Reddit Posts
Mentions
Well I like the theory of there being multiple universes of limitless quantity, and that when that weasel of whatever the fuck dicked around with LHC long ago, that fractured our reality, and those of the universes in closest proximity, giving us the fucked up bullshit we got now, but Craig actually was, but in a very very similar universe. Unfortunately, we don't know how to recreate that warp, so here we are. Lesson? Hodl.
I got into volunteer computing with BOINC where you can give your spare computing power to scientific projects like the LHC at CERN and bought some gridcoin to get started. For that I needed bitcoin to exchange it. I kept some of the rest bitcoin on my wallet and forgot about it. 2 years later it broke it‘s ATH and I remembered that I had some of that magic internet money. I then started to learn more about it and here I am.
People at the LHC working on a nanosecond chart right now
>You're mistaken- our theoretical physicists would detect it because their models would suddenly stop making accurate predictions that translate to the real world. That's the point I was trying to make with the charged electron example: Non-experimental science still involves observations in the real world. Suppose there's a new particle that didn't exist until yesterday. We don't have an explanation for it, but it turns out, that's the actual nature of reality. There's new particles sometimes. We don't interact with it at all _except_ in the LHC for a few days then it goes away. We repeat the experiment enough times that we're confident it wasn't a mistake. A decade later we see the same thing with another new particle, different from the first, but the same in that we don't interact with _except_ in the LHC for a few days, then we never see it again. How does a theoretical physicist think their way to that experimental result? It's like calling a soccer analyst a soccer player. You may be a great analyst and you may understand what the soccer players are doing better than they do but you're not a soccer player unless you play soccer. Which takes me to the next... > A lot of times the distinction between experiment and theory is rather arbitrary anyways. Who are the "real scientists" involved in experiments using The Large Hadron Collider? Only the people who were physically present when the experiments occurred? Did their previous theoretical work suddenly become "science" at that point? When does someone cross the boundary and who should we include or exclude is very muddy, but I consider it a bit of a "is a hotdog a sandwich" sort of question compared to the question of what is or isn't science. If we both agreed to go play soccer and you showed up with a chess board we have bigger problems than whether or not we're soccer players. If we're playing chess, we're certainly not playing soccer. And if we played soccer as kids but don't play anymore, maybe we're soccer players? Maybe the word scientist is like that. I care that people generally know what soccer is and isn't or when they're playing it or playing another game. And a lot of what people say is "backed by science" simply isn't. They're playing a different game but want to drag in the word science because of the respect that word garners.
I have a thought that it was created at C.E.R.N. just like the Internet and the LHC.
It somewhat depends on who works it out first though. Any serious use of it to brute force secure systems is very likely to reveal its existence if not it's source. It would need to be used sparingly if at all, even then the more it gets used the higher value the targets the more likely it is realized that someone has it. My fear is not that a nation state would go after bitcoin, my fear is that an adversarial state already has a quantum computer and is sitting on it in case of war. >but the idea that the proof-of-work principle can't be updated to bring quantum computing down to par is a worrying one. Is anyone serious and in the know saying such a thing? There are already programs for PQC (post quantum cryptography) and encryption algorithms that are believed to be effective at securing vs both traditional and quantum computing. When I say believe to be, this is because it can't be proven without trying to break the encryption with something that doesn't exist yet. Just because we don't have it yet doesn't mean we can't do math around how we think it will work. It's kind of like the concerns about the possibility of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) could create a black hole at ground zero and wipe us all out. The chance wasn't zero, so there was a possibility, but the likelihood was effectively zero.
I am SO excited about all the data we're getting from LIGO and JWST latelt. If you're interested in crunching data for Einstein or other projects, join us over a /r/BOINC4Science :). I don't know if there's any JWST data, but I know LHC has a project you can crunch for as well.
I just noticed something on the LBC homepage. It says like this: “The "Large Bitcoin Collider" (LBC - a homage to LHC) is a distributed effort to find at least one collision of private Bitcoin keys by creating addresses to private keys in a continuous 2^160 range. These are checked against the list of known BTC addresses with funds on them. In the rare event of a collision, the funds on the address in question would become accessible to the collision finder.” So the amount of private keys is increased after they started this? Is it possible to increase it even further? Maybe all this wallets they found was predates this change and now it might be not possible? (Or am I just wishful thinking?)
LHC has met expectations, scientifically, though.
Yeah they probably coulda gone 4k realism but their target audience isn't staff at NASA and LHC while on a break.
Simple 2 steps to do this 1. Fire up the LHC again 2. Merge 2 dimensions
In case anyone is interested in what those numbers mean, the large scary looking number in the tl;dr is the expected energy per collision, but in a different unit than what is generally used to measure electricity usage (electronvoltts instead of terrawatt hours). A quick Google conversion of electronvolts to terrawatt hours gives 6E-22 TWH per collission. CERN itself seems to use about [1.3 terrawatt hours per year in total](https://home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern#:~:text=The%20Large%20Hadron%20Collider%20(LHC,megawatts%20during%20the%20winter%20months.), which is a decent bit of energy, but also incomparable to either traditional banking or bitcoin's energy usage (about 1/70 of what it takes to mine bitcoin alone, no transactions included). If you don't think the knowledge is worth gaining at that energy usage then, I mean that's a fundamental disagreement, but propping up a big scary looking number to use as whataboutism for a process that uses seventy times more energy is just kind of silly. CERN does scientifically important work at a seventieth of the electricity usage. They are just a bad example to use.
> energy of 13.6 trillion electronvolts Actual total energy consumption of the LHC is as follows "The total power consumption of the LHC (and experiments) is equivalent to 600 GWh per year, with a maximum of 650 GWh in 2012 when the LHC was running at 4 TeV. For Run 2, the estimated power consumption is 750 GWh per year." This is about as much energy as is used by 5-10,000 people in a rich country and is thus trivial in the big picture.
Hey u/LHC1 👋, u/kraken-athena is currently busy petting the Kraken, so I hope you don't mind me jumping in 😎 Do you maybe mean MVB Bank? 🤔 If that's the case, then we have a dedicated help page for the [MVB Funding provider.](https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045942911-MVB-Bank-funding-provider) I've also seen your other comment saying that wire is inconvenient, and we at Kraken are aware of this. We're working on introducing ACH deposits. We already offer [free ACH withdrawals](https://blog.kraken.com/post/12022/free-bank-withdrawals-are-live-for-us-clients/). Also, feel free to review [all of our cash deposit options](https://support.kraken.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000381846) 🏦 Let me know if you have any other questions, Val from Kraken 🐙
Very disturbing indeed.. >Nor are the problems exclusive to the LHC: In 2006, raccoons conducted a "coordinated" attack on a particle accelerator in Illinois.
$768BN for defense? That's ~174 human genome projects, with 2 LHC's thrown in for fun. Fucking hell our priorities are fucked.
"We can transform mass into pure energy, such as through nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or matter-antimatter annihilation. We can create particles (and antiparticles) out of nothing more than pure energy" About a thimble full of matter was turned into pure energy in the Hiroshima nuclear explosion The LHC uses vast amounts of energy to produce tiny bits of mass They are equivalent but not the same. Sorry you are not made of energy. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/03/21/ask-ethan-if-einstein-is-right-and-e-mc%C2%B2-where-does-mass-get-its-energy-from/?sh=3762e22617b4](https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/03/21/ask-ethan-if-einstein-is-right-and-e-mc%C2%B2-where-does-mass-get-its-energy-from/?sh=3762e22617b4)