Hadron Collider back online
Cliff
Martin H. Eastburn
Yes - call some back from home when the machine booted and ran like it
should and skipped pages of checkout and get working pages.
Looks good and only a year behind schedule.
Martin
Cliff wrote:
> http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2253714/hadron-collider-back-online
Ed Huntress
"Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:dO1Om.258650$Jp1.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_sc/eu_sci_big_bang_machine
>
> Yes - call some back from home when the machine booted and ran like it
> should and skipped pages of checkout and get working pages.
>
> Looks good and only a year behind schedule.
> Martin
OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs boson?
I'm saying "no way." <g>
--
Ed Huntress
RLEWISA1
> OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding
>the bets on the Higgs boson? I'm saying "no way."
<g>
as I understand it higgs bosin may be that which gives
matter mass . I'm an avid sci-fi reader, one series of
books THE LENSMEN by EE Doc Smith
had as its space drive , inertia less drive . when
activated your craft had zero mass so could attain
translight speeds with ridiculously tiny amounts of
thrust . if there's anything to gain from the colossal
amounts of moneys applied to this venture I hope
its something like this . or maybe like star trek
where your manufacturing processes are computer
model spec the metal or what ever and hahah
shazam there's your part .
Ed Huntress
"RLEWISA1" <rlew...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:MN2Om.16425$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
<g> Well, I don't know about sci-fi. I just read _The Trouble With Physics_,
by Lee Smolin, so I'm just being a wiseguy because what I learned from
Smolin is that I have no clue at all. d8-)
The lack of knowledge about the nature of the Higgs boson (or its very
existence, for that matter) is something that has more or less stalled the
progress of physics for 30 years. This is going to be a very big deal, one
way or the other.
Oh, and it's not really one way or the other. It can be one of several
hundred ways, many of which have names that I couldn't possibly remember.
It may be a bumpy ride.
--
Ed Huntress
Tim Wescott
> http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2253714/hadron-collider-back-online
http://hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/
http://www.hasthelhcdestroyedtheearth.com/
And here's a web-cam feed! http://www.lhcfeed.com/
ignator
> "RLEWISA1" <rlewi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
I think the trouble with physics is that every student is taught about
the Michelson/Morley experiment. This is where in 1887 these
physicists performed an experiment where they could not measure the
relative motion in ether, hence disproving the idea. Well once you
teach this paradigm lock to every student, you prevent any ideas
moving forward. If you read anything about this idea historically
it's used to describe light propagating through the "vacuum" of
space. And all other "solid" matter would move through space as if
this ether was "water" and flow around. The missing link in my
thinking is EVERYTHING propagates through this ether. With the idea,
you can explain the speed of light as a limitation, and gravity. Now
they are trying to explain "dark matter". I think they are lost, and
have to create a particle for every unexplained phenomenon that is
observed, hence a graviton.
ignator
I'm not a theoretical physicist, but sure would like it if everything
made logical and intuitive sense.
Andrew VK3BFA
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lionsl...@consolidated.net> wrote in messagenews:dO1Om.258650$Jp1.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_sc/eu_sci_big_bang_machine
>
> > Yes - call some back from home when the machine booted and ran like it
> > should and skipped pages of checkout and get working pages.
>
> > Looks good and only a year behind schedule.
> > Martin
>
> OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs boson?
> I'm saying "no way." <g>
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Hey, thats metaphysics Ed - or may as well be for most of us. ......I
shall go back to trying to figure out how to become competent in using
manually operated machine tools - just came across a design for a
cavity amplifier for 23cm that I "should" be able to machine up......
(depends on what the scrapyard has in stock...)
A General Question to the group - its said that Stephen Hawkings books
hold the record for the most bought but unread books of all time - is
there anyone here who can understand them, and give a A4 sized
summary?
Andrew VK3BFA.
BottleBob
> Now
> they are trying to explain "dark matter". I think they are lost, and
> have to create a particle for every unexplained phenomenon that is
> observed, hence a graviton.
Ignator:
Coincidentally, the December issue of Scientific American touches on
the "hypothesis" of dark matter.
The article is titled "Splitting Time from Space", some excerpts follow:
==================================================================
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space
Buzz about a quantum gravity theory that sends space and time back to
their Newtonian roots
Was Newton right and Einstein wrong? It seems that unzipping the
fabric of spacetime and harking back to 19th-century notions of time
could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.
Try and work out the gravitational force between two objects in terms
of a quantum graviton, however, and you quickly run into trouble�the
answer to every calculation is infinity. But now Petr HoYava, a
physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, thinks he
understands the problem. It�s all, he says, a matter of time.
The solution, HoYava says, is to snip threads that bind time to space
at very high energies, such as those found in the early universe where
quantum gravity rules. �I�m going back to Newton�s idea that time and
space are not equivalent,� HoYava says. At low energies, general
relativity emerges from this underlying framework, and the fabric of
spacetime restitches, he explains.
HoYava�s theory has been generating excitement since he proposed it in
January, and physicists met to discuss it at a meeting in November at
the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario.
In particular, physicists have been checking if the model correctly
describes the universe we see today.
==================================================================
> I'm not a theoretical physicist, but sure would like it if everything
> made logical and intuitive sense.
I think you may be disappointed there. The quantum world seems to be
full of NON-intuitive processes. Wave/particle duality, Quantum
tunneling, entangled particles, creation of matter from vacuum (Zero
Point Energy), and other "jewels" found in Schr�dinger�s Catbox.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Jim Wilkins
> ignator wrote:
> ...
> > I'm not a theoretical physicist, but sure would like it if everything
> > made logical and intuitive sense.
> --
> BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics, [God] doesn't play dice
with the Universe.
jsw
Ed Huntress
"Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
news:fe80643d-8056-4dd5...@z3g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
I'll be watching for a response to your question, Andrew. This ought to be
rich. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Tim Wescott
So you should be able to find them pretty easy.
I can't give a good capsule summary, but "A Brief History of Time" was a
good read -- no math (except for E = mc^2), all the descriptions in
English with pretty pictures for the reading-impaired.
Don't buy any of his works for fellow physicists -- I think you'll find
more math in there, and more opaque math at that.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Then do not study string theory.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
I've read a lot of Hawkins books and find them quite comprehensible but
do not ask for a short summary, that is impossible. Stephens books, like
Dawkins, require chapters of preparation so that the reader has some
basic knowledge before introducing increasingly heavy topics.
Curly Surmudgeon
Why? Hawkins is quite readable. Or are you alluding to the one page
summary?
Too_Many_Tools
wrote:
> http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2253714/hadron-collider-back-online
I bet it would make a great welder!
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lionsl...@consolidated.net> wrote in messagenews:dO1Om.258650$Jp1.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_sc/eu_sci_big_bang_machine
>
> > Yes - call some back from home when the machine booted and ran like it
> > should and skipped pages of checkout and get working pages.
>
> > Looks good and only a year behind schedule.
> > Martin
>
> OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs boson?
> I'm saying "no way." <g>
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
LOL...now Ed with that kind of thinking you will never win the Nobel
Prize.
Remember...this is the Age of Hope and Change. ;<)
TMT
Ed Huntress
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hec02s$nat$3...@news.eternal-september.org...
The summary.
It's like the old MAD magazine attempt at ever-more-compressed Reader's
Digest versions of _Gone With the Wind_. The final condensation boiled it
down to one word:
"BANG!"
--
Ed Huntress
Too_Many_Tools
I think Sarah Palin's book will challenge that record. ;<)
TMT
Curly Surmudgeon
Is the last half blank?
Curly Surmudgeon
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs boson?
I'll take a small bet at even money. There are better brains than you or
I postulating the existence. Granted we don't have a viable TOE yet but
the Higgs Boson fits the KISS theory.
BottleBob
> - is there anyone here who can understand them, and give a A4 sized
> summary?
Andrew:
A summary, eh? Sure thing. I think Wheeler coined this phrase:
"Black Holes Have No Hair".
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Too_Many_Tools
> 2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
>
> - Show quoted text -
No but Sarah's book comes with crayons...all red.
TMT
Joseph Gwinn
BottleBob <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Andrew VK3BFA wrote:
>
> > - is there anyone here who can understand them, and give a A4 sized
> > summary?
>
> Andrew:
>
> A summary, eh? Sure thing. I think Wheeler coined this phrase:
> "Black Holes Have No Hair".
It may have been Richard Feynman. At least I read the phrase in one of
his books, but don't recall if he in turn credited Wheeler.
Joe Gwinn
BottleBob
> BottleBob <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I think Wheeler coined this phrase:
>> "Black Holes Have No Hair".
>
> It may have been Richard Feynman. At least I read the phrase in one of
> his books, but don't recall if he in turn credited Wheeler.
JG:
Well, let me go check something.
==============================================================
In my copy of Stephen Hawking's book "The Universe in a Nutshell" on
page 112 it says about John Wheeler: "In 1960 he coined the term 'black
hole'... Inspired by the work of Werner Israel, he conjectured the
black holes have no hair, which meant that the collapsed state of any
nonrotating massive star could in fact be described by Schwarzschild's
solution.
==============================================================
==============================================================
And from my copy of "Black Holes and Timewarps" by Kip Thorne on page
271. "Seven years later, as this conjecture was gradually turning out
to be correct, John Wheeler invented a pithy phrase to describe it: *A
black hole has no hair* - the hair being anything that might stick out
of the hole to reveal the detains of the star from which it was formed.
==============================================================
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
Joseph Gwinn
BottleBob <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Joseph Gwinn wrote:
>
> > BottleBob <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> I think Wheeler coined this phrase:
> >> "Black Holes Have No Hair".
> >
> > It may have been Richard Feynman. At least I read the phrase in one of
> > his books, but don't recall if he in turn credited Wheeler.
>
> JG:
>
> Well, let me go check something.
>
> ==============================================================
> In my copy of Stephen Hawking's book "The Universe in a Nutshell" on
> page 112 it says about John Wheeler: "In 1960 he coined the term 'black
> hole'... Inspired by the work of Werner Israel, he conjectured the
> black holes have no hair, which meant that the collapsed state of any
> nonrotating massive star could in fact be described by Schwarzschild's
> solution.
> ==============================================================
>
> ==============================================================
> And from my copy of "Black Holes and Timewarps" by Kip Thorne on page
> 271. "Seven years later, as this conjecture was gradually turning out
> to be correct, John Wheeler invented a pithy phrase to describe it: *A
> black hole has no hair* - the hair being anything that might stick out
> of the hole to reveal the details of the star from which it was formed.
> ==============================================================
So it was Wheeler then.
I recall the phrase in the middle of a discussion about the topology of
some kinds of fields, where another memory phrase came up: "You cannot
comb the hair on a sphere." What this meant was that there would always
be a singularity, where the vector field (the vectors being the hair)
either converged or diverged. By contrast, the hair on a torus can be
combed.
Joe Gwinn
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:34:56 -0800, Too_Many_Tools
>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 22, 4:59 am, Andrew VK3BFA <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote:
>
>>>> A General Question to the group - its said that Stephen Hawkings
>>>> books hold the record for the most bought but unread books of all
>>>> time - is there anyone here who can understand them, and give a A4
>>>> sized summary?
>>>
>>> I think Sarah Palin's book will challenge that record. ;<)
>>
>>Is the last half blank?
>
> Why aren't you chiding TMT for changing the topic?
Because I'm human and sometimes get caught up in the nonsense. And I
consider a Palin book an exercise in nonsense.
Strabo
> On Nov 21, 10:43 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "RLEWISA1" <rlewi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
It does.
Jeff R.
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:T7lOm.56333$rE5....@newsfe08.iad...
What was there before the big bang?
Logically and intuitively, please.
--
Jeff R.
(many thanks)
William Wixon
"Jeff R." <em...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:4b09e292$0$13769$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
the remnants of previous big bangs, the burned out cinders of previous big
bangs, what we call "dark matter". when they describe the results of the
big bang they try to explain why it didn't expand homogeneously, they try to
explain why it became lumpy. it became lumpy because there was some stuff
already there in the way. and that stuff had gravity, therefore the
"inflation" (was being drawn out instead of exploding out).
b.w.
Martin H. Eastburn
Higgs is a nice key to missing knowledge.
Martin
Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
Martin H. Eastburn
A modern book is "String Theory and M-Theory" The mathematicians have
been hard at work in physics as well as pure Physics types.
Martin
Ed Huntress wrote:
> "RLEWISA1" <rlew...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:MN2Om.16425$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
>>> OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs
>>> boson? I'm saying "no way."
>> <g>
>>
>>
>> as I understand it higgs bosin may be that which gives
>> matter mass . I'm an avid sci-fi reader, one series of
>> books THE LENSMEN by EE Doc Smith
>> had as its space drive , inertia less drive . when activated your craft
>> had zero mass so could attain
>> translight speeds with ridiculously tiny amounts of
>> thrust . if there's anything to gain from the colossal
>> amounts of moneys applied to this venture I hope
>> its something like this . or maybe like star trek
>> where your manufacturing processes are computer
>> model spec the metal or what ever and hahah
>> shazam there's your part .
>
> <g> Well, I don't know about sci-fi. I just read _The Trouble With Physics_,
> by Lee Smolin, so I'm just being a wiseguy because what I learned from
> Smolin is that I have no clue at all. d8-)
>
Martin H. Eastburn
Ed Huntress
>I say without a doubt. I've looked at the equations and diagrams.
> Higgs is a nice key to missing knowledge.
> Martin
It's one of those neat answers, right? Too neat. Nothing is that neat in
particle physics, at least since the 1970s.
Now, I should point out that I am absolutely clueless about the real
likelihoods here, but I figure what the hell, nobody else knows the answer,
either. <g>
--
Ed Huntress
Ed Huntress
> Physics hasn't been stalled - there is a lot of things to look into.
> A modern book is "String Theory and M-Theory" The mathematicians have
> been hard at work in physics as well as pure Physics types.
>
> Martin
Yeah, they've been busy as little bees. But they're no closer to any
significant answer than they were 30 years ago, says Smolin and his
supporters.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
I've always wondered if that wasn't the case.
And if we couldn't some day determine the number of prior cycles based on
the amount of dark matter.
It all depends on there being enough gravitational attraction to have all matter
return to the source. Enough matter to matter?
Richard
cavelamb
Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
Andrew VK3BFA
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lionsl...@consolidated.net> wrote in messagenews:EKmOm.15$Td3...@en-nntp-01.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> > Physics hasn't been stalled - there is a lot of things to look into.
> > A modern book is "String Theory and M-Theory" The mathematicians have
> > been hard at work in physics as well as pure Physics types.
>
> > Martin
>
> Yeah, they've been busy as little bees. But they're no closer to any
> significant answer than they were 30 years ago, says Smolin and his
> supporters.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
>
>
>
> > Ed Huntress wrote:
Well Ed, you were right in the replies to my query re Hawking being
interested - I had no idea there were so many nuclear physicists and
Maths PHD's who inhabit this group and do metalworking in between
working on how the universe works. does it balance out the wingers and
nutters?
I my country of OZ, the ability to bullshit in a convincing manner is
highly esteemed, we dont do it to Americans much these days
because...well...its no challenge. Why, a whole nation that falls for
the "War on Terror" scam is just too easy to set up, and its weird
given the demonstrated number of people here who can explain complex
nuclear theory...
Someone once said
"If you cant explain a proposition on one side of a sheet of A4 paper,
then your talking crap.."
Andrew VK3BFA.
(school tomorrow, left and right hand screw cutting exercise to
complete before the end of term, which is next Tuesday.)
Cliff
>
>"Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
>news:dO1Om.258650$Jp1.1...@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_sc/eu_sci_big_bang_machine
>>
>> Yes - call some back from home when the machine booted and ran like it
>> should and skipped pages of checkout and get working pages.
>>
>> Looks good and only a year behind schedule.
>> Martin
>
>OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs boson?
>I'm saying "no way." <g>
Me too, at least in respect to many claims about it.
I'll stick with conservation laws.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>> OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding
>>the bets on the Higgs boson? I'm saying "no way."
>
><g>
>
>
>as I understand it higgs bosin may be that which gives
>matter mass .
Bound systems of photons have mass it seems.
So bound momentum does too, at least per Einstein as I read it.
So to have mass one just needs bound systems of momentum,
which also relate to "energy".
Thus mass may not be an independant varable to
account for in any way.
>I'm an avid sci-fi reader, one series of
>books THE LENSMEN by EE Doc Smith
>had as its space drive , inertia less drive . when
>activated your craft had zero mass so could attain
>translight speeds with ridiculously tiny amounts of
>thrust . if there's anything to gain from the colossal
>amounts of moneys applied to this venture I hope
>its something like this . or maybe like star trek
>where your manufacturing processes are computer
>model spec the metal or what ever and hahah
>shazam there's your part .
Violate the conservation & inverse square laws
& we probably get a universe-wide Ultraviolet Catastrophe
as quantum physics evaporates.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>On Nov 21, 10:43 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "RLEWISA1" <rlewi...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:MN2Om.16425$tz6....@newsfe02.iad...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> OK, we're back in business. Now, who's holding the bets on the Higgs
>> >> boson? I'm saying "no way."
>>
>> > <g>
>>
>> > as I understand it higgs bosin may be that which gives
>> > matter mass . I'm an avid sci-fi reader, one series of
>> > books THE LENSMEN by EE Doc Smith
>> > had as its space drive , inertia less drive . when activated your craft
>> > had zero mass so could attain
>> > translight speeds with ridiculously tiny amounts of
>> > thrust . if there's anything to gain from the colossal
>> > amounts of moneys applied to this venture I hope
>> > its something like this . or maybe like star trek
>> > where your manufacturing processes are computer
>> > model spec the metal or what ever and hahah
>> > shazam there's your part .
>>
>> <g> Well, I don't know about sci-fi. I just read _The Trouble With Physics_,
>> by Lee Smolin, so I'm just being a wiseguy because what I learned from
>> Smolin is that I have no clue at all. d8-)
>>
>> The lack of knowledge about the nature of the Higgs boson (or its very
>> existence, for that matter) is something that has more or less stalled the
>> progress of physics for 30 years. This is going to be a very big deal, one
>> way or the other.
>>
>> Oh, and it's not really one way or the other. It can be one of several
>> hundred ways, many of which have names that I couldn't possibly remember.
>>
>> It may be a bumpy ride.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress
>
>I think the trouble with physics is that every student is taught about
>the Michelson/Morley experiment. This is where in 1887 these
>physicists performed an experiment where they could not measure the
>relative motion in ether, hence disproving the idea. Well once you
>teach this paradigm lock to every student, you prevent any ideas
>moving forward. If you read anything about this idea historically
>it's used to describe light propagating through the "vacuum" of
>space.
No, thru the presumed ether.
>And all other "solid" matter would move through space as if
>this ether was "water" and flow around. The missing link in my
>thinking is EVERYTHING propagates through this ether. With the idea,
>you can explain the speed of light as a limitation, and gravity.
You need to review the Michelson-Morley experiment again
I fear.
>Now
>they are trying to explain "dark matter". I think they are lost, and
>have to create a particle for every unexplained phenomenon that is
>observed, hence a graviton.
>ignator
>I'm not a theoretical physicist, but sure would like it if everything
>made logical and intuitive sense.
To our limited perceptions & minds the universe
is just a rather strange place. Plus our "long"
history of superstitions & ignorance which
impact all perceptions.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>On Nov 22, 6:42�am, BottleBob <bottl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> ignator wrote:
>> ...
>> > I'm not a theoretical physicist, but sure would like it if everything
>> > made logical and intuitive sense.
>> ...
>> --
>> BottleBobhttp://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
>
>Einstein didn't believe in quantum mechanics, [God] doesn't play dice
>with the Universe.
"Not only does God play dice with the Universe; he sometimes casts them where
they can't be seen." - S. Hawking
But it could be that we are are a bit blind too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
The Big Chicken.
--
Cliff
Cliff
If it all sums up to zero why would there need to be anything?
--
Cliff
Ed Huntress
"Andrew VK3BFA" <VK3...@wia.org.au> wrote in message
news:c9c606ce-5580-428d...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
It's amazing, isn't it? This place has more theoretical physicists than the
Institute for Advanced Study. And they make fine additions to our faculties
of climatology and economics. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
William Wixon
> Physics hasn't been stalled - there is a lot of things to look into.
> A modern book is "String Theory and M-Theory" The mathematicians have
> been hard at work in physics as well as pure Physics types.
>
> Martin
>
i saw this cartoon in the newspaper and thought of this thread, laughed out
loud.
http://www.frontiernet.net/~wwixon/croutons.jpg
(went around in circles trying to find an on-line copy of this cartoon,
couldn't find one.)
Ed Huntress
"William Wixon" <wwi...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:B1BOm.24297$Sw5....@newsfe16.iad...
LOL!! Good one.
--
Ed Huntress
BottleBob
> It's amazing, isn't it? This place has more theoretical physicists than the
> Institute for Advanced Study.
EH:
Heh, naww I think you're putting too much on it. Machinists can often
be a curious sort, and they are just asking questions about the world
around us.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
#93
People who inquire
Are souls who aspire
Those who don't
Are dolts with a prior
Ed Huntress
"BottleBob" <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OeydnWmeXdckg5bW...@earthlink.com...
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
>> It's amazing, isn't it? This place has more theoretical physicists than
>> the Institute for Advanced Study.
>
> EH:
>
> Heh, naww I think you're putting too much on it. Machinists can often be
> a curious sort, and they are just asking questions about the world around
> us.
>
>
> --
> BottleBob
> http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
>
The questions are great. It's the ones who come up with answers who make me
do a double-take. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
BottleBob
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:06:48 -0800, "RLEWISA1" <rlew...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> as I understand it higgs bosin may be that which gives
>> matter mass .
>
> Bound systems of photons have mass it seems.
Cliff:
By "Bound Systems" of photons, do you mean matter particles?
================================================================
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Pair production refers to the creation of an elementary particle and
its antiparticle, usually from a photon (or another neutral boson).
This is allowed, provided there is enough energy available to create
the pair...
================================================================
> So bound momentum does too, at least per Einstein as I read it.
You'll have to give an example of this. It sound like saying "Stopped
Motion", which on the surface of it seems incongruent.
<snip>
> Violate the conservation & inverse square laws
> & we probably get a universe-wide Ultraviolet Catastrophe
> as quantum physics evaporates.
Our conservation laws are human mental constructs derived from
observation. Our mental conjectures are not necessarily binding on
existence itself.
=================================================================
Law of conservation of matter
A fundamental principle of classical physics that matter cannot be
created or destroyed in an isolated system
=================================================================
Now IF you had closed system, say a perfectly reflecting box filled
with equal numbers of electrons and positrons, after a short period of
time the electrons and positrons would annihilate each other into
energy. So that would be a violation of the Conservation of Matter
Law. Special Relativity kind of put a monkey wrench in that law.
Now the Conservation of Mass/Energy Law would still hold, since the
contents of the box would have the same "mass/energy" before & after
the particles annihilated themselves.
*BUT* even this LAW can seemingly be violated in certain local & short
time frames plus other instances. Vacuum fluctuations (the creation of
virtual particles), if viewed in a short enough time frame could be
considered a violation of the Conservation of Mass/Energy Law, since
they are created out of vacuum. But since the virtual particles
usually annihilate each other in short order, this violation is
overlooked.
But in Hawking radiation, where two virtual particles are created out
of the vacuum surrounding a Black Hole and where one of the particles
is drawn into the Hole and the other one escapes... it becomes a REAL
particle. Then you could interpret that as a local conservation law
violation. Even though this violation can be averaged out over the
whole universe and appear to not exist.
The Big Bang could be nothing more than a runaway vacuum fluctuation.
It could be the result of a Big Crunch from a prior Big Bang. Bang -
Crunch - Bang - Crunch and so on.
There are other possibilities, but they lay outside the realm of
physical science.
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
BottleBob
> "BottleBob" <bott...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> Heh, naww I think you're putting too much on it. Machinists can often be
>> a curious sort, and they are just asking questions about the world around
>> us.
> The questions are great. It's the ones who come up with answers who make me
> do a double-take. d8-)
EH:
Yeah, I'm with ya there. There are few absolutes, the scientific
method is a continuous never-ending process for arriving at a more and
more accurate explanation of the world around us.
Speculations-R-Us. <g>
--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob
#83
Theoretical speculations
Biased interpretations
Bogus evaluations
Are all eliminated by experimentation
Martin H. Eastburn
There are various projects and think tanks working on many things
that pose questions to man.
In fact simple old string theory is old big time and didn't work.
Super strings came closer but failed. But A merger with the string theories
and the M-theory will make ends meet. Looks very good.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
dreamed about in Atomic and Nuclear physics. One needed big big toys
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/history.html
to discover quarks and hadrons.
Martin
Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
Ed Huntress
> Wrong. Much closer on lots of things.
> There are various projects and think tanks working on many things
> that pose questions to man.
>
> In fact simple old string theory is old big time and didn't work.
> Super strings came closer but failed. But A merger with the string
> theories
> and the M-theory will make ends meet. Looks very good.
>
> Martin
OK, Martin. I just finished reading a fairly weighty book that put M-theory
into context, and I'm aware of the current developments in the algebra of
branes, but I'm certainly not going to argue it with you. For me, it would
be even nuttier than arguing about global warming. I know nothing about the
depths of climatology and I know even less about theoretical physics. And
the more I read (a fair amount for a layman) the more I realize that I don't
know. The interesting thing is that I've reached the point where it appears
that no one else knows, either. <g>
I'll just say this: There is no agreement among theoretical physicists that
they are any closer to solving the problem of quantum gravity than they were
30 years ago; nor are they any closer to solving various other unifications
and other problems with gravity. This I don't "know" in the sense that I
understand the math or the physics. I "know" it in the sense that most of
the leading researchers in the field, including Witten himself, who came up
with the M-theory conjecture, stop short of saying they can see where their
theories are going -- if they're going anywhere at all. Furthermore, most of
them, except for the (almost politically driven) string-theory acolytes,
seem to feel that we don't yet have a mathematics that can carry us any
closer to resolution of these issues. And string theorists have had to live
for decades with the fact that there have not been any experiments conceived
that could test any of their fundamental ideas. Nor do they have any idea
where to look for them.
If I were a scientist, this would drive me into another line of work. <g>
However, I'm glad that it doesn't seem to have stopped the physicists. As a
science enthusiast all my life, I've been astonished to learn over the past
few years how little is known at the bleeding edge, and how difficult it all
is. The subject is one that I do not have the brainpower to tackle. I don't
mean I don't have the commitment or the background; I mean that the sheer
mental horsepower required is in the stratosphere above my head.
Edward Witten laid out the conjecture for M-theory 14 years ago, and it
hasn't changed since. What the new work suggests is that there *may* be a
possibility of understanding the fundamentals of M-theory. That's what the
physicists seem to be saying.
I'm sure there are some who, in their layman's writings, make it sound like
much more than that. Smolin has noted that there's been a tendency to make
extreme claims for M-theory in the popular literature which aren't borne out
by the facts. Again, I have no way of knowing. As with climatology, all I
can do is use my sniffer to see who sounds like he knows what he's talking
about, and, even more important, who has his head screwed on straight.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
>
> OK, Martin. I just finished reading a fairly weighty book that put M-theory
> into context, and I'm aware of the current developments in the algebra of
> branes, but I'm certainly not going to argue it with you. For me, it would
> be even nuttier than arguing about global warming. I know nothing about the
> depths of climatology and I know even less about theoretical physics. And
> the more I read (a fair amount for a layman) the more I realize that I don't
> know. The interesting thing is that I've reached the point where it appears
> that no one else knows, either. <g>
>
You win the big prize, Ed.
Anything from the top shelf.
There is what you know that you know,
What you know you don't know,
What you don't know you know,
And what you don't know you don't know.
That last one trips up so many people, so often...
Ed Huntress
"cavelamb" <cave...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cOCdnfyflaUf4pbW...@earthlink.com...
<g> I read these books, like I read journal articles about medical research
and a couple about climatology, and except for the medicine, I can't say I
know any more about the first and last subjects than I knew beforehand.
But there is a benefit to it. One is something you suggest above, which is
to get a better idea of what you don't know -- even if you know you'll never
know it. In theoretical physics it can be a real eye-opener to read a good
layman's account of the current state of the art, because the sheer volume
of things I don't know is enough to warn me off from trying too hard. That
doubtless has saved me a lot of time and frustration. d8-)
There's something else, which I've thought of writing about but I can't
quite put it down yet. It's something like music. If you're lucky enough to
get your hands on a really well-written book that's a bit over your head,
about a subject that's way over your head, it might communicate the music,
or maybe the poetry, of the subject. And that can give you a strong idea of
what the subject contains, what kinds of people are doing it, what they know
and not, and what they want to know and maybe will, or maybe won't, at some
future time.
In other words, you can get the geography, or something like that, of a
field, even when you won't ever be able to do it yourself. I like that about
Smolin's book about physics, for example. It's beautifully written and
musical as hell. Or poetic. But I don't really know any more about
theoretical physics, per se, having read it. I think I know what I really
need to know about the subject, however; not its content, but its
phenomenology. But that word maybe is too grand for what I mean. This
happens to me often when I'm reading 20th century German philosophy or
French literary theory, too. Great music, but I still don't know what
they're talking about. <g>
Anyway, if I ever can find the right words to describe it, I'll try to do
something with the idea.
--
Ed Huntress
cavelamb
I think you have a pretty good start right there.
Martin H. Eastburn
A good book is from several school mates - Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker and
John H. Schwarz : "String Theory and M-Theory" A Modern indtroduction ::
Cambridge University Press. 0521860695
M-theory (no relation to the letter :-) ) was derived from the mid 90's when
the second superstring revolution took place.
Discovery is an on-going business in Physics. It covers from the smallest
descriptive feature to that of the great cosmos. It is the foundation of many
of the sciences and is a pure science. Some sciences are not science and some
are meta-science.
Martin
Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
Ed Huntress
> Ed -
>
> A good book is from several school mates - Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker
> and John H. Schwarz : "String Theory and M-Theory" A Modern indtroduction
> :: Cambridge University Press. 0521860695
>
> M-theory (no relation to the letter :-) ) was derived from the mid 90's
> when
> the second superstring revolution took place.
>
> Discovery is an on-going business in Physics. It covers from the smallest
> descriptive feature to that of the great cosmos. It is the foundation of
> many
> of the sciences and is a pure science. Some sciences are not science and
> some
> are meta-science.
>
> Martin
I appreciate the reference, Martin. Before I take on something as weighty
and time-consuming as a book like this, I try to get a sense of it, to know
what I would get for the time I would invest. Having read the publisher's
description and a dozen or so reviews, I'm going to pass on it.
Apparently it is an introductory textbook for advanced undergraduates and
graduate students in physics, and it's the conjectures themselves, rather
than the contextual discussion that Smolin provides in _The Trouble With
Physics_. I'm not interested now in a textbook of the conjectures. As a
layman, I'm interested in what the field's top experts have to tell us
*about* the conjectures, in the broad context of the state of the art and
science of theoretical physics. I'm not planning to do the physics itself.
So, like the physicists, I'll be waiting to hear what we learn from the LHC.
It will be a long while, apparently, before the experiments touch on things
that give us answers to what is real or not about string theory and its
children. Meantime, it may be something like a particle version of the
Hubble Telescope, simultaneously providing unsuspected answers and producing
more questions. String theory, and M-theory, still have no real material
with which to work. And now that I've been given some insight into the
nature of these theories -- which, in science terms, are still
conjectures -- it looks to me like one would have to be a committed
physicist to be interested in working on them at this time. It looks to me
like most of what those physicists have to look forward to is the proof or
refutation of their conjectures. I have no conjectures to put to the test,
so their game, and their interest, is not what I'm interested in. I'm
curious about the realities themselves, and the chance we'll discover some
new angles on them through experiment.
Real experiments will mean something but it's still not clear just what the
LHC will produce in relation to those conjectures, because the practitioners
can't even propose an experiment to prove or disprove their ideas. Perhaps
the LHC will provide answers to the question of what questions might be
asked. The Hubble did some of that for cosmology. We can hope that we'll see
some parallels in particle physics, given this new instrument to probe
things we can't see at all now.
But I do appreciate your thoughts and the reference.
--
Ed Huntress
John Husvar
"Martin H. Eastburn" <lion...@consolidated.net> wrote:
> Ed -
>
> A good book is from several school mates - Katrin Becker, Melanie Becker and
> John H. Schwarz : "String Theory and M-Theory" A Modern indtroduction ::
> Cambridge University Press. 0521860695
>
> M-theory (no relation to the letter :-) ) was derived from the mid 90's when
> the second superstring revolution took place.
>
MMMM, branes!
</homersimpsonzombie>
Martin H. Eastburn
many years ago. He was there 'under cover' cold war and all that -
he was the system engineer and designer of what was to be the worlds
most powerful radar - the top two after the new model years later.
Some of the stuff he told me 30 years later was about what I expected -
real time ion sorting of shorts. :-) I would have loved to attend Cambridge
as a seminar student - and have plenty of time in the Ashmolean Museum
to see what the old masters kept for the ages.
Martin