nav search
Data Centre Software Security DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes
BOFH
Lectures

back to article
It's over 9,000! Boffin-baffling microquasar has power that makes the LHC look like a kid's toy

"..Let's jet physical, physical!!!..."

Alright alright alright I'll leave - geeeeez!

31
0

25 TeV vs 14 TeV

That's not much of a difference, I'd say the LHC holds its own quite well, the LHC is a mere human made contraption after all.

That said, it's about the kinetic energy of 25 flying mosquitoes going against 14 flying mosquitoes.

It doesn't impress me!!!

16
6
Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

How about 300 EeV? A cosmic ray particle with the kinetic energy on par with a decently pitched cricket ball.

14
1
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

"That's not much of a difference"

The hundreds of TeV at the source is the main jump.

"LHC is a mere human made contraption"

It's just there for reference as the world's largest/most power particle accelerator.

C.

18
1

The "doesn't impress me" part was intended as a joke

Comparing the energies of the microquasar's gamma rays to the kinetic energy of a flying mosquito was also intended as a joke.

What really matters here is the density of energy, and it is really enormous. For comparison, a blue light photon carries an energy between 2.50 and 2.75 eV while for the microquasar's gamma rays each photon carries around 25 TeVs, that's not twelve but THIRTEEN orders of magnitude above.

All that energy concentrated in such a tiny particle. That's really impressive!!!

23
0
Silver badge

Re:nitpicking/reference

Look at it this way, every time a pedantic nitpicker finds something to criticise then you've made his/her day a happier one...

9
0
Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

It is accelerating electrons not protons like the LHC. Confusingly it is way harder to accelerate light particles to high energies than heavier ones.

There are individual cosmic ray particles (probably) from other galaxies that have been detected at billions of time the LHC energy. We just don't know how or where - what's cool about this is that it is a nearby continuous source we can study

4
2

Re: Re:nitpicking/reference

There are many pedants in the forums, the better ones explain themselves along with their downvote.

There is a great variety of expertise in far wider fields than just IT here and its always good to learn new angles on the discussions though.

So a qualified hooray to the pedants.

14
0
Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

It's fricking 15000 light years away and they're measuring particles for fucks sake, and the beam isn't even pointing our way. Cut them some slack, LHC had the luxury of being able to put the detectors right next to the beams.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

Isn't that kinda to be expected though? If I understand it all correctly a massless Photon is already humming along at something infinity closer to C (e.g. The speed of Light in a vacuum), whereas your heavier elements (or Particles), can me made to go a bit faster, but will inevitably never actually hit C no matter what.

1
0

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

Sorry for downvote, but this is the wrong usage of "pitched" with respect to a cricket ball ;)

3
1
Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

"That's not much of a difference, I'd say the LHC holds its own quite well"

Just to clarify, since I don't think the article really made it clear, the comparison is not 25 to 14 TeV. 14TeV is the collision energy of the particle beams in the LHC (the actual particles only have 7 TeV, the total comes from colliding them head-first). The 25 TeV in the article is the energy of gamma rays (ie. photons) produced by particles which themselves have much higher energy. The paper suggests an absolute minimum particle energy of 130 TeV to produce those photons; in reality it will of course be much more than that, and given a likely gaussian spread even if some are near the minimum the maximum energies are probably at least an order of magnitude or two higher.

For comparison, a synchrotron light source is an accelerator which works on the same principles as the LHC (which is also a synchrotron), but is dedicated to producing photons. A light source using 3 GeV (ie. 10^9) electrons will produce photons up to around 50 keV - five orders of magnitude lower than that of the particles themselves. Basically, if you see photons of a given energy, whatever produced them was almost certainly a hell of a lot more energetic. The minimums given in the paper make the LHC look like a toy, the possible maximums make it look like an insignificant speck.

11
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

"That said, it's about the kinetic energy of 25 flying mosquitoes going against 14 flying mosquitoes"

True, but that is per particle; the accelerator is sending packets of myriad particles around the ring.

Interesting side note - there is a lead buffer on an offshoot of the LHC that is designed to take the full whack of everything currently in the ring - the total energy of all the particles that would be transferred to it is estimated to be similar to that delivered by a cruise ship doing 10 knots...

8
0
Silver badge

Re: 25 TeV vs 14 TeV

@El kabong, please. If scientists the world over are impressed, they tend to be impressed for a reason. The LHC is the most powerful particle accelerator on the planet (although it accelerates protons, not electrons), and it works by *smashing* things together. The 14 TeV are actually 2 x 7 TeV in opposite/oblique directions.

The most powerful electron accelerator on the planet currently *only* does 17.5 GeV (in one direction), and it only emits a monochromatic X-ray class beam of radiation of 25 keV. To emit a beam that has energies of 25 TeV or more... add energies inside the quasar by another order or three (or four... you get the drift) of magnitude.

Find me a man-made toy that emits a radiation beam of 25 TeV before speaking again about 14 mosquitos vs 25 mosquitos.

0
0
Silver badge
Holmes

LHC = 27Km circle

Microquasar = region surrounding a black hole.

Colour me surprised... Nature is more kick ass than humankind

10
0
(Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

It's just for reference. It's like saying Jupiter is a gas giant: it can fit 1,300 Earths.

Y'know. Sense of scale. You people are never happy.

C.

26
2
Silver badge
Happy

@diodesign Re: LHC = 27Km circle

We're always happy, especially when we're picking (black) holes in articles.

24
0

"You people are never happy"

I think you will find the vast majority of your readers are more often happy than unhappy and I suspect that extends to the commentarts too.

Keep up the good work.

23
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "You people are never happy"

I think you will find the vast majority of your readers are more often happy than unhappy and I suspect that extends to the commentarts too.

Until someone mentions Brexit.

Oops.

28
2
Silver badge

Re: "You people are never happy"

"Until someone mentions Brexit.

Oops."

You mentioned it once but I think you got away with it.

20
0
Silver badge

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

> It's just for reference. It's like saying Jupiter is a gas giant: it can fit 1,300 Earths.

How many Olympic Sized swimming pools is that?

3
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

"How many Olympic Sized swimming pools is that?"

570,051,048,032,818,000,000

I think...

4
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: "You people are never happy"

You mean mentions any support in favor of Brexit...

Ol well I needed some fresh down votes anyway.

4
2
I&I

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

Power output in Kettles ?

3
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

Perhaps it's two small black holes that are squeezing out electrons like tiddlywinks?

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "You people are never happy"

"It's just for reference. It's like saying Jupiter is a gas giant: it can fit 1,300 Earths."

"How many Olympic Sized swimming pools is that?"

"Until someone mentions Brexit."

How many Brexit red buses is that? (ducks)

Good article and seriously cool that they can measure that.

2
1
Silver badge
Headmaster

Sense of scale.

So, how about renaming the LHC to Cosmically Puny Hadron Collider?

6
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "You people are never happy"

To be fair, brexit red busses can't be used here, they're only useful for quantum state measurements as they both exist (as a statement of fact) and don't exist depending on your grasp of reality...

10
1
Silver badge

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

Volume of the Earth: 1 trillion cubic kilometer, according to space.com. So:

$ units

Currency exchange rates from www.timegenie.com on 2016-06-21

2954 units, 109 prefixes, 88 nonlinear units

You have: 1300e12 km^3

You want: olympicpool

* 5.194042e+20

1
0
Silver badge
Go

Re: LHC = 27Km circle

Power output in Kettles ?

CERN uses 1.3 terawatt hours of electricity annually [ ... ] At peak consumption, usually from May to mid-December, CERN uses about 200 megawatts of power

So that's 100.000 kettles at 2kW each, all of them running for 6500 hours. At roughly 100 seconds to heat a liter from 15C to boiling in such a kettle each of them would make 234.000 liters of tea, or a bit over half a million mugs over those 6500 hours.

2
0
Bronze badge

PINGAMMA

I want one of those HERMES things in space, outside the bow-shock with a microphone. #vacuumphone

4
0
Bronze badge

Re: PINGAMMA

L4 if that's the one in front, with a chemical signature and lasers. #bitcoinforwater #perfectpangram

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: PINGAMMA

#electronbitflipattack

3
0
Silver badge
Coat

Re: Hermes in space

It'll never deliver.

2
0
Joke

Poor Alderaan

... there it went boom!

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: Poor Alderaan

With a nD infinity value. Like an infinite falling corkscrew or the opposite ergo surface matter. #trappistbeer ∂:-)

3
0

clickbait

I can be wrong, it's a morning after an evening of satisfying potsmoking, but the thing has roughly 2 times the power of the LHC. At first I thought it was an American reporter bashing on a contraception located in Europe. But no.

A kid's toy has the power of a grown-up's toy orders of magnitude smaller. Not half the power.

What a kid's idea of a title for this in essence rather interesting article. Also the usual sarcastic title-appropriation on The Reg isn't applicable to me. What a bummer.

4
23
Silver badge

SS 433 is roughly 15,000 light years away, and its jets don’t point directly to Earth, making it difficult to study.

Might that not be a good thing that it's not pointing directly at Earth?

26
0
Silver badge
Alien

Depends on who is directing it and whether it's fitted with a collimator or a modulator.

10
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

> or a modulator.

Especially an illudium Q36 one.

12
0

Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

is only required if earth obscures the view of Venus from Mars I believe.

1
0
Silver badge

@Rich 11

And they said accelerator engineers and beamline scientists don't have a sense of humour... ;-)

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Sounds more like a Bennett pinch.

5
0
Silver badge
Alien

Good News!

"SS 433 is roughly 15,000 light years away, and its jets don’t point directly to Earth, making it difficult to study."

It wouldn't be nice if it was 15 LY away and slowly rotating the axis toward us?

13
0
Silver badge

Re: Good News!

> "It wouldn't be nice if it was 15 LY away and slowly rotating the axis toward us?"

Actually it would be the galaxy rotating US towards ITS axis, but still just as ominous.

2
0

A blue light photon carries an energy between 2.50 and 2.75 eV

Each photon coming form the microquasar carries around 25 TeVs, that's not twelve but THIRTEEN orders of magnitude above. That microquasar produces really powerful gamma rays.

This is to make things clear, as some failed to recognize my mosquito remark above as being an attempt at a joke.

P.S. The LHC is not that shabby either.

4
1

Wish we could hurry up and invent a FTL drive.

I want to go play with that microquaser.

5
1
Silver badge

Be careful though, microquasars always play for keeps, and you don't get to argue.

9
0
Silver badge

If someone wants to use it like a weapon, just remember that changing the plane of rotation of a spinning stellar black hole would require throwing a small star at it, at the correct angle and velocity. If one can do that, why bother with black holes?

6
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing