LHC@home

<blockquote>I believe that was gravityboy's point.
Writing it means nothing.
</blockquote>

In gravityboy's case this is quite true, but as Chrulle has pointed out, he hasn't actually defined anything. The maths of theoretical physics is well grounded in reality - terms are precisely defined, logic is rigorously proved, results are subject to peer review.

A simpler example: s=d/t

What does it mean? sex = devils over theologians? Defined this way it is a nonsense. Define speed, distance, time and suddenly it makes sense in the real world.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't want to tangle with Chrulle on the physics of this project. Gravityboy would be well advised to throw in the towel!

---

Gaspode the UnDressed
http://www.littlevale.co.uk

Well with the risk of once again being accused of more or less being responsible for stoping the development of mankind I will add something more to the discussion. The fact that it is thanks to phyicists, engineers and mathematicians like myself and our friends at CERN that we have things like computers and internet where "gravityboy" can post his theories refutes those accusations quite well.

I think one of the main problem for gravityboy is that he wants all of physics to be explainable in more or less everyday terms which he can understand. Things which he can not understand or picture get the label "ridiculus" and he gets upset at others for using them instead of his fluxtheory.

If gravityboy wants his theory to be tested and used as a theory of physics he can do that easily. First define what all his concepts are and write down a mathematical formulation of the theory. The mathematical fomrulation will then have to do two things.

1. It must be possible for it to accurately descbribe all pehomena that we have already observed. Like how much light bend when it passes close to a large mass like the sun. If it doesn't agree with these observation then it is in trouble.

2. It should be possible to use to predict the outcome of new experiments sothat it can be tested by the people doing experimental physics. If it only predicts exaclty the same things as other theories there is not much point in using them as separate theories

One of the reason for why it is important to have a mathemaical formulation under point 1. above is to avoid things like the "It is God's wish"-theory. This is the simplest theory of physics you can find and has the same answer to all questions. "Why does the earth orbit the sun? It is God's wish!" However it is a useles scientific theory because it can't be used for anything apart from "explaining" things already observed.

---

I hope that it can all be simplified once the ever-encompassing theory is laid down.
It is too early for that step, yes, but it is an easy to understand theory. If it IS oncourse with what we know so far, all the better for me.
As you say, math is for the accuracy, and I just need a good gist of it to start. I see Flux theory as a good middle-man at the least.
Have you read it? I don't see it being far from Superstring which has not blown, particle is it, believers out of the water. (actually I believe it says that flux makes up the protons and neutrons and what not.)
So there is an arguement about the universe's edge to be or not to be. Isn't the question the main point?

Now back to arguing with links, I get alot of info that way. :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Yes I read his webpage before I made my first comment about it.

There is no reason to hope that physics will become any easier to descbribe in vereyday terms than now, for the simple reason that we know that there are a lot of things which do not at all behave like normal everyday things. Ther are e.g many quntaum mechanical phenomena, which we have observed experimentally, which have properties which no everyday object have.

The reason for using mathematics when dealing with most of physics is not just accuracy but also that it is the only way we can describe the properties of some of the very non-"every day" objects. There are many pictures used in popular science, like the "ball on rubber" description of curved space which gravityboy dislikes so much, which try to formulate things in everyday terms. However this is not at all the way we work with these things when doing research. These picutres try to get _some_ of the properties across in a nice way, but they are only incomplete parts of the original model, and in other properties not correct.

---

There is no reason to hope...
- sad. Maybe a different word? Do I have to zombie myself here?
- not everyone has the same imagination. Search for tetraspace and see.

Ther are e.g many quntaum mechanical phenomena, which we have observed experimentally, which have properties which no everyday object have. ...

The reason for using mathematics when dealing with most of physics is not just accuracy but also that it is the only way we can describe the properties of some of the very non-"every day" objects. There are many pictures used in popular science, like the "ball on rubber" description of curved space which gravityboy dislikes so much, which try to formulate things in everyday terms. However this is not at all the way we work with these things when doing research. These picutres try to get _some_ of the properties across in a nice way, but they are only incomplete parts of the original model, and in other properties not correct.
- correct. What's your point? Inability to use words just means we don't know it well enough. Don't give up, expand your vocabulary, have hope, dream...

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

To add:
Everywhere I go I read that Einstein was as much a philosopher as physicist/scientist/mathematician. Not to leave out ability to use imagination, hidden in the term: thought experiments.
Do you see the importance of that/those to his science as much as you see the importance of his science?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

The :-) tells me, not sarcastic. :)

v=d/t is a ghost. ok.
I came up with the same thing, sorta.
The 4th dimension must be spacetime as that is the only way to get more of or keep a 3D object, without changing any properties, ex: Density. (based on 'today' thoughts.)
Spacetime's dimensioning uses d and t.
A ghost only has d and t. No displacement as it can go through walls. (if on a parallel, non intersecting 3D plane of existence.)

Move fast enough and in a certain way and I will see a ghost of myself, or another.(not necessarily on the same plane.)

We can now add the other definition of ghost: Left over image. As moving in a certain manner can only reveal one's past self, and leftovers are usually from the past, like supper.
Ghosts are mostly said to Be, and not to interact. A left over image of it's past.

Can also state that the past is away from us. Which fits in great with my thought on the 4th D's direction:
Looking at any cube or sphere being built, the start is away from a point, many points if you like, and is built around another, central, point. The 4th D's direction must be away from that central point.

Ghosts, then, may be the proof of life elsewhere in the universe. An image of another's past.
Just thoughts on paper! :)

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Edited
A thought

Universe: Infinite
Infinity: a vector, 1D. more than 1.(invisible to us.)

The universe continually feeds itself through infinite magnitude 1Ds.
Every dimension is built on the next smaller one.
1Ds colapse as they are too weak to support themselves,
and colapse into 2Ds, vibrating with greater and greater magnitude.
This continues down to infinite D's, until they occupy a space of 1, Singularity.
The continual inflow from 1Ds causes
reaction, the bounce back towards infinity.(our spacetime: all space at 1 time, or all time at 1 space.)

We are now expanding and losing dimensions in low density regions and holding onto higher D's.
- a plethera of spacetime possibilities.

The expansion is not opposite to it's conception, it is a birth.

There are many births, each starting at point (0,0,0...), perhaps, and expanding from there.
(imagine the opposite of a quasar.)
Concentric rings all expanding in diameter and in distance from conception.
The next within the last.
(or, if you prefer, the balloon concept.)

Each birth eventually expanding into the nothingness.
The last of it's black holes evaporated.
The last of it's waves stretched to 1D edness,
to once again join the fuel of the universe

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Meckano:"What's your point? Inability to use words just means we don't know it well enough. Don't give up, expand your vocabulary, have hope, dream...
"

Not being able something in a everyday vocabulary is not just a matter of knowing something well enough. Our language and our senses are set up to deal with everyday things and things which we can detect directly with our senses. When we begin to deal with things outside that range it is not surprising that our language is insufficient.

Let's imagine that you have gone to an island where everyone is completetly colourblind and can only see black and white and shades of grey.( There are hereditary disease with that effect). You now tell them that the sky is blue and so is the ocean. They don't even have the word blue and you will have a very hard time trying to explain even the concept of colour to them. Some would probably say that you are silly and that those are just different shades of grey.
However if they knew about the physical properties of light you could explain that you have the abillity to directly see the frequency of light and that different things reflect different frequencies. They could then use a spectrometer to confirm that light refelct from things you said were blue indeed had similar spectral properties. They would still not be able to experience colour directly themselves but they could use spectrometers to register them and they could discuss them in terms of frequencies. They could even combine them and produce coloured paint. Here a mathematical description of colour does now let them deal with a propterty which they can not experienc directly or have a good vocabulary for.

You yourself would have the same problem if a bat tried to explain what a forest looks like when it is seen using the bat's sonar.

Again this is much like our own problem when we deal with e.g quantum mechanical phenomena. Our senses were never developed to deal with those things directly, and they are different from the things we are used to, but using machines we can detect them and we can use mathematics to deal with them.


You also asked about imagination and thought experiments. They are both very important parts of any researchers day to day work. Howver thought experiments are only useful when they can also be given a mathematical form and be analysed. Einsten was very careful to set up all his thought experimetns that way, and it was also thanks to that which Niels Bohr could explain how many of them fit into quantum mechanics.


Gravityboy: "... you want to describe the properties of some of the very non-"every day" objects using everyday math."

Well if you are willing to trust me on this, you might not be, I can say that many parts of modern day research level mathematics is very very far from "every day". Much of the mathematics that is needed for doing things like string theory is quite down to earth compared to some other areas.


Regarding what you said bout agreeeing with experiments and still begin wrong: It is nice when experiments agreee with our theories, it makes peopel feel good and sometimes even champagne corks fly, but the really important thing is when experiments do not agree with theory. that is when we have found something new and may have to refine our models.
This is exactly why it is so important that a theory can be used to predict the outcome of experiments before they are done. That way we can test a theory and see if it wrong, but we can never say for sure that it is right.

Again you only need to give a mathematical formulation of your theory and find some effect which it predicts to be different from the theories which you dislike. If you present your case in a precise way so that others can first check your calculations, someone will then do the experiment and you will find out. This is what any researcher in physics needs to do.

---

Klasm,
I agree with most of what you said.
About the senses, they all tell us something different about an object. We are also believed to have a sixth sense, and why not more. Just cause I can't point at them does not mean they are not there. For example: perception of a situation. We can not point at either, neither the perception nor the situation, only at the brain and at the people. There is more to us then meets the 5 obvious senses. Point: Combine information that the 5 senses, the brain, can be fooled to sensing, and then explain the slight differences. That is done well with quarks being up or down or... Flux is just another way, for me. Ya know what they say:
If at first up/down don't succeed, String, Superstring, and Flux again.

also,
quote:
If you present your case in a precise way so that others can first check your calculations, someone will then do the experiment and you will find out.
- Only if you peak the interest of a rich person or fill the gap for a scientist. I think you are trying to fool the perception of reality with that one in the sense of: Do it and the rest will get done.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

To continue in my search:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/light/s1.htm

says that we decode light to find alot of information.
Is there a place/link that focuses on describing information, like light, and it's ways of being decoded? (For the non scientific folk.)
Like how it's accepted that quarks exist.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

Here is a link to a paper describing the experimental evidence of the existence of the top quark.

http://www-cdf.fnal.gov/top_status/first_ev.html

---

Chrulle
Research Assistant &amp; Ex-LHC@home developer
Niels Bohr Institute

Chrulle,
I can't see ps file types, but found this:
http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/Pub/Phil/topquark/tqevid.html

gravityboy,
neat, last one works.

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

And to think this thread started out in jest of the whole "Oh No, they will create a black hole!" worry.



Now, this thread has become a black hole. Quick. Everyone out!

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

est-tu Thread Cycle?

---

-----------------------
Click to see my tag
My tag
SNAFU'ed? Turn the Page! :D

If they do only look in, don't fall in

---

Pizza@Home - Rays Place - Rays place Forums

Actually you can just as easily curve 3 dimensional space as 2 dimensional space. It might not appear to be so because the human brain cannot picture such a thing. The math is though exactly the same as in 2 dimensions. If you are interested in curved space i encourage you to read up on Einstein theory of General Relativity.

May I suggest as excellent reading the book "Warped Passages : Unraveling the Mysteries of the Universe's Hidden Dimensions" by Lisa Randall. She is a Harvard physicist whom I heard speak recently at the Hayden Planetarium in New York City.

Her book is excellent, and I highly recommend it!

The Amazon link is http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060531088/qid=1131500398/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-0778406-8125449?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

---

Regards,
Bob P.

est-tu Thread Cycle?

Maybe I can create a

DO NOT REACH INTO BLACK HOLE
WITH REMAINING HAND

sign.

edit: done!
http://members.shaw.ca/aziemianski/sigs/dangerblackhole.jpg

---

I'm not the LHC Alex. Just a number cruncher like everyone else here.

They will have to plug it up, I'm just curious with what! Alex, what on this
planet can they possibly use to do just that? If a vortex that opens a door warping time creates a
counter clockwise direction in a cloud,
(something similar to a positron)
maybe something with a clockwise direction
will seal the door.

Not sure sir, respectfully, I'm enjoying reading and learning from all of you.

Sincerely
Ernie Solis
Merry Christmas
God Bless

---

If I may,
Refer to Scientific American, May 2005 "Quantum Black Holes" by Bernard Carr
And Steven Giddings. The effort in my opinion will be formitable and if
achieved, highly unstable and short lived, would Maxwells electromagnetism
theory not allow the continued existence of the artificial black hole? For
further fun reading (and my personal favorite) Read Sci.Ams. special
edition: "The Edge of Physics" this issue is cover to cover an information
wonderland, and can still be ordered through Sci. Am., volume 13 number 1.
Brian Greene has a couple of good books also, but I do not recommend his PBS
special as it is lacking in necessary information. I have a question, as I
have heard of references made to particles "popping" in and out of existence as
part of the dark matter in space, would it not seem more logical for these
particles to be possibly two dimensional, there by appearing and disappearing
(only visually)depending on their predicted position in time. Or maybe moving
from one possible dimension to another as it is believed through M-theory there
exists 10-11 dimensions, there by allowing the constant existence of the
particle but "appearing" in our four dimensions as "popping" in and out. Aside
from eventual decay I have a hard time seeing things occurring in this fashion,
of course the universe at the absolute beginning had to "pop" into existence,
or did it?
Jeff Moeser
Merry Christmas/happy new year!

---