Page 6 of 48 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 479

Thread: On hadron colliders, dark matter and black holes

  1. #51
    Administrator Redrobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    7,198
    Blog Entries
    8

    Post

    A serious question for Torstan... I know break the habit etc...

    If in due course they do find the Higgs Boson and get a handle on gravity and maybe even further flung know the recipe to make gravitons or gravity waves or whatever, would that mean that we could have anti-gravity, gravity propulsion and levitation devices ?

    Also, given that there are companies about like, I think they called, American Anti gravity which are alleged to do military work do you think that this sort of stuff already exists ? or do you think that there are similar systems using another method - they go on about Hutchinson effect or charged particle thrusters, lifters etc.

    I.e. do you have any inkling that some people know a lot more about the stuff thats about to happen with the LHC than is public.

    I'll take my tin foil hat off now.

  2. #52
    Community Leader Facebook Connected torstan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,199

    Post

    Having done a quick search on Hutchinson, it seems the only physics myth he doesn't claim to have created is cold fusion. As far as I can tell, he has admitted himself to being unable to replicate any of his effects after 1991 - which seems a bit bizarre given that they would be worth a fortune if they were true. He should know the physics behind it, and if he could replicate even a small example under test conditions then he would quickly become one of the richest men in the world. So no, as he is selling 'video evidence' for $100 a throw rather than drinking cocktails in the carribean, I don't think there is much to those stories.

    However, the claims to have worked with the military are likely to be true. Military research budgets (as far as I understand it) do have room for blue skies research and something wildly unlikely but potentially of enormous use can still be a good investment for them. If someone claims to be able to do something remarkable, like create anti-gravity, then I believe that would be something that would be researched. I believe that such a project was looked into in the UK as well. I am unaware of any positive results from this stuff, but then I am as outside that circle of research as anyone else and so can't really say. What I can say is that there is no physical effect that I know of that can produce anti-gravity.

    Now to the second part of your question. If we understand gravity at the LHC, will we be able to do something useful with it, like create anti-gravity. First off, a few qualifiers. The Higgs boson is the physical manifestation of the Higgs field, a field that gives particles mass. How that mass is then affected by gravity is a separate question. This separate question deals with gravitons, and the unification of quantum mechanics with relativity - through string theory, M-theory, loop quantum gravity or some other speculative theory. We will not break that problem at the LHC unfortunately. We may get some further hints how to proceed, but we won't get the answer.

    However, we believe that gravitons exist. All forces have a particle that carry the force. Electromagnetism has the photon, the weak nuclear force has the W and Z bosons, the strong nuclear force has the gluon. All these have been experimentally proven. The graviton has not. f we were to be able to study a graviton then we would get some insight into the theory of gravity at the quantum scale which would be truly amazing. The unification of relativity and quantum mechanics is the holy grail of particle physics and one that Einstein died trying to achieve.

    So that's all great, but how does it apply to anti-gravity. Well, the problem is that gravity is an attractive force. There are no negative gravitational fielsds around. This is unlike electromagnetism in which you get positive and negative forces. Just try to push two like sign magnets together and you'll see. We currently have no structure that gives a negative gravitational force. You can also think of it this way. Gravity comes from the warping of space and time (yes, I know, but stay with me). Space-time can be thought of as a rubber sheet (really, the maths is surprisingly close). Drop a hevy weight on a rubber sheet and you get a dip. Now if you place a marble on that sheet, it rolls towards it. The problem is that we only know how to make depressions in the rubber sheet, we can't pull it up. If we could figure out that then we'd have a way of creating anti-gravity.

    There is one light at the end of this tunnel (and in factone that might show up in the LHC tunnel). That's the existence of dark energy. Now I mentioned dark matter - an exotic matter that doesn't interact with light but makes up 5 times more of the universe than atoms and molecules - but dark energy is even more mysterious. Basically the universe is expanding and it keeps getting faster. Now the only force acting on the scale of galaxies and above is gravity and it's only attractive. So if gravity is the only game in town then everything should be getting closer together, or at least be slowing down as it expands. This is not the case. And the amount of energy needed to maintain this behaviour is huge. This repulsive force has been named dark enegy, and no-one really knows what it is. It may be some form of anti-gravity, but it could be hundreds of other things as well. Given this is a huge gap in our knowledge, we expect a major revolution in physics when it is understood. And revolutions in physics come with useful, or at least interesting, spin offs.

    The first effect of any great discoveries will be new terms and ideas popping up in science fiction. Some of them will be wildly off, but others may be possible. Given some time and clever experimental physicists and engineers, we'll get new gadgets and tools from this stuff that we can't possibly predict now. However, it is a good bet that a revolution in our understanding of gravity will have an impact on everyday technologies. I just don't think we'll see that revolution at the LHC.

    So back to the question. I don't think there's any top secret research being done at the LHC. I'm certain that there's no hidden understanding of what's going to be found at the LHC. To know what it was going to find, you'd have to have built one already - and it is far too large and expensive for any one country, or small group of countries, to build on its own - let alone a company or military research unit. Also, if it could be done on a smaller scale, we'd know about it. Governments don't spend this much money unless they know it really can't be done any other way. Finally, CERN is an entirely non-military institution. No military budget is funding the LHC, and all the research is public. It's one of the only areas of science where you can read any item of research without paying for a subscription. All research is out there and available to anyone. Just go to here uk.arxiv.org, click on the experimental high energy physics link and browse until your heart's content. It's nice to work in such an open field - and the reason why I think there are no great secret plans.

    Oh, my papers are here if anyone is truly bored!

  3. #53
    Community Leader RPMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Watching you from in here
    Posts
    3,226

    Default

    So the universe's expansion isn't the same as say air pumped into a container expands to fill the container?
    Bill Stickers is innocent! It isn't Bill's fault that he was hanging out in the wrong place.

    Please make an effort to tag all threads. This will greatly enhance the usability of the forums.



  4. #54
    Community Leader Facebook Connected torstan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,199

    Post

    Nope. The reason air spreads out to fill a container is that there is air pressure. Now that is caused by the air molecules bouncing off each other. Galaxies and stars don't have that interaction to force them apart.

    Now even in space the air molecules would keep expanding. That's because the molecules would be given an impetus when they were close together and bouncing off each other. They all keep on going in a straight line from the las point of interaction - so away from the place where they were close to the rest of the air. However they keep going at the same speed, or in a perfect vacuum they would slow down minutely due to the gravitational force from the other air molecules dragging them back.

    The universe on the other hand does not seem to be expanding outward steadily at a constant rate. The rate of expansion is higher than can be accounted for by gravity and the initial impetus of the big bang. There needs to be some force pushing it outwards. Again, cosmology isn't quite my area, so that's a rough sketch of how I understand it to be, but might be a bit off.

  5. #55
    Community Leader RPMiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Watching you from in here
    Posts
    3,226

    Default

    That's very interesting. That is the first time I heard about the expansion actually speeding up. I can definitely see why there would be a strong belief in something pushing outwards.
    Bill Stickers is innocent! It isn't Bill's fault that he was hanging out in the wrong place.

    Please make an effort to tag all threads. This will greatly enhance the usability of the forums.



  6. #56
    Community Leader Facebook Connected torstan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,199

    Post

    Yep, the evidence definitely points to the universes expansion speeding up. There's some debate about the evidence because measuring the expansion rate of the universe right now is tricky, measuring its expansion rate millions of years ago is downright hard - and requires assumptions about stars - for example that a supernova we see today has certain key features that are identical to one that went off millions of years ago. However all the evidence, particularly that from the WMAP satellite, supports theories in which there is a pressure accelerating the expansion of the universe.

  7. #57
    Community Leader Facebook Connected Badger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Morton, TX
    Posts
    1,473

    Default

    humpf... I always thought the universe was static... its always been here.. it always will be... weird... this is all news to me...!!

  8. #58

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by torstan View Post
    measuring its expansion rate millions of years ago is downright hard - and requires assumptions about stars - for example that a supernova we see today has certain key features that are identical to one that went off millions of years ago.
    Wouldn't most all things that we are able to observe in space today (supernova, galaxies, etc..) actually have happened millions of years ago since that is how long it takes for light to reach Earth? So, how is it that we're guessing here?

  9. #59
    Community Leader NeonKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Surrey, Canada, EH!
    Posts
    5,051

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Drazi View Post
    Wouldn't most all things that we are able to observe in space today (supernova, galaxies, etc..) actually have happened millions of years ago since that is how long it takes for light to reach Earth? So, how is it that we're guessing here?
    I think it is the case of, Is a Super Nova we are seeing today (Date + 1 million years), equal to a super nova that would have been observed say 65 Million years ago (date + 65 Million, +1 million).
    Daniel the Neon Knight: Campaign Cartographer User

    Never use a big word when a diminutive one will suffice!

    Any questions on CC3? Post them with CC3 in the Subject Line!
    MY 'FAMOUS' CC3 MAPS: Thunderspire; Pyramid of Shadows; King of the Trollhaunt Warrens; Demon Queen's Enclave

  10. #60
    Community Leader Facebook Connected torstan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,199

    Post

    Drazi, you are dead right. Things we see in the sky now did indeed happen many thousands or millions of years ago. The key is that a supernova we see that occurs 100,000 light years away occurred 100,000 years ago (the time it took for the light to reach us - light covers 1 light year per year). Another supernova that we see which is 1 million light years away must have occurred 1 million years ago. In this way, as we look at fainter and fainter supernovae, we are looking into the past of the universe. By studying their traits over increasing distance, we are able to measure the history of the universe. The problem is that this assumes that a supernova that occurred 1 million, or 10 million years ago has the same traits and structure as one that occurred 100,000 years ago. There's good reason to believe this to be the case, but its still a source of error that is being actively addressed.

    Supernova have been observed as far away as 10 billion light years, so they act as very useful reference points when scanning the distant universe.

Page 6 of 48 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •