Of course the injury you received would largely be determined by the length of time your hand was in the beam. Really not fun results can be radiation ulcers or radiogenic cancer. If the dose were high enough you could get a radiation syndrome, where some/all of the fast growing cells in your body die off and you die in a few days or months.
The only data I could find after a quick search indicated that the dose present in the beam line would be on the order of 10^4 Gy per year. That means if you managed to put your hand in the beam for 1 minute, you're only looking at about 0.01 Gy, which isn't that much.
Bugorski was leaning over the piece of equipment when
he stuck his head in the part through which the proton
beam was running. Reportedly, he saw a flash "brighter
than a thousand suns", but did not feel any pain.
He is still alive.
The left half of Bugorski's face swelled up beyond
recognition, and over the next several days started
peeling off, showing the path that the proton beam
(moving near the speed of light) had burned through
parts of his face, his bone, and the brain tissue
Aside from the bremstrahlung, proton beam interactions with matter include spallation from heavy nuclei (giving neutrons) and the formation of muons. Both of these would deviate from the original proton beam direction and irradiate other parts of the body.
He is alive, but suffered serious injuries. As I understand, the LHC is of a similar design, at 100 times the energy.
EDIT: Nope! Wrong! Mistook the LHC for the LEP. The LHC does not accelerate antimatter at any point.
Additionally, while the individual protons in the LHC may only be a hundred times more energetic, there are quite a few more total particles in the beams. I can't find any technical details of the U-70 synchrotron, but it came online in 1957, so there's that.
http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach... also has some comparisons regarding beam energy and aircraft carriers, cars, etc.
Instead of a beam of protons, lets think about something simpler: a reasonably high powered bullet. Instead of a 7m segmented carbon cylinder, lets have some slats of wood. So, in the same way as at the LHC, the bullet strikes the wooden slats, it deposits all of it's energy in the wooden slats, breaking them up and stopping the bullet.
I think that fits the use case of the beam dumps, where all the force of the beam gets dumped at once, and the important number is the total energy of the beam, since you want to totally stop it.
Now, the thought experiment: replace the wooden slats with single piece of paper. Now when the bullet strikes, it goes straight through - the mass of energy in the bullet mostly stays in the bullet, only enough energy to rip through a small circle in the paper gets dumped. The bullet will carry on it's merry way.
So, relative to the LHC beam, which is your hand more alike: the sheet of paper, or the slats of wood?
It's a simplistic model which ignores radiation from the beam, and lots of other things, but I think it's informative. My guess is that the beam would behave like a laser cutter: cutting a smallish hole, possibly with secondary damage, but largely powerful enough to carry on it's way once it has punched through.
Each proton would, at the full power of 7 TeV, have 1.12 microjoules of energy. 1.15x10^11 protons per pulse, 2808 pulses per beam and two beams, one of antiprotons, and one of protons; for a total energy of 352,235,520 joules. 87 kilograms of TNT.
Your hand would evaporate fairly quickly, then turn into a plasma, then get hot enough to start radiating x-rays. There would be quite a lot of bremsstrahlung from the hyperenergetic protons punching through the cloud of plasma, and producing showers of secondary radiation, which means you would be quite well irradiated by the time the shockwave from the explosion killed you.
1: All this is straight from the wikipedia page, but I double checked the math.
2: I'm not including energy liberated from antimatter annihilation energy, since the total mass of the antiprotons is quite small.
Typing that out, it sounds like a pretty lame excuse. Let's do the math.
3.2292x10^14 protons per beam. Atomic weight of 1, of course, so:
(3.2292x10^14)/(6.0221415x10^23) = 5.362212x10^-10 grams. .536 nanograms of antimatter.
Since annihilating antimatter gets you 9x10^13 joules per gram, you get... 48,259.9089 joules. That's actually larger than I expected, but .01% of the kinetic energy of the beam.
3: Just how much secondary radiation, I don't know, since that depends on the density of the cloud of plasma, which would change over time, be pretty anisotropic, and be a general pain in the ass to model.
4: Avogadro's constant
Buncha edits: forgot HN uses the asterisk to style text.
Posting after midnight: Not always a good idea.
There's also a "sister" site for chemistry: http://www.periodicvideos.com/
It's good stuff. I've enjoyed pretty much every video I've seen from both of them.
Heck, to use the technique of some parents: some starving kid in Africa would love to eat that tofu. We, therefore, should clearly be offended at its waste.
The LHC is basically a big pipe, so maybe it does have pigs inside it already.
Incidentally, when I was working at CERN in the mid 1990's, the Large Electron-Positron Collider (the predecessor to the LHC) was shut down by an act of sabotage involving 2 Heineken bottles placed in the beam pipe. The electrons and positrons (and many physicists) were not happy bunnies. http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/Beer%20bottles.p...
Update: Now I see that the vacuum point has already been made. There are no heavy ions in the LHC main collider, they're produced by bashing protons into a target in one of the secondary beamlines. Also, antimatter is frequently the byproduct of extremely high center of mass proton-proton collisions.
But mathematical constants like pi would remain the same, wouldn't it? A circle is a circle no matter what kind of universe it's in, so the ratio of the radius to the arc length would remain the same.
As I look at it, math is the universal truth of the universe, because everything is derived using the first principles.
That wasn't the question, though. Pi is the ratio between circumference and diameter of a perfect circle, whether or not you can create a perfect circle in your universe. We can't even create one in ours, and yet pi still "exists" here. Undoubtedly, wiggly-space mathematicians would also have a conception of pi, though it might be as esoteric to them as toroidial universes are to us.
To put that another way: Math has very simple axioms (e.g. set theory), and everything else derives from them. What theories can be proven from those axioms in this universe, can be proven from those axioms in any universe (and a universe that doesn't obey those axioms likely wouldn't "function" as a universe—it wouldn't have any reason to be causal, for example.) The maths describing a particular universe is its physics, which do change from universe to universe—however, those physics are all just different subsets of the set of mathematical physical models—which are, themselves, a subset of the mathematical theories provable from the axioms.
That said, I would very much like to understand why c = 2 x pi x r actually works. pi itself can be derived from pure mathematics, knowing the relationship e^(i x pi) = -1. So why a circle should have such a relationship with this constant is to me a fascinating question.
Because the "circles" we talk about in mathematics are found in Euclidean space—which is defined to have simple metric properties. Our own space is non-Euclidean.
2. When θ = pi, f(x) is periodic (the angle is such that f(x) intersects itself or "loops.")
3. The set of complex numbers is isomorphic to a 2D Euclidean plane. Therefore, a walk at angle i*pi through the set of complex numbers is isomorphic to a circle.
I think I just solved world hunger guys...
I guess it's kind of like someone saying to a programmer, hey can you fix my computer, you work in computer right?
I certainly wouldn't expect two or three competent C programmers to offer wildly divergent opinions if asked a question that fell slightly outside their everyday practice.