LHC@home

First of all, lets debate this 'string theory' thing.


I'll start by debunking it.

1. One reason people 'believe' in String theory is because they 'got the math to work.
Just because the 'math works' doesn't prove it's correct. Nor does the math 'not working' mean it's totally incorrect either.
For example..
example: Classical Mechanics says that to get to the speed of light, you just accellerate at accelleration a, with sufficient force so that F=Ma for a long enought t time until
Δv=aΔt
So.. math works, theory is nice and intuitive.. but.. some hairy physicist guy named Einstein had to ruin the classical mechanics theory for everyone.

2. Another reason people believe in string theory is because they 'want' to have a theory of everything. After all.. it would be convenient if an equation tied everything together nicely.
For a long time.. flat paper maps were a good representation of the known universe.. but as centuries passed, and people hopped on sailing ships.. the flat map/flat earth theory was no longer convenient. So.. convenience is not a proof of a theory.

What physicists have to do is come up with an experiment that tests string theory. IE.. vibrate something.. such as a crystal.. or a pile of helium.. or something. Maybe a photon.. because photons are odd sometimes.

> Here's the all-in-one formula that explains everything:
>
> 1d=10t

I hate to appear to be in disagreement .. the universal formula is

X = 47 + C

Although, there is some debate out there 'Just what is "C"?' ;-)

// Brian

Hi HAL
Common Criteria (ISO 15408)

> > Here's the all-in-one formula that explains everything:
> >
> > 1d=10t
>
> I hate to appear to be in disagreement .. the universal formula is
>
> X = 47 + C
>
> Although, there is some debate out there 'Just what is "C"?' ;-)

A programming language?
;->

Ya.. namecalling always 'proves' a scientific theory.

People who believed the earth was round were called Heretics.

______________________________________________________________
Did your tech wear a static strap? No? Well, there ya go! :p

> Here's the all-in-one formula that explains everything:
>
> 1d=10t
>
>

[url=http://lhcathome.cern.ch/team_join_form.php?id=45/ ]Click Here[/url] to join a winner team headed to the top.

Perfectly
I agry, but remember
3 x 3 = 4.5 ... It's a semi-reality
;-)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Riding too fast on highway to stop smoking ...

Personally I feel all the theories have errors

1/. The big bang theory

Although most of it seems to cover what we can make of what happened it has a major flaw

In the time shortly after it energy released from it was expanding rapidly (faster than the speed of light #see note ) until it cooled
After this phase started proton antiproton inhalation and proton antiproton production leading to nucleosynthesis and the production of other elements started

It was only 300,000 years after the big bang that the universe became transparent to light

The flaw is simply that after the big bang the process of expansion started
To have expansion you must have space to expand into else expansion would not start in the first place and higher pressure in the same space would be the result

An analogy would be like living on a particle expelled from the aftermath of a supernova where the furthest we could see would be still inside the dust cloud of the debris and not being able to observe the rest of the universe
All near by particles would show the same properties and the same sort of formation date and the same range of temperatures (and cooling properties)

The centre of the big bang is way beyond the 14 billion year range that we could see anyway and if the core of it is still there’s no way of knowing if an object of that power would emit photons, its/was too hot to do that anyway and the space around it would still be opaque to light and quite possibly most of what we could detect from it

So although the big bang could be proved by observation it simply ignores the fact that there must have been space beyond the “mass/energy” that caused the big bang in the first place
So it would not fit as being the super grand unified theory of everything as it dose not take into account the space that is being filled dew to expansion and any other objects that may of been in it prior to the big bang

2/. String theory

Maths fails to grasp the concept of infinity (it just does not compute)
So if you use maths there’s always a limit to how big it can be
result beeing whatever is defined as beeing its limit its infinaty*limit bigger than that

Although both may be correct for a small amount of space that is within the bounds of calculation and observable limits there’s infinity * what is observable or measurable that is to be taken into account

And although this does not disprove that the big bang did not happen and the formation of what we consider to be everything, its only everything that is observable and its slill like saying the earth is flat

#note the workaround used in the big bang theory states
That dew to the fact that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light they didn’t it was the space between them that expanded
interestingly this means space travels faster than light some how this doesn’t fit ether as space expanding faster than light would displace the particles within it causing them to move faster than light that disproves the theory anyway
But there’s no proof that the energy responsible for particle pair production cannot travel faster than light

to use yet another analogy here sound travels at a fixed speed , equipment used to detect sound would not detect light if we had no vision then the fastest thing we would be able to conceive was a sound wave hence it would be likely that the max speed of everything would thought to be the speed of sound

the problem is this, to detect it, it has to have “mass or detectable energy” to have mass then it has to be moving at less than the speed of light, the particles detected by LHC will be moving at approximately the speed of light but I feel there are a lot more particles moving faster that dew to physical constraints out of the wavelength of the detectors

This would also account for where all the dark matter and dark energy is

Dave

1) About that dark matter theory, some physicists at nasa may have found something that will render this theory obsolete. Simply put, the laws of gravity wouldn't behave like we thought they would at long range.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/10/wnasa10.xml&sShe%20et=/news/2002/02/10/ixworld.html

This would remove the need for dark mass to maintain galaxies together.

2) About that big bang theorie... I always thought that there was infinite emptiness and that the big band was a big blob of energy hovering in it that exploded... Are you saying that the universe is expanding as in the limits of the existence are expanding or as in the matter is taking more and more space in it (as I thought) ?

Re
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/10/wnasa10.xml&sShe%20et=/news/2002/02/10/ixworld.html

Yes, but interestingly
Like the earth as a heliosheath surrounding it that deflects the effect of the solar wind the sun has a similar heliosheath that the spacecraft passed exposing it to the galactic wind effect
the galactic wind could cause this slow down and be stronger than thought but as the images that nasa have produced with relevance to it show that this spacecraft was heading in a direction towards the galactic wind so its effect would be to deflect the spacecraft back and not directly point to dark matter being of any relevance

Dark matter is only another possibility that is required to prove theory anyway

Dave

opps heliosheath sould read as Heliosphere

theres more reading on it relating to the drift of the space carft at

http://quest.nasa.gov/sso/cool/pioneer10/general/pmtwotxt.html

nothing to do with dark matter though

Dave

Hmm … re
2) About that big bang theorie... I always thought that there was infinite emptiness and that the big band was a big blob of energy hovering in it that exploded... Are you saying that the universe is expanding as in the limits of the existence are expanding or as in the matter is taking more and more space in it (as I thought)?

But this disproves the big bang anyway
For the big bang theory to be correct that big blob of energy and the space around it was not there prior to it
And the fact that the space was there with something in it prior to a big bang would indicate that there is
1 infinite space with an “object” in it
2 dew to the distance being infinite there’s nothing to say there isn’t other such “objects” in the space that may or may not have exhibited a “big bang” state

dew to “1” above the fact that it was there prior to the big bang disproves the big bang as being the start of it (as the state prior to it was definable and could possibly be stable for some time therefore the fact remains that there is another “stable” state that existed prior to it for an unknown length of time

But it dose not disprove that anything that is within our detectable range was / was not a product of a big bang event, (it has a start point, its age, and the mater found within it all were created as a result of one )

as the known universe is expanding dew to the fact that a explosive start would cause expansion in the first place and the distance that it is possible to observe is within the confines of the aftermath of this “explosion” it would be right to incorrectly conclude expansion theories from the point of observation, in fact most of the big bang theory in the same token

as the resultant energy produced by a “big bang” event produces the conditions for nucleosynthesis that produces matter, photons (light) then it would be wrong to conclude that this was the only start, as the ground 0 of the big bang is way beyond the 14 B ly’s that is visible then it would be unwise to conclude that as there could be a undetectable remnant that “initiated” it
Also it would be unwise to calculate the effective range that the outcome of the big bang had without being able to find the central start point , and the distance affected by it (relative to infinity is still small)

As matter is the “dust” from such an event would dark matter/energy actually play any part in its position or is it just where the “explosion” left the parts scattered where expansion is the effect of continued motion away from the point of origin dew to the displacement caused by the initial explosive force

and with out finding the source point for the big bang how do we know if its still forming matter in the way of an ongoing process or about the remnant core left if any ? Without such information were just looking at the “smoke” from the “fire” and not seeing the “fuel”

the research that LHC will be doing should find more about the formation of elements what ever theory’s are disproved or confirmed, it will lead to a better understanding of them and maybe even some more theories :)

sorry for the long post
Dave

> 1 infinite space with an “object” in it
> 2 dew to the distance being infinite there’s nothing to say there isn’t other
> such “objects” in the space that may or may not have exhibited a “big bang”
> state

yup that's what I always tought. Both one and two.

Anyway I found your reply quite interesting so don't excuse yourself for the lenght ! ;)

But you raised good points as to wether the big bang would still continu to "produce" mass or not.

But if it was so, wouldn't it be detectable by our long range infra red telescopes due to the massive heat it would produce ?

Re
But if it was so, wouldn't it be detectable by our long range infra red telescopes due to the massive heat it would produce?

Don’t think so
Infra red suffers the same effect as light, travels “slowly” across space relative to the rate of initial expansion, although it may/must have existed before the big bang so light/infer red or radio waves from it should enable its detection even if it’s beyond the 14B ly limit
But there are a number of things to consider

1 dose the object emit energy in the optical / radio bands
(As the initial state of the universe at and some time after the point of the big bang was opaque then would it block light /radio from passing through, is this the state of the “matter” that surrounds us does it provide a mask to it)

2 would the object be like a black hole to light / energy
(It would not be detectable unless you had something in the background or reacting with it to show it up)

3 dose it emit the energy that originally cooled to form elements
Although this may be detectable it would be slight changes over a wide aria (like the sky temp map produced by COBE)and only detectable where the emition has cooled enough for it to convert into energy we can detect

4 if the particles/energy it emits travel faster than light then the chances are that we don’t have anything capable of detecting such particles/energy

5 is it just the background radiation from the formation of matter that can be detected in that the distance of the ground 0 of the centre is swamped by the signals from the creation of matter dew to cooling and being created ”locally” (14B lys)

It’s reasonable to assume that it can simply be detected but if the energy that originally created matter can not be detected how do we know if this is the energy that it is emitting

The heat signature would more likely detect the formation of stars galaxies at the outer edges of the cosmic particle horizon that would swamp any signal that would indicate its source, because matter creates more noise than “particles” that are not matter, and if the energy produced is not matter based then it will not give off a photon or radio wave in the first place

plus
at the cosmic particle horizon the temp detected would be grater than the state of the object prior to the big bang (swamped by the heat of its own explosion)

long post again :)
supose a simple no it couldent be detected would of been adiquate

Dave

This is what I see in the Big Bang Theory. You are all looking at this theory through our current understandings of 3-d space. The problem is when you get to such high gravitational energies, gravity will actually bend both time and space. So, you can't look at the big bang as some big blob in the middle of infinite space, because infinite space did not exist at that moment as it does for us today.

It is really a stretch to try to let go of our current understandings of time and space to try to imagine this phenomenon. I have not accomplished this feat, although I continue to try.

Jim

Interestingly re “time” prior to big bang
And speed/time relativity the following applies (that is part of the reason that accelerators like CERN can conduct experiments)

The closer an object travels to the speed of light the slower the effect of time on it

A particle with a half life of a few milliseconds can be effectively extended a by propelling it at “almost” light speed so it remains in existence for a few seconds

This also would equate to:-
“Without including acceleration time” if you where on a space craft leaving earth and travelling to say Sirius at 6ly distance, travelling at .99999999999% the speed of light
From earth as the observation point it would take 6 years for you to get there and 6 to get back
But dew to the time displacement caused when travelling at that speed only a couple of seconds would pass to anyone on board

The problem with saying time did not exist prior to the big bang is not strictly true just that the speed that all the particles where travelling at would affect the conception of how time is calculated
So a measured time of 1E-9 th of a Second may be equivalent to more than the 14Bn years we know it to have existed,
As prior to the big bang the temp is believed to be that high that the particles that form matter where moving too fast to form it, probably faster than light if not at it

As to the speed of light I feel there are particles that do travel faster and don’t naturally conform to Einstein’s theory but feel to do this they would probably not be “classed” as particles of matter, matter would be transparent to them, but his laws do govern all matter

As to
“
It is really a stretch to try to let go of our current understandings of time and space to try to imagine this phenomenon. I have not accomplished this feat, although I continue to try.
“
hmm well infinity (full of energized particles) ok, in an opaque state (no photon particles, every thing is moving to fast for that and too hot for matter to form), time well 2.0Exp(4Exp99) (exponent has exponential value) years pass for every word of this your reading, suddenly there’s a cooling effect causing the particles to cool and slow and drop speed and this is the start of the big bang! (Or the end of it?)

Sorry I fail to understand how this can be the start of everything
time is there just distorted by the heat, and “matter/energy” of some sort is there it did not appear from knowere just prior to it instead was probably in that state for a long time ,, a very long time , just because we have difficulty comprehending how long and any time distortion that its original state would impose upon it
The fact that its existence time cannot be calculated is dew to the fact that everything was also under the same conditions and would suffer the same time distortion, and it still is not producing matter from nothing! Just producing it from a form of it that we still cannot detect (too hot, too fast) just that it appears to be hidden

its probably just as easy to conclude that 99.999… % of it just vanished leaving space there if it was not for the fact that there’s a measurable expansion rate or is that just another odd distortion ?
(This is also included in part of the big bang theory as what happened to most of the matter generating particles anyway)

But E=mc2 would say something about the disappearance of 90% of everything wouldn’t it?

Yet another small book
Dave

String theorist explores dark energy and our unique 'pocket' of the universe

Date Released: Monday, February 21, 2005


Some celestial bodies are so cold that methane freezes; others are so hot that nuclear reactions occur. And then there's Earth, with a benign temperature hovering in the narrow range between freezing and boiling, allowing the existence of liquid water-and life.

"There's no question that there are many things about the [universe] which if they were very much different, even just a little bit different, life couldn't exist, intelligent life couldn't exist," said Stanford physics Professor Leonard Susskind, who is currently on sabbatical and writing a popular book titled The Cosmic Landscape. "The [universe] is truly an incredibly fine-tuned place."
........