Posts by

21) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Thoughts on String Theory. (Message 4424) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by Post: 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
22) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Thoughts on String Theory. (Message 4401) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by Post: 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
23) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Thoughts on String Theory. (Message 4387) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by Post: 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
24) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Thoughts on String Theory. (Message 4377) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by Post: 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
25) Message boards : Number crunching : 100,000 turns in less than 5 minutes (Message 4368) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by Post: i got a real odd one http://lhcathome.cern.ch/workunit.php?wuid=466930 it took 0 seconds to process ? the others took some time to process wonders if it got any particles in the first place Dave
26) Message boards : LHC@home Science : Thoughts on String Theory. (Message 4364) Posted 26 Oct 2004 by Post: 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 infinatylimit 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
27) Message boards : Number crunching : LHC has Setiates ... !!! (Message 4340) Posted 25 Oct 2004 by Post: re BTW, don't do the same mistake as myself, building a fast node with the thinking behind, to remove the slower ones. In reality you will say, like me, take all you can get. Even the CPUs in the remote control & play stations, if there would be a compiled client for. if you modify an xbox its posible to run linux on it, had suse8 on one but found the 640*480 screen ristrictive for xwindows there cheep enough to cluster having a ethernet built in,and should have little problem rining boinc on them heard that the same was possible on the ps2 but you would have to add a hd to it :) Dave

Previous 20

LHC@home