBC1 have it but they’re not letting BBC World show it, strange, something to do with worldwide rights no doubt. I’d watch it online but I’ve only got a crappy old dial up connection tonight.

    Actually Dewi, it’s a wee bit north of me.

    Anyway I’m having more fun watching World War III (IV, V? I’ve lost track) kicking off in the Caucasus.

    C’mon Georgia give the Rooskies hell!

  • Billie-Joe, couldn’t agree more! lol

  • Greenflag

    IWSMNWDI,

    ‘what is the evolutionary reason that the eye shape of orientals is different from westerners( nothing to do with wide screen tv I take it) – I presume it a climatic thing?’

    Exposure to ice age conditions in mid Siberia going back 35,000 to 40,000 years is reputed to have given rise to the ‘eyefold ‘ . It is easier to see ahead in snow flurries if you are possessed of the eyefold than if you are not . Thus people who had it had an advantage in hunting for scarce ‘meat ‘. Like any other climatic adaptation e.g dark skin in the tropics – lighter skin closer to the Arctic circle etc the ‘eyefold’ is not seen (no pun) to the same degree specialisation /development all over Asia . It’s most highly developed among Northern Chinese , Siberians , Mongols and Koreans . It tapers off and reduces as one goes south to Vietnam , Thailand and Malaysia where if you see anybody with strong eyefolds you can bet that they are of Chinese or other North East Asian ancestry ?

    ‘ 2 billion Chinese watching the opening ceremony ‘

    It may seem like 2 billion but at the last count there were only 🙂 1.3 billion with perhaps another 100 million overseas Chinese mainly in South East Asia and around Parnell Street in Dublin . These people know how to wok /work or both .

  • Mick Fealty

    BJR:

    I’m not sure what you’re specifically refering to there. My own thoughts on engagement/censorship in blogging are over on Brassneck: http://tinyurl.com/5mf74h.

    You’ve been getting a little more adventurous and dare I say it entertaining recently, beyond those one liners that were your stock in trade when you started commenting here. You’ve even begun to engage in conversation too (beyond complaining that we somehow shouldn’t be blogging what we choose to blog).

    But if you are going to coyly infer that the site is being censorious of hostile comment, you really ought to back it up with evidence. Go on, knock yourself out! 🙂

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    OK then, so why don’t you post the entire comment that I wrote in one of your awards blogs earlier in the week (Newspapers) rather than the one line that I ended with which made me seem entirely supportive? Remember I began the comment with your own comment “candid – and often critical” and challenged you to stand by such qualities. Instead someone deleted that. Oh the irony! But hey, I can handle that.

    You nominated a councillor of the week and I drew attention to it/her not being the most riveting thing ever. I don’t mind that you want to run awards but I do feel it’s worth pushing people to justify it. (Journalists are already well-served with awards so why bother?)

    You seem to have to encourage people to get as enthusiastic as you about the awards and some of the small number of replies seem to be token efforts: “Sammy Wilson was a good chair.” Which forces you to say “Reasons, please”. As I pointed out 252 replies about Dunclug including some childish crap that went undeleted and unremarked upon. How many people can make any informed call on Assembly Committee Chair of the Year?

    I don’t seek to censor, although morons of the loyalist, republican and others can be tedious and childish but it’s best merely to expose their silliness. Pete B seems to be trying to trip me up and so far he has only shown himself up as looking silly. Other posters have at least cottoned on to this fact. I don’t have all the answers and I will get it wrong, so don’t worry about that.

    Just how you can contemplate deleting mine or anyone else’s comments because they are (from your viewpoint) negative is beyond me – esp on an NI politics site!!!

    You open a debate in a public forum. You ask people to comment. That’s it. If they disagree strongly and sarcastically they are just as valid as those who throw flowers. That goes for those who criticise me. Right, I’ve bored the pants off y’all enough.

  • billie-Joe Remarkable

    “I know the yangsee imperialsts are about to overtake the yankee imperialist”

    I’m nicking this little word play as my own!

  • Pete Baker

    bJR

    “Pete B seems to be trying to trip me up and so far he has only shown himself up as looking silly.”

    Not at all, bJ.

    But when you do attempt to mis-paraphrase one of my posts, as in this example, I will point out that you’ve got it wrong.

    But those conversations are better suited to the appropriate threads.

    This one, for example, is primarily about CERN. Not that anyone reading only the comments would know that..

  • It was Sammy McNally what done it

    Greenflag,

    thanks for that explanation – and I notice you didnt say the r-p word (re-partition) which you could have easily slipped in during the mention of Vietnam or Korea.

    Billy-Joe,

    thanks more than welcome, imitiation and flattery etc.

  • pauljames

    I notice the odds of finding God haven’t improved. Ah well it’s only a theory.

  • Harry Flashman

    “It’s most highly developed among Northern Chinese , Siberians , Mongols and Koreans . It tapers off and reduces as one goes south to Vietnam , Thailand and Malaysia where if you see anybody with strong eyefolds you can bet that they are of Chinese or other North East Asian ancestry”

    It’s funny how we in Europe consider anyone from Eastern and South Eastern Asia as looking “Chinese”, when you actually go there you realise the vast differences between the various races. As you rightly point out the peoples of the Malay archipelago don’t look remotely Chinese (well except for the, er, Chinese), they have much bigger, wider, doe like eyes with a generally much darker complexion, yet if they walked down a street in Ireland the locals would refer to them as being “Chinese looking”.

    Singapore is a fascinating melting pot where one can encounter all the various strands of Asian races and it is then you can see the wide diversity of Asia.

  • Mick Fealty

    Ah BJR… Now I see… There is a very simple explanation for that. At the end of every post relating to the Awards is this little note:

    “Usual Slugger Award rules here – negativity gets deleted on sight.”

    It only applies to those award posts, for a very specific reason. And to be fair it has been on every single one. To that extent those threads are open (anyone can comment) but they are not for debate.

    I hope that clears up any misunderstanding?