/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12238426
even if they did, it's mass is so small it would evaporate via hawking radiation in nanoseconds
[math] \displaystyle
\begin{align*}
\text{Mass} && M \\
\text{Radius} && R &= M \cdot \frac{2G}{c^2} \\
\text{Surface area} && A &= M^2 \cdot \frac{16 \pi G^2}{c^4} \\
\text{Surface gravity} && \kappa &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{c^4}{4G} \\
\text{Surface tides} && d \kappa_R &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{c^6}{4G^2} \\
\text{Entropy} && S &= M^2 \cdot \frac{4 \pi G }{ \hbar c \; ln10} \\
\text{Temperature} && T &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^3 }{8k \pi G} \\
\text{Luminosity} && L &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2} \\
\text{Lifetime} && t &= M^3 \cdot \frac{5120 \pi G^2}{ \hbar c^4} \\
\end{align*}
[/math]


G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
ħ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value
k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

>>12238426
even if they did, its mass is so small it would evaporate via hawking radiation in nanoseconds
[math] \displaystyle
\begin{align*}
\text{Mass} && M \\
\text{Radius} && R &= M \cdot \frac{2G}{c^2} \\
\text{Surface area} && A &= M^2 \cdot \frac{16 \pi G^2}{c^4} \\
\text{Surface gravity} && \kappa &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{c^4}{4G} \\
\text{Surface tides} && d \kappa_R &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{c^6}{4G^2} \\
\text{Entropy} && S &= M^2 \cdot \frac{4 \pi G }{ \hbar c \; ln10} \\
\text{Temperature} && T &= \frac{1}{M} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^3 }{8k \pi G} \\
\text{Luminosity} && L &= \frac{1}{M^2} \cdot \frac{ \hbar c^6}{15360 \pi G^2} \\
\text{Lifetime} && t &= M^3 \cdot \frac{5120 \pi G^2}{ \hbar c^4} \\
\end{align*}
[/math]


G https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
c https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
ħ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value
k https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_constant

>>12238438
>even if they did, its mass is so small it would evaporate via hawking radiation in nanoseconds
this basically, it doesn't even matter

>>12238426
> what is CERN's opinion on this
They don't have opinions, they use this thing called science to work things out. So unless the math has changed neither has their answer.

99% of data generated by CERN is (((lost))). They are keeping secrets from you.

>>12238738
99% of your brain is lost, you secrete in your pants

>>12238426
there are particle collision events with MUCH higher energies happening in the outer atmosphere and on the brink of the Oort cloud every second of your existence. I don't see any black holes around us. Use your brain.

>>12238426
this has been debunked

>>12238803
I debunked your moms mini black hole last night

>>12238438
>>12238699
I mean it does matter. If you could make micro black holes you'd be seeing those highly energetic black hole decay photons, which would in turn let you do a lot of cool high energy physics.

>>12238738
what do you mean lost data?

any conspiracy theory?

>>12238759
patrician take

>>12238983
you mean photons with energies similar to the energies used in the collider?

>>12238759
Light can't escape, no shit u can't see them retard

>>12238759
>I don't see any black holes
Same here. Black holes don't exist, other than in black women.

>>12239276
he probably means the petabytes of uninteresting data generated each day they don’t save because they literally can’t.

>>12239404
oh well, thanks

>>12238738
It isn't lost, it's discarded. The vast majority of collisions are boring.

>>12238426
probably not at LHC scales, but if it is they aren't anything to worry about since we get way higher energy collisions from cosmic rays all the time and we're still here

>>12238738
EL PSY KONGROO!!XD
we'are so clever ;)

>>12238738
>>12239276
Hey so I work on the ATLAS trigger and data acquisition system (TDAQ). I get that this is probably a joke but just to appease the conspiracy theorists the reason for the 'lost' data is that the integration rate at full luminosity at the moment is about 1GHz, but the recording rate for the detectors (at least ATLAS is, I'm not sure about the others) is about 200Hz - meaning that only about 1 in 5 million events can actually be recorded.
We have a lot of very complicated trigger systems that try and record only the most interesting events to get the best bang for our buck so to speak. Trust me if it was possible to record it all we would.

>>12240528
how much data is one event? KiBs, MiBs, GiBs?

>>12240399
Why are you so nervous?

>>12240528
*interaction rate not integration rate sorry

>>12238426
To answer the original question, I don't think anyone's looking for those anymore. Here's a semi-research search that didn't find any excess (no signal)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269316303719?via%3Dihub

>>12240542
completely depends in which step of the process you are. One 'event' is actually many many particles and jets detected by separate systems that an algorithm decided probably came from the same vertex. Different bits of the trigger system will look at and shave off information depending on how 'exciting' it looks. When they finally get me after all the processing has been done a single event is probably somewhere between a kB and a MB

>>12240569
*semi recent search dude I need to go to bed right now

>>12240569
How much of your job is electrical engineering/statistics/data modeling/computer science/data science/whatever and how much is actual physics and requires actual theoretical fundamental or quantum physics knowledge? And would you say the majority of LHC employees are also kind of "engineering" rather than specifically physics focused, or is it too complex of a mixture?

>>12238699
pun intended?

>>12241470
lolnice

>Are mini black holes theoretically possible?

No. Debunked by independent fact-checkers.

>>12240722
In case you're still around I'd say my job is about 80% datascience and 10% actual physics.
I think that doesn't really convey the whole idea of what's happening though, cause if I wasn't trained in the physics I'd have no idea what I was doing or why and I wouldn't be able to push forward in my own analysis independently. I'd also not understand anything in pretty much any seminar I go to.
So I guess even though it's 80% datascienc, it's datascience I'm doing in the context of the many years of physics training that I have, so it is important.

>>12240722
to answer the second question there is quite a clear separation on the CERN campus between the engineers and the physicists: the engineers don't know much about the physics and most physicists don't need to know about what kind of struts hold up which part of the detector.
And I don't mean that in terms of a sitcom-esque "physicists only talk to physicists", since offices tend to be separated by your home institution not by field so you'll be bunched together with lots of different people and everyone's very friendly to eachother. It's more that you just know who's who in the people you interact with in your day-to-day

>>12241507
What the fuck is this forced 'debunked' meme that sprang up today all about? Literally like a switch was flipped overnight.

>>12241826
probably the same pol/tards that shitpost 'clamped' and 'reddit' at everything and anything

>>12241880
nah bro they did a study on that and it was debunked. the clamped poster is some french phd guy

>>12238738
Thanks for the idea for a other addition to /x/ meme iceberg pics
"CERN lost data"

>>12241826
biden hard drive leaks
the only way to follow up on Twitter shadowbanning anyone trying to follow it was to obsessively DEBOONK any mention of it, because of the Streisand effect it has generated

>>12241822
bro i'm studying EE any advice for someone that would like to work at CERN for physics engineering related stuff ?

CERN is just a cover for a NATO operational stargate.

Why do you think NATO still exists?