String Theory

[Durandal7]

String theory is an intriuging idea but the way I see it, it fails in a few key areas and will not become a "theory of everything."

First off, I think it's key failing will be it's attempt to explain gravity in terms of "graviton particles." I think that a new theory will have to be devised to explain gravity and it will most likely have to bridge the gap between matter and time and the distortion effects that gravity has on time.

Even worse, string theory has yet to offer a solid explanation for dark matter and it's place in the universe as well as it's apparent "anti-gravity" effect on the universe.

Having said that, I think that string theory is great for dealing with bosons and their interactions.

[NavyIntel007]

In the words of the cartoon mouse pinky... TABOO :confused:

[Sayhey]

Haven't got a clue. I think I remember that "bosons" are sub-atomic particles and I've heard of string theory and dark matter, but I sure couldn't explain them. Durandal7, your topic makes me feel like your Nolte avatar looks. I better go to the "have you ever been drunk" thread. sorry.

[Powerbook G5]

It's been years since I've heard anyone talk about the TOE! Memories...but yes, it does seem like it has been dying out over the years as theorists have made little headway in describing what these various dimensions and properties of cosmic strings are and whether or not they can lead towards a more common view of the Big Bang/Great Redux relationship.

[Mr. Anderson]

I still think that if we ever get the Grand Unifying Theory figured out it might all make sense.

There have been recent attempts to visualize gravity, but I haven't read or heard about any successes yet.

Its nice knowing that there is so much more still left to figure out - one of the reasons I'd love to live several hundred years or more just to see the discoveries....:D

D

[frescies]

Remember... A graviton is an imaginary particle. It does not exist. It has only been conjured up to make the math work. Not to say that the math is wrong or has some false figures. In the equations regarding gravitational distortion and attraction (particularly time dilation), the math has been broken down to reflect "particles" the way an anology is used to make things easier to understand. But, fortunately, this does not make the math any less valid.

[Cubeboy]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge in this subject but can someone enlighten me on exactly what string theory (which basically states that the universe is composed of strings and that subatomic particles are actually vibrations of the strings), has to do with the graviton (a theoretical particle that transmits the force of gravity).

Anyone else think this is a really complex theory? I mean I can't see how one can even begin to contemplate what ten dimensional supersymmetry would look like. The whole theory is so complicated that it can never be tested, not even mathematically. From what I hear, most physicist aren't even able to fully comprehend it. ;)

[patrick0brien]

-Durandal7

I think the advancement of String Theory is on hold until the scientists can identify the Higgs Boson - and until the Super Hadron collider is completed at CERN, it is unlikely that will happen.

[neut]

if it doesn't make sense to you now...it never will.

most theory's are correct from a certain perspective, but not all perspectives. there is no Unified Theory. how could we even grasp the concept. we could find more truth in sorcery than we can in science. after all...it doesn't really exist unless we agree to it. no more puzzle games for me. im out.

keep falling? no thanx, i'll fly.

[dynamicd]

Where's Steven Hawking's when you need him??? ;)

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by Cubeboy
Please excuse my lack of knowledge in this subject but can someone enlighten me on exactly what string theory (which basically states that the universe is composed of strings and that subatomic particles are actually vibrations of the strings), has to do with the graviton (a theoretical particle that transmits the force of gravity).

String theory states that gravitons are in fact sub-atomic particles that are vibrations of strings.

At least some string theories do, there are about 10 flavors of it.

[patrick0brien]

-All

String theory is what happens when cosmologists get frustrated with not coming up with the answers, get blitheringly drunk, and think about it again.

[mischief]

It's closer than much other crap that's come out of Assademia over the years but it's still crap.

I'm convinced that a Unified theory will require someone like Tesla who was so intuitive that nobody could believe even half of the things he could demonstrate, let alone the things he theorized.

I feel that a Unified theory will be recieved with the classic Reubic-solve response:

" Damn! It's so simple! How come we couldn't see that?!?"

On the subject of physics sets:

I've got a good alternate ready for review as the model used by the Alien species in the writing I have in the Macscene forum.

Please put yourselves on the mailing list if you want to see it.

I already have your response Durandal. ;)

-M

[Doctor Q]

I saw mention of "dark energy" the other day. I understand (I think) the dark matter issue, but what is "dark energy"?

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by mischief
It's closer than much other crap that's come out of Assademia over the years but it's still crap.

I'm convinced that a Unified theory will require someone like Tesla who was so intuitive that nobody could believe even half of the things he could demonstrate, let alone the things he theorized.

I already have your response Durandal. ;)

-M
If people bothered to listen to Tesla then we would we be about 50 years further on the technology path then we are now.

I look forward to reading the physics set :) I have always been a science junkie.


I saw mention of "dark energy" the other day. I understand (I think) the dark matter issue, but what is "dark energy"?

It's the energy counterpart to dark matter. If we knew anything else about it then it would not be an issue.

[Cubeboy]

Originally posted by Durandal7
String theory states that gravitons are in fact sub-atomic particles that are vibrations of strings.

At least some string theories do, there are about 10 flavors of it.

Ahhhhhh *cracks open another beer*

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by Durandal7
If people bothered to listen to Tesla then we would we be about 50 years further on the technology path then we are now.

Tesla was way ahead of his time.

[Durandal7]

I don't buy the existence of the Higgs Boson or the graviton. Mass seems too related to gravity which is tied to time for their to be seperate explanations.

Any unified field theory will probably have to roll the Higgs and the Graviton into one concept that will be tied more to the structure of spacetime then any sort of particle.

[mischief]

Originally posted by Durandal7
I don't buy the existence of the Higgs Boson or the graviton. Mass seems too related to gravity which is tied to time for their to be seperate explanations.

Any unified field theory will probably have to roll the Higgs and the Graviton into one concept that will be tied more to the structure of spacetime then any sort of particle.

Bingo.

I've been doing some research into just the observations that lead to all these bizarre ideas. I can tell you that the Higgs/Graviton/String theorems are the most rationally sound of the bunch by sheer volume of Mathematical backup.

The bitch of it is that the Math that's used to turn all the observations into theorems seems to revolve around physically inexpressible values that never ballance out (Square roots of negative numbers and such).

It seems that Gravity is an issue that should really be studied out in open space where there's no huge gravity wells to scue the data. Studying gravity from the relative bottom of two huge, overlapping gravity wells is self defeating.

I have a hunch that it'll all turn out to be like Velikofski and Tesla first thought it was: EM fields that go with everything, but only the ones with the most powerful fields (planets & stars) measureable as Gravity when you're so close to one.

It may not seem to make much sense but the observational data does suggest that even "non conductive" matter has an inherent field that can be excited through addition of potential into an observable state and that exceedingly powerful EM fields can alter gravitation specific to the area of their influence.

IE: It's all EM. It's just a matter of scale, composition and application of potential that determines the observed outcome.

(shrug) The words Scientists hate saying most are:" I don't know... It just IS." But sooner or later they always have to.;) :rolleyes:

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by mischief
The bitch of it is that the Math that's used to turn all the observations into theorems seems to revolve around physically inexpressible values that never ballance out (Square roots of negative numbers and such).

What else is new :rolleyes:

(shrug) The words Scientists hate saying most are:" I don't know... It just IS." But sooner or later they always have to.;) :rolleyes:

LOL :p

[patrick0brien]

-Durandal7, mischief

Here's an interesting tidbit. Before CERN had to shut down to begin construction of the Super Hadron, they found the trail of what they believe was the Higgs Boson.

Unfortunately, they had to shut down only days later before thay could prepare the next shot. So until the Super Hadron, the Fermilab Pea-Shooter has to make do filling in little components.

What this means? Well, they are on the right path to proving or disproving the the existenc of the Higgs Boson - and that, will be newsworthy.

[Durandal7]

Some assorted ramblings from yours truly:

Perhaps the distortion of time is not only a symptom of gravity but the cause as well? What if in an area of space where there are no effects of gravity time moves at an infinite pace? What if linear time only exists because gravity slows time down to something less then infinity?

What if dark matter is normal matter hidden away in parts of the universe that are adjacent to us on spatial axises that we cannot see? Would gravity defy 3-dimensional space? It already defies the speed of light so it's not too much of a strech.

[Durandal7]

Gravity slows time so it goes to figure that time moves faster where there is no gravity. Perhaps time would move at an infinite pace in this place. There would be no areas like this left in our universe since gravity permeates everything to some degree. Before the Big Bang however there was no matter, and therefore no mass and therfore no gravity. This means that time would move at an infinite pace and that the moment the singulairity that became the universe was born infinite time halted. Since time is moving at an infinite pace it makes the idea of "before" the big bang quite irrelevant since there would be no before, there would only be the single instant. The moment a single particle with mass popped it's head up, time as we know it began.

It also seems fairly likely that the universe is a multi-dimensional structure (IE more then 3 spacial dimensions.) If we can account for 5% of the matter in the universe then it is reasonable to assume that the remainder of the matter is adjacent to us on a 4th or even 5th spacial axis, if this is the case then it could even allow for the many worlds theory in quantum physics. Additionally, gravity would bleed across all axises of space, since it is not in fact a spacial particle but a function of temporal dimensions and therefore will defy the laws of space including the speed of light.

Whew.

[mischief]

The whole big-bang thing is nicely romantic and a good emotional replacement for Genesis but has some serious flaws. Not the least of which is to assume that the Infinite is Finite (Universe has an "edge").

It has struck me that if energetic principles are similar across the spectrum, only getting more "particulate" as you get into higher potentials, than it's likely that "redshift" is more a function of distance than velocity.

This would shoot the Big Bang theory in the ass. It seems to be a simpler model if it's a Universe that exists with no beginning or end and shifts energy around with several similar, parallel ones the way heat moves through strata in water.

The sheer number of exceptions and the extreme complexity of the model tells me that the problem is being approached rather backwardly. Nature is the essence of simple elegance, even in the most complex systems.

[patrick0brien]

-Durandal7

Excellent thinking. Ergo the Universal Gravitational Constant.

However, the grip that time has on gravity is still only circumspecctually proven. E=MC^2 is a convenience.

This isn't me talking - I would never be so presumptuous. The Special theory or relativity holds that E=MC^2. I've had many discussions with folks from Cal-Tech, Princeton, and others - but that's beside the point.

The point is that when looking at all of this, the interface of light speed with gravity then time, is tenuous. It's only used because the math happens to produce expected results. But as we advance, this is beginning to break down. They admit, there is no actual connection that can be found. There are rumblings, that there is a connection, but it's merely a part of something greater - a differential player in a bigger equasion. It's not just the Higgs Boson - of lack therof, but the connections between the Forces.

The kicker is the fact that the concept of time is considered a humen invention. And explanation of something beina able to move - to vibrate - to age.

Time itself, has not proven to exist, due to the fact that it can't be poked and prodded. It can only be measured - by an invention of ours, the clock.

(not to say that I personally don't believe it - look at my location)

As a result, gravity-time connection is calculable, but not the entire story. This is why the experiments abbout the Higgs Boson is so important.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by mischief
The whole big-bang thing is nicely romantic and a good emotional replacement for Genesis but has some serious flaws. Not the least of which is to assume that the Infinite is Finite (Universe has an "edge").

It has struck me that if energetic principles are similar across the spectrum, only getting more "particulate" as you get into higher potentials, than it's likely that "redshift" is more a function of distance than velocity.

This would shoot the Big Bang theory in the ass. It seems to be a simpler model if it's a Universe that exists with no beginning or end and shifts energy around with several similar, parallel ones the way heat moves through strata in water.

The sheer number of exceptions and the extreme complexity of the model tells me that the problem is being approached rather backwardly. Nature is the essence of simple elegance, even in the most complex systems.
The Big Bang theory has some serious holes, I agree. I was mainly using it to illustrate my "infinite time" theory.

The Big Bang theory goes out the window because the basic principle is flawed, a massive explosion should have distributed matter equally. The theory is at a loss for why gravity didn't hold each particle in a fixed place and for why there was more matter then anti-matter.

I try not to address the Big Bang or "creation" except as a thought experiment. Why? Because time is very different then our understanding, to imply a beginning means that time flows as we percieve it on one axis of time. It is possible that there are several dimensions to time just as there is with space.

The Universe is a structure with many spacial dimensions and several temporal dimensions that is part of a larger Multiverse. Due to the nature of time there is no beginning and no end, it is a noncoporeal thing.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Durandal7

Excellent thinking. Ergo the Universal Gravitational Constant.

However, the grip that time has on gravity is still only circumspecctually proven. E=MC^2 is a convenience.

This isn't me talking - I would never be so presumptuous. The Special theory or relativity holds that E=MC^2. I've had many discussions with folks from Cal-Tech, Princeton, and others - but that's beside the point.

The point is that when looking at all of this, the interface of light speed with gravity then time, is tenuous. It's only used because the math happens to produce expected results. But as we advance, this is beginning to break down. They admit, there is no actual connection that can be found. There are rumblings, that there is a connection, but it's merely a part of something greater - a differential player in a bigger equasion. It's not just the Higgs Boson - of lack therof, but the connections between the Forces.

The gravity-time connection is calculable, but not the entire story. This is why the experiments abbout the Higgs Boson is so important.

The greatest flaw in assuming that the time distortion effect causes gravity is that it can only describe how gravity prevents an object from excaping it's grasp, not how it attracts that object in the first place.

Take this as an example of time trapping an object:

Say we have a rod that is trying to escape the pull of a rock in space. At the bottom of the rod time is moving at a slower rate then it is at the top of the rod.

In order for the bottom of the rod to move at a rate that is equal to the top it must have more energy exerted on it then at the top.

This is because for the bottom 5 seconds is equivalent to 1 second at the top. It has to move faster to keep up with the top so it appears to moving at the same rate.

I hope that makes some sense. Several experiments have shown that the closer you are to the ground on Earth the slower your clock will move in comparison to one in orbit or a tall building. There is very little difference but it may be enough to trap small-scale matter like a Human.

[patrick0brien]

-Durandal7

There were similar experiments performed wiith ultra-speed shells, and a similar efffect was observed. This was predicted by the math.

However, the scientists still don't know why. The math starts to break down, because there is nothing to support it. It's like having a bridge that happens to be good enough for now, but it is know to not hold enough weight.

The fact the scientists can't explain why the math works, is what disturbs them.

That is what I find interesting.

[mischief]

Gravity is the result of a MASSIVE EM field created by the Earth via the rotational dynamo of it's subsurface layers. the angular velocity of the Earth keeps it all molten by friction-induced heat and the whole mass' rotation creates a huge magnetic field.

the larger the field the "thicker" spacetime becomes, and the denser ST becomes near the center of the field.

Time is just a matter of frame rate. Frame rate is dependant on physical apparatus. Since no physical apparatus can use any means that travels faster than the fastest available energy source (light), it would seem that the speed of light is as fast as you can go. That also means that as ST gets thicker, and apparent entropy gets "bigger" there is perceptible differential in framerate from the same apparatus at different points in the energy well. QED;)

[Durandal7]

I just had a silly idea, has anyone ever attempted an "open source" theory?
Perhaps a scientific theory in a format ala SourceForge?

mischief- I agree that a "thickening" of spacetime seems to be taking place but I disagree with the idea that it is caused by subsurface layers rotating. Gravity is the "protrusion" of matter is spacetime.

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by mischief Since no physical apparatus can use any means that travels faster than the fastest available energy source (light), it would seem that the speed of light is as fast as you can go.

-mischief

If the object you are attempting to accelerate is in normal space/time, yes, you are correct.

This is due to the simple reason that the electrical bonds that bind every molecule of that object is also bound by the speed of light, and therefore we get the mass increase, and the fact that should the light barrier be breached, the object would disintegrate at the molecular level. - physical results of E=MC^2, without the math.

However, it is equally postulated that if one were to decrease the local mass of an object to less than negative the gravitational constant, that gravitational constant would accelerate that object in multiples of the speed of light directly proportional to the antimass charge of the envelope.

Ok. Best next: Warp drive - always at multiple the speed of light. And takes 10,000 the power to initiate a multiple than it takes to maintain such an envelope.

The trick is to be heading in the general direction of the place you want to go before you initiate the envelope. Steering of such an envelope involves the differentials of the sides of the envelope, and these things are postulated to not corner well.

this is why the study of gravitation is so important. If we could do this: we'd be at Proxima next month. Also the deeper gravity wells of stars would allow self-avoidance of those wells by the nature of the envelope.

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
E=MC^2 is a convenience.Once upon a time, Newton's laws appeared to explain everything. Then we learned to measure more precisely and in other frames of reference. We discovered that Newton's laws provided a good approximation, especially for everyday experiences, but that introducing new equations with additional factors provided more precise results. So will it happen again? Will the introduction of new factors we haven't used before provide slight adjustments to explain observed discrepancies and provide the next level of precision?

[mischief]

Originally posted by patrick0brien


........ the fact that should the light barrier be breached, the object would disintegrate at the molecular level. - physical results of E=MC^2, without the math.

However, it is equally postulated that if one were to decrease the local mass of an object to less than negative the gravitational constant, that gravitational constant would accelerate that object in multiples of the speed of light directly proportional to the antimass charge of the envelope.

Ok. Best next: Warp drive - always at multiple the speed of light. And takes 10,000 the power to initiate a multiple than it takes to maintain such an envelope.

The trick is to be heading in the general direction of the place you want to go before you initiate the envelope. Steering of such an envelope involves the differentials of the sides of the envelope, and these things are postulated to not corner well.

this is why the study of gravitation is so important. If we could do this: we'd be at Proxima next month. Also the deeper gravity wells of stars would allow self-avoidance of those wells by the nature of the envelope.

(Holds warp drive issue out like a dead pole-cat, holding nose.)

That's just it.... E=MC^2 effectively says that light can't possibly have any mass.... If it had ANY mass it'd have so much force from it's velocity that it'd flatten anything it hit. Though we know it must have mass because, although it obviously travels at "x" number of million-meters-per-second, it's course is deflected by gravity or (in a vacuum, like a CRT) a strong magnetic field. E=MC^2 is not only a convenience, it's stolen from Newton's Force equation: F=MV^2. Essentially Einstein, frustrated with the Data and needing a simple way to express the incredible potential energy in a Photon, created an equation that produced such a stupidly high value for anything possessing Mass at that high a rate of speed that it'd produce both an incalculably high amount of enertia/potential and explain the seemingly nonexistant mass of the Photon "particle". Effectively it was an elegant Guess that was close but wrong. Play around with the equation using basic algebra. It's impossible to ballance.

[mischief]

Originally posted by Durandal7
I just had a silly idea, has anyone ever attempted an "open source" theory?
Perhaps a scientific theory in a format ala SourceForge?

mischief- I agree that a "thickening" of spacetime seems to be taking place but I disagree with the idea that it is caused by subsurface layers rotating. Gravity is the "protrusion" of matter is spacetime.

It's not silly at all.... It's brilliant. The onlyt way to make a simple model is to make it an open-source model. Perhaps it could be begun as a series of algorythms... Hmmm...


Gravity being a "protrusion".... Are you referring to the "strong vs. weak forces" model? I've always found that one to be a bit of a pipe-dream too... It's still not simple enough. In reguards to the Dynamo-effect theory of the EM field: I'm not using the original theory. I'm visualizing the differential in angular momentum over the various strata combined with coriolis motion and the presumption of an "inter-veilance" uuber-high-pressure Iron core creating an extremely powerful and self-sustaining EM field.

Have you seen the studies done where an emmense Electr-Magnet was used to "suspend" otherwise non-magnetic material? There were all kinds of things suspended: Frogs, spiders, platic balls, marbles, etc. The apparatus was huge and the aperture was about the size of a tennis-ball tube but things would just hang there, the field was creating it's own little Gravity vortex. It's well documented but nearly impossible to find via Google on account of there being so many crackpot "anti-gravity" sites. This was a major University project. I just can't remember which one... :( :p

[MacBandit]

Personally I believe gravity travels in wave form and in fact does have a speed at which it effects travel. I think we'll eventually find that gravity is another energy form similar to x-ray etc. that are just out of our capability of true detection.

Also I believe that time is related to energy of atoms and sub atomic particles and that gravity is a unifying energy form that conducts that energy thusly it directly affects time.

Oh, and yes personally I belive Nikola Tesla was the greatest mind in human history. He just wasn't given the chance that other great minds have been given because his theories were so far beyond what everyone thought and were in fact provable in his lifetime where as modern theory is unprovable for the most part so people just have to accept it.

Also does anyone else believe that Teslas demise and the disappearance of his work had anything to do with energy companies and the governement?

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by mischief
It's not silly at all.... It's brilliant. The onlyt way to make a simple model is to make it an open-source model. Perhaps it could be begun as a series of algorythms... Hmmm...


Gravity being a "protrusion".... Are you referring to the "strong vs. weak forces" model? I've always found that one to be a bit of a pipe-dream too... It's still not simple enough. In reguards to the Dynamo-effect theory of the EM field: I'm not using the original theory. I'm visualizing the differential in angular momentum over the various strata combined with coriolis motion and the presumption of an "inter-veilance" uuber-high-pressure Iron core creating an extremely powerful and self-sustaining EM field.

Have you seen the studies done where an emmense Electr-Magnet was used to "suspend" otherwise non-magnetic material? There were all kinds of things suspended: Frogs, spiders, platic balls, marbles, etc. The apparatus was huge and the aperture was about the size of a tennis-ball tube but things would just hang there, the field was creating it's own little Gravity vortex. It's well documented but nearly impossible to find via Google on account of there being so many crackpot "anti-gravity" sites. This was a major University project. I just can't remember which one... :( :p
I'll have to think some more about how an "open source" theory could be implemented.

As for gravity being a "protrusion", I picture time as a sort of river. The precense of matter will twist the flow around and cause distortions that send the smaller rocks (matter) flying around spacetime. It's an abstract concept and I am afraid I am having some difficulty explaining it properly, I'll also have to think more about this one. Nothing to do with strong or weak forces though.

Yes, I have seen that before. Possibly the fact that electrons have some mass coupled with the immense velocity and amount of power could have caused a distortion in spacetime.

MacBandit- I have always wondered if Edison or Standard Oil had a hand in Tesla's death. They surely had it in for him.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Durandal7
..........MacBandit- I have always wondered if Edison or Standard Oil had a hand in Tesla's death. They surely had it in for him.

I think it's certainly possible. Things were really different back then. It was a dawning of a new age of invention where you could claim someone else's invention and then mire them down in the court system. If that didn't work as you couldn't copy them you went to more drastic measures. I don't think it would have been the first time that sort of thing happened and Edison definitely was a media hog stealing many other inventions and claiming them as his own.

[Snowy_River]

WOW! It's amazing all the bad science that's out there. But I guess people have to keep themselves entertained, and sometimes nursing their egos doesn't hurt. Here are just a few thoughts...

If the Higgs Boson isn't found, then it will effectively destroy the Standard Model of Elementary Particles. Now, this is not something to just shrug at, as it would set Physics back about 50 years. Also, the Standard model happens to be one of the most verified theories in all of science.

On the topic of the Big Bang. The term 'the Big Bang' is a term that is applied to a class of origin theories that really, if you truly look at them, have little to do with a big bang. It has been a convenient bit of terminology to help lay-people understand what these theories were getting at. A whole bunch of energy suddenly starts expanding. Why isn't it evenly distributed? Quantum fluctuation. Why is there more matter than anti-matter? This (it is currently believed) has to do with a slight bias in the quantum theory which favors matter over anti-matter, and has been measured experimentally.

On the topic of gravity. Whether gravitons are real, or gravity is due to distortions on time-space is still a matter of debate. If gravitons are, in fact, real, and they are, as most string theorists believe, superdimensional particles, then we should be able to measure the effects of this. However, gravitational effects have been measured accurately to sub-millimeter levels with no indication of super-dimensionality (such an indication would be no longer obeying the 1/R^2 law). Also, these types of measurements can be made with little or no concern as to the fact that we are in a gravity well.

Also, gravity does not defy the speed of light. All indications are that gravity, in fact, travels at the speed of light (another argument in favor of a gravity particle). There is some apocraphal writing out there that claims the contrary, but what they are really looking at is a false effect. The same effect can be seen in an EM field (where the mediator particles are photons, i.e. light, which by definition travel at the speed of light).

Regarding EM fields and gravity. This is just plain wrong. Yes, you would see an increase in gravity if you charge something way up, but that is because you're putting energy in, and energy has mass equivalence (E=mc^2), so if you put enough energy in you see an apparent mass increase. However, EM fields and gravity fields are (at least at this point in our universe) two very different things.

Regarding photons and gravity. Yes, photons turn in a gravitational field. This is not because they have mass, though. It is because the have energy, which gives them mass equivalence. If they had mass, then a photon would accelerate in a gravitational field in such a way that it would change velocity. This doesn't happen. Photos will only accelerate perpendicular to their path of travel, thus leaving their velocity (the speed of light) constant.

Regarding time. It is, in general, not disputed that time exists. The thing that is, occasionally, debated is which direction time is really travelling in. Of course, we perceive it one way, but that doesn't mean that it can't be travelling the other. The one thing that clearly shows a true direction to time is entropy. But it could be argued (and I have heard it done) that we're looking at the third law of thermodynamics backwards. However, in my opinion, these debates are really useless, as we do perceive it travelling in a particular direction.

Also, it is not just gravity that cause time dialation. It is any accelerated reference frame. Whether that acceleration is due to a gravitional field, an EM field, or just a rocket strapped to your backside. If you're going to argue that the graviton can't exist because of the connection between gravity and time, then you also have to argue that the photon doesn't exist either. And who knows what other implications would have to fall out of that...

Anyway, this concludes my lecture on physics for this evening. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.... ;)

[etrange]

the best theory so far z.p.f.
you should also look up black light power for fun.

[Doctor Q]

I love listening to you guys talk about this stuff. It helps my general understanding and is so interesting. With no training to give me any authority or credibility, I think that the Big Bang theory is correct, in the sense that the universe is expanding away from having all its mass at a single point along the negative time axis as we perceive it, but my gut feeling tells me that there was no "special moment in time". I prefer to think that time "slows down" or that the beginning of time "moves away" as you travel along the negative time axis. That way the Big Bang was not a moment to which you could assign a real number on the time axis, but instead a limit, negative infinity. You may tease me for having no idea what I'm talking about, but I'll be happy to listen anyway!

By the way, I think the Big Crunch is a good name for a candy bar.

[jxyama]

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-Durandal7, mischief

Here's an interesting tidbit. Before CERN had to shut down to begin construction of the Super Hadron, they found the trail of what they believe was the Higgs Boson.

Unfortunately, they had to shut down only days later before thay could prepare the next shot. So until the Super Hadron, the Fermilab Pea-Shooter has to make do filling in little components.

What this means? Well, they are on the right path to proving or disproving the the existenc of the Higgs Boson - and that, will be newsworthy.

sorry to bring back an old topic, but it was my roommate and i (and some others) who saw a part of the "trace" of Higgs you are talking about. kinda funny, didn't think to find Higgs being discussed here...

btw, CERN will find Higgs once LHC - Large Hadron Collider is finished, probably around 2006/7.

if Higgs isn't found, it will take some miraculous genius - ten times the genius of Peter Higgs - to patch up the Standard Model so it can explain mass generation while retaining all of SM's electroweak interaction predictions, which are correct to astonishing degrees.

[jxyama]

it's been a while since i've had to think about this, but probably some might find the history of relativity interesting...

before einstein, we used newton's equations for the explanation of gravitational phenomena and maxwell's equations for electromagnetic phenomena.

maxwell's equations are actually a set of differential equations and you can solve it. the result being an electromagetic wave that travels at some definite speed - from measurements of electric and magnetic force propergation coefficients (permittivity and permeability of vacuum) - it yields the speed of light. (notice this speed was calculated indep. of the actual measurement of the speed of light.)

einstein noticed that the maxwell's equations are indep. of the frame of reference, meaning this EM wave moves at the speed of light in any reference frame. newton's law was not frame independent. so einstein had two choices:

1) throw away the maxwell's equations and keep newton's law

2) throw away the newton's law and keep maxwell's equations

while many others were trying to come up with an alternate maxwell's equations, believing #1 to be the case, einstein decided to throw away the old trusty newton and pursue #2. the result is the special theory of relativity... from which comes the famous rest mass-energy equation, e = mc^2...

i'm sure there are holes in my explanation, but einstein didn't just come up with e=mc^2. there were ample evidence for any other bright scientists to piece them together and come up with the special theory of relativity - einstein's brilliance lies in the fact he had enough conviction and self-belief to actually piece them together.

[Durandal7]

Originally posted by jxyama
i'm sure there are holes in my explanation, but einstein didn't just come up with e=mc^2. there were ample evidence for any other bright scientists to piece them together and come up with the special theory of relativity - einstein's brilliance lies in the fact he had enough conviction and self-belief to actually piece them together.
I believe you, especially in light of having seen this Einstein quote a while back:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by jxyama
LHC - Large Hadron Collider is finished, probably around 2006/7.

-jxyama

Large Hadron. Oopsy. My bad. :D

[mischief]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
If the Higgs Boson isn't found, then it will effectively destroy the Standard Model of Elementary Particles. Now, this is not something to just shrug at, as it would set Physics back about 50 years. Also, the Standard model happens to be one of the most verified theories in all of science.



It will be found. Not because it will really be what those who discover it will believe it is, but because there are a nearly infinite number of possible paths generatable by high-speed collisions and if they don't call one of them a Higgs Boson, they're screwed and they know it.

The sheer complexity of the Infinitessimal -Particulate class of models is evidence of a fundamental flaw at it's core. Every other branch of science has worked towards simplicity and elegance. No other branch of science has worked so hard to keep so cumbersome a core theory without fundamental re-evaluation.

Einstein's brilliance was not in tossing out Newton but in adapting Newton to create a workable "close-enough" theory to explain all the new Data without tossing out the popular Grecian model of the particulate Atom. Einstein realized that if he couldn't adapt the Particle model to observed high-energy effects, all of theoretical physics since Plutarch would need to be overhauled. At the time there was no instrument available to do massive enough calculations or fine enough observations to shoot holes in his theory... just enough to put Maxwell and Newton at odds.

As the years have gone by since Einstein Physics has fallen into the mire of Academia, where innovation is dangerous and Thesis projects must conform to the beliefs of the Instructor. We're no longer discovering physics, we're serving it re-heated with new Garnishes.

BTW: Higher Mathematics is too flexible to be considered verification unto itself.Observation of Nature, NOT COLLIDERS is the only real verification. I can bash marbles into each other all day in a tube and guess what glass is based on which way the fragments spin but will I know what Silicon is by sunset? I think not.:rolleyes:

[mischief]

If: E=MC^2

Than:

E/M=C^2

(Square Root)E/M=C

E/(C^2)=M

[(Square Root)E]/C=M

Gets silly fast don't it?:p

The equation only works for energetic units that travel at the speed of light and assumes that that speed is both constant and unatainably high except to a special sub-class of particle with no mass other than that emparted by velocity. This implies that if the velocity of such a particle falls even slightly below that velocity, it would cease to exist. The bitch of such an assertion is that it can't be used for anything other than that special class of particles and can't be disproven due to our level of technology and planet-bound status.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by mischief
It will be found. Not because it will really be what those who discover it will believe it is, but because there are a nearly infinite number of possible paths generatable by high-speed collisions and if they don't call one of them a Higgs Boson, they're screwed and they know it.

It's not as simple as that. For them to call a produced particle the Higgs it has to obey the predicted behavior of the Higgs. If there is no such thing as the Higgs, then it is quite likely that they won't find it, and what they thought was the Higgs at LEP was, in fact, another particle that simply looked somewhat similar with the initial data.

The sheer complexity of the Infinitessimal -Particulate class of models is evidence of a fundamental flaw at it's core. Every other branch of science has worked towards simplicity and elegance. No other branch of science has worked so hard to keep so cumbersome a core theory without fundamental re-evaluation.

For what it's worth, I think that the Standard model is actually one of the simplest and most elegent theories around. And it has been re-evaluated, but it's stood up to the test. As I said in an earlier post, it is regarded as one of, if not the most confirmed theory in all of science. It's hardly a matter of it being falsely supported...

Einstein's brilliance was not in tossing out Newton but in adapting Newton to create a workable "close-enough" theory to explain all the new Data without tossing out the popular Grecian model of the particulate Atom. Einstein realized that if he couldn't adapt the Particle model to observed high-energy effects, all of theoretical physics since Plutarch would need to be overhauled. At the time there was no instrument available to do massive enough calculations or fine enough observations to shoot holes in his theory... just enough to put Maxwell and Newton at odds.

As the years have gone by since Einstein Physics has fallen into the mire of Academia, where innovation is dangerous and Thesis projects must conform to the beliefs of the Instructor. We're no longer discovering physics, we're serving it re-heated with new Garnishes.

Uh, just where do you think that Einstein did his research? Do you think that Fermi, Feynman, Lorentz, and Dirac (to name a few) worked independently of academia? Check your facts before you go off half cocked...

That said, it's always been a matter of following what your advisor thinks is a good research path. It's after you get out and on your own (usually still in an academic environment) that you can freely choose your own research...

BTW: Higher Mathematics is too flexible to be considered verification unto itself.Observation of Nature, NOT COLLIDERS is the only real verification. I can bash marbles into each other all day in a tube and guess what glass is based on which way the fragments spin but will I know what Silicon is by sunset? I think not.:rolleyes:

Um... What do you think that watching colliders is, if not observing nature? If we didn't observe colliders the quark model would not have been developed and so widely confirmed. We'd be left with the Hadrons/Mesons model, and if you think that the Standard Model is too complex, I'd hate to know what you would say about the Hadrons/Mesons model if we didn't have a theory of a level below it.

Now, I'm not saying that the Standard Model is the be-all and end-all of elementary particles. Personally, I'm fond of the preon idea (it's not really a model yet, as the best models still have rather gaping holes in them), but unfortunately it's fallen out of favor in the current physics community.

P.S. You'd be closer to understanding the properties of silicon than you would have been if you just sat and stared at the marbles...

Originally posted by mischief
If: E=MC^2

Than:

E/M=C^2

(Square Root)E/M=C

E/(C^2)=M

[(Square Root)E]/C=M

Gets silly fast don't it?:p

Not really, if you know what you're talking about. By the way, you should be more careful with your math. At least one of those statements is completely false.

The equation only works for energetic units that travel at the speed of light and assumes that that speed is both constant and unatainably high except to a special sub-class of particle with no mass other than that emparted by velocity. This implies that if the velocity of such a particle falls even slightly below that velocity, it would cease to exist. The bitch of such an assertion is that it can't be used for anything other than that special class of particles and can't be disproven due to our level of technology and planet-bound status.

Now we enter into the realm of bad science again. It has nothing to do with "energic units that travel". In fact, the equation
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~wathen/images/emc2.jpg
has nothing to do with particles moving at the speed of light. It actually has to do with particles that are not moving at all! It represent the amount of energy that is present in the mere existence of something with mass m. Now, as soon as that mass starts moving, you introduce a velocity term that comes in as
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~wathen/images/egmc2.jpg

As you can see, unless v is an appreciable fraction of the speed of light (c) this is effectively still the same as the previous equation. That's why that's the one bandied about most often. (It also has to do with nuclear mass-to-energy issues, which is how most people come into the most direct contact with this material.) However, we're still dealing with a massive particle traveling at less than the speed of light. What would happen if we were to take this particle up to the speed of light? Then the denominator would go to zero, and, thus, the energy would go to infinity... Unless, the numerator went to zero as well. Thus, only a particle with mass zero can travel at the speed of light without needing an infinite amount of energy to do so.

Now, note that this doesn't say that such particles massless couldn't travel at less than the speed of light, but if they did they'd have no energy. So, if the energy of a massless particle traveling at the speed of light is zero divided by zero, what does that mean? Well, in fact, it means that it can be anything. The energy of a massless particle is, in fact, given by
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~wathen/images/ehw.jpg

Here's an interesting tidbit, as food for thought...

The theory of relativity doesn't forbid the existence of particles that move faster than the speed of light. It simply forbids that any particles can ever cross the speed of light boundary. (i.e. if you're going slower than light, you'll always go slower than light, if you're going faster than light, you'll always go faster than light.)

So, while faster than light particles are allowed, they can't interact with slower than light particles at all. The one catch to all of this is that they can interact with lightspeed particles, just as slower than light particles can. So, in theory, it should be possible to "see" light reflected off of faster than light particles.

(There are some physicists who are doing research in this area, but they are regarded as 'black sheep'...) Interesting stuff, if you ask me...

[jxyama]

mischief - i'll tell you this... having done my thesis in the area.

collider events are not as "artificial" as you think. the Standard Model has had so much success in explaining electroweak interactions (some of it's predictions have been confirmed to astonishing degrees - some down to one part in 10^6, maybe better, can't remember exactly) that it's practically impossible to "just label some event as Higgs." you cannot do this because by using Monte Carlo and computers, you can practically predict every single type of event that should come out of the collider events. only time this breaks down is when statistics isn't high enough. such was the case with the "glimpse" of Higgs we saw at CERN/LEP back in 2000.

however, Higgs model is also well established in many different forms - Standard Model, Supersymmetric Model, etc. - and they too can be accurately modeled by Monte Carlo, even if they haven't been "found" yet. and I can assure you that scientists are very dilligent and skeptical enough to carefully cover many possible scenarios - including those not exactly foreseen. Higgs hunt is not as simple as "here's something we haven't seen, it must be Higgs." in fact, it's exactly the other way around: "here's something that defies everything we've seen before and fits nothing but the predicted Higgs model. let's see if we can find more proof."

calling collider experiments "artificial" is like calling laboratory car crash testing "artificial." would you not believe crash test dummy results because it was not a "natural" crash that occurs on the actual road?

i do not know your background, but having invested considerable time of my life on this very topic, i'm slightly offended. i'd appreciate a little more thought before you dismiss things i believe you don't know enough of the details.

snowy_river: thanks for your explanation. that's about what i was going to say about the silly manipulation/misinterpretation of the equation.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by jxyama
snowy_river: thanks for your explanation. that's about what i was going to say about the silly manipulation/misinterpretation of the equation.

My pleasure. It's nice to see other physicists around. Maybe between us we can help to eliminate some of the bad science that seems to be around here...

[mischief]

Okay boys: Here's my dilemma...

I have a piece of Fiction to write. It involves the need to do things with mass, velocity and energy that require a more elegant model than any I am aware of to explain the fundamentals of physics... not on a tremendously small scale, but on a tremendously large one.

My frustration and exhasperation on the issue of subatomic particle physics is mainly due to the seeming lack of a good, simple way of expressing both the way the "pieces" fit together and their significance. I need a good basis for things like near-light and Dune- style Fold systems. These are essential to the concept of a functioning, multi- star-system civilization.

I acknowledge that the present model is the most exhaustively tested. It just strikes me as confoundingly obtuse and too cumbersome to glean practical technology from. Is physics no closer to it's Unicorn of the Unified Field? Is there no way of reducing this the way other mathematics can be to be used by machinists, mechaniics and Carpenters? Is the Future to be understood only by AI's designed specifically to be the Heisenberg Oracle?

Basically I'm frustrated with this seeming obsession with ever more bizarre and minute (not to mention painfully short-lived) particles when there seems to be no application in sight. The energy needed to simply prove the existence of such particles is so emmense that the concept of using them for anything outside those tests is ludicrous.

I suppose it comes down to this: In all this design-theory (so to speak); What's the product?

A Crash-test tests not the dummy but the safety of known quantities. Moreover, with CAD the testing of the physical cars has become nearly an archaic ritual for the Fed. Yet this is all still a very small part of a much larger apparatus that produces both millions of useful products (cars) and makes a very small dent in the proffits of a very large industry.

Einstein benefitted from Academia in the same way as other equally brilliant men and women did: as a point of reference and feedback. The most significant changes in science have always come from the fringes.

Without those who had the courage to speak out beyond the paths set for them by society, be those paths set by scholars, the Catholic church or by the pressure of "common knowledge" where would we be?

Nearly all the minds who have shaped the history of science were Martyrs and Pariahs in the years of their influence and yet they form the base upon which you stand.

You speak of "Bad Science" as if it where an invocation to dispel evil spirits. I did not speak of Kirlian Photography or any other truly questionable pseudo-science; I questioned your basic preconceptions. Questioning is the basis of science. Assumptions are a neccesary evil of science that must be constantly questioned to affirm their validity.

I acknowledge that my manipulations were haphazard.;)

I acknowledge your specializations.:)

Now, please answer my questions:

Is there a simple and essentially elegant model that can cover enough ground to describe a practical application to the above problems that does not intail an inexplicable energy source or widget?

Is there an elegant and visual description of how all these things interact that won't require a Physics thesaurus the size of a Mack Truck to comprehend?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mischief
Is there a simple and essentially elegant model that can cover enough ground to describe a practical application to the above problems that does not intail an inexplicable energy source or widget?

Is there an elegant and visual description of how all these things interact that won't require a Physics thesaurus the size of a Mack Truck to comprehend?

I'm probably not the one to listen to but with my limited knowledge you have in a way answered your own question. You question why they science is fascinated with ever smaller particles but at the same time you ask if there is a model that doesn't require an inexplicable energy source. Do you see the connection here? Scientists are trying to discover where all the hidden mass is in the universe. The current models of the Universe only works if we can find either a hidden source of mass or a hidden energy source. The current theories are pretty sound but to confirm them they have to continue the research into sub-atomic particles as that is where most believe the hidden mass or energy is.

If I'm incorrect in this line of thought and someone knows this for sure please feel free to point out my mistake and correct me or I shall continue to travel through life with and incorrect perception leading people of knowledge to think I'm an idiot.:rolleyes:

[mischief]

Originally posted by MacBandit
I'm probably not the one to listen to but with my limited knowledge you have in a way answered your own question. You question why they science is fascinated with ever smaller particles but at the same time you ask if there is a model that doesn't require an inexplicable energy source. Do you see the connection here? Scientists are trying to discover where all the hidden mass is in the universe. The current models of the Universe only works if we can find either a hidden source of mass or a hidden energy source. The current theories are pretty sound but to confirm them they have to continue the research into sub-atomic particles as that is where most believe the hidden mass or energy is.

If I'm incorrect in this line of thought and someone knows this for sure please feel free to point out my mistake and correct me or I shall continue to travel through life with and incorrect perception leading people of knowledge to think I'm an idiot.:rolleyes:

So, in essence my instinct is accurate to the situation reguardless of whether it would be deemed "correct" by those in the field. I'm just going to have to do what other Sci-Fi writers before me have done and build my own model to fit what I need as the conventional model of the moment has no practical application outside the efforts of those who have dedicated their lives to subatomic particles and special relativity.

BTW: I have to thank the member who posted that GIF image of the second equation from E=MC^2, as I hadn't seen it before and it does a better job of describing the hyperbolic nature of the equation as a threshold rather than a function. I was working under the assumption that such a simple equation was used as one would use the Ohm/Amp/ Freq equation. I will work with that in mind.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by mischief
Okay boys: Here's my dilemma...

I have a piece of Fiction to write. It involves the need to do things with mass, velocity and energy that require a more elegant model than any I am aware of to explain the fundamentals of physics... not on a tremendously small scale, but on a tremendously large one.

My frustration and exhasperation on the issue of subatomic particle physics is mainly due to the seeming lack of a good, simple way of expressing both the way the "pieces" fit together and their significance. I need a good basis for things like near-light and Dune- style Fold systems. These are essential to the concept of a functioning, multi- star-system civilization.

It sounds like you're looking for the next generation of physics, which is something that no one can comment on. I've heard it observed that every so often physics seems like it's left with nothing to do but fill in the details... then suddenly everything changes and we get a new generation of physics. Quantum theory was like that. And, it seems that we are again entering into an age of 'just filling in the details', so we may well see a new generation of physics before long. However, by definition, no one knows right now exactly what that will look like.

Who knows, maybe it'll come from people who study things like tacheons. The misfits of physics, if you will.

I acknowledge that the present model is the most exhaustively tested. It just strikes me as confoundingly obtuse and too cumbersome to glean practical technology from. Is physics no closer to it's Unicorn of the Unified Field? Is there no way of reducing this the way other mathematics can be to be used by machinists, mechaniics and Carpenters? Is the Future to be understood only by AI's designed specifically to be the Heisenberg Oracle?

Of course. Truly, machinists, mechanics and Carpenters use what are, effectively, approximation methods to get 'close enough' for what they need. Engineers do the same thing. For that matter, out of necessity, so do physicists, frequently, because they're dealing with mathematical equations that have no solutions.

So, the more we learn, the better the approximations the engineers, machinists and mechanics can use to create new technologies.

Basically I'm frustrated with this seeming obsession with ever more bizarre and minute (not to mention painfully short-lived) particles when there seems to be no application in sight. The energy needed to simply prove the existence of such particles is so emmense that the concept of using them for anything outside those tests is ludicrous.

I suppose it comes down to this: In all this design-theory (so to speak); What's the product?

Simply put: knowledge.

And that's nothing to neglect. The final product in true scientific research is never (or, at least, rarely) evident at the time that the research is being done. Sometimes the best application of the knowledge gained doesn't come for decades. So, looking for a final product today is inappropriate in a pure science.

...
Without those who had the courage to speak out beyond the paths set for them by society, be those paths set by scholars, the Catholic church or by the pressure of "common knowledge" where would we be?

Agreed. We always need the rebels. They help push the rest who aren't as courageous into the truth...

Nearly all the minds who have shaped the history of science were Martyrs and Pariahs in the years of their influence and yet they form the base upon which you stand.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Yes, there have been quite a few that have been met with resistence to the point of martyrdom, but I would say that there have also been an incredible number that have been hailed as geniuses in their own time.

You speak of "Bad Science" as if it where an invocation to dispel evil spirits. I did not speak of Kirlian Photography or any other truly questionable pseudo-science; I questioned your basic preconceptions. Questioning is the basis of science. Assumptions are a neccesary evil of science that must be constantly questioned to affirm their validity.

My reference to 'bad science' was in reference to your fundamental misunderstanding of some aspects of physics. It had nothing to do with your bringing up a pseudo-science (which is a whole other kind of bad science).

Is there a simple and essentially elegant model that can cover enough ground to describe a practical application to the above problems that does not intail an inexplicable energy source or widget?

Is there an elegant and visual description of how all these things interact that won't require a Physics thesaurus the size of a Mack Truck to comprehend?

I'm not clear on what the 'above problems' are...

FWIW, I'm sure that it can be explained in a very simple method. Dr. Richard Feynmann was outstanding at writing things in such a way. So is Dr. Stephen Hawking. So, it can be done, it's just a matter of knowing how to do it.

Originally posted by mischief
...
I'm just going to have to do what other Sci-Fi writers before me have done and build my own model to fit what I need as the conventional model of the moment has no practical application outside the efforts of those who have dedicated their lives to subatomic particles and special relativity.

This is, essentially, what I was going to recommend from the moment that you wrote "I have a piece of Fiction to write." Given your level of understanding (and I intend no offense by this comment) of physics, I'd suggest that you just let your mind have some fun within the universe that you create. If you really want to tie it a little closer to the "Real World", and the physics that we know today, then I'd recommend you get a science editor to tell you when things that you've written are 'against the rules'.

(However, for what it's worth, there are plenty of SciFi novels, movies and TV shows that break the laws of physics left and right. So, it wouldn't be a mortal blow to your work to have a bit of 'bad science' in it... ;) )

BTW: I have to thank the member who posted that GIF image of the second equation from E=MC^2, as I hadn't seen it before and it does a better job of describing the hyperbolic nature of the equation as a threshold rather than a function. I was working under the assumption that such a simple equation was used as one would use the Ohm/Amp/ Freq equation. I will work with that in mind.

You're welcome. I've enjoyed this thread. I'd be happy to offer you any pointers in your explorations of physics that you'd like. Indeed, if you'd like a science editor, I might be available to offer my services as such...