100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Swiss big bang | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Metalwing, thanks for the info. It seems a bit dodgey. (I am thankful for your info, it's not your message I will criticize here but the forethought put into the concept of the experiment.) It's dodgy, because everything in the experiment hinges on counting up and acconting for energy. Energy put in, and energy that came out. If there is a difference, particularly a loss, then the energy in shape of some particles, left our dimension. Fine. But energy is not easy to count. Some of the energy will dissipate as heat in a 27-km long pipe, and therefore extremely careful watch over the temp changes of the led pipe must be held. This is in fact impossible to do, if we allow that the loss of energy will be small. If the loss of energy will be so small that the lost energy's equivalent would raise the temperature of one litre of water one Censius degree, then maybe, I don't know, maybe that would be caught by the measuring apparatus' sensors. But what if the energy to escape is 1 degree of difference distributed over one teaspoon of water? I don't think that is measurable in a pipe that is 27 kilometers long. Or if it is... let's say it is... then what if the energy difference is equal to that which would heat one nanolitre of water one degree Celsius? WE DONT'KNOW HOW MUCH LOSS WE CAN EXPECT. So loss may happen, but it's not detected, and our experiment would be a success except we wouldn't know it were. I am sure this has been tought out. So what we are watching for, will give us an indication of multiple dimensions only if the energy loss is large so much that our sensors can positively tell us it happened. ------ I have talked to my uncle some two years ago, about this collider machine. I told him, what if it blows our entire world out of existence? He said, watch this: "There nothing going to happen because everything that can happen has happened already. They can't make something happen that hasn't been already done." This is smart, but what if: the thing that has happened was the big bang? I mean, if we are really and truly replicating the conditions of the big bang, as the article said, then we will cause a big bang to happen. (If it's not going to happen, then we are simply not replicating the conditions exactly enough.) This leads us to the theory, that the Big Bangs, each one of them in an infinite series, happen when enough scientists know enough science to be made curious how the big bang happened, and each time there is enough knowledge like today, to build a machine to cause the big bang, under the auspices of "we just want to see what's going to happen, you know, if there are many dimensions like the theorists say." The controls are all in place, check, the pumps are primed, check, the measuring devices have all been wound up, check, thow the switch, bang. I mean, BAAAAANNNNGGGGG!!! A very big, big, big bang. Maybe matter will leave our dimension, maybe it won't. Maybe we will never learn, even thought energy difference is high well measurable. We will not know, becase there will be a huge new big bang, after which in 15.4 billion years later another group of scientists will bring the knowledge of the santients of that world to the point at which they will curiously ask, and defend their 8-billion dollar expenditure with saying their true quest, "we just want to see..." Many people, ordinary folks, say they can learn big life lessons from animals, from pets, about their own inner nature. My advice to the physicists bent on this experiment would be, "it's curiousity that killed the cat." ______________________ I think we need a charismatic leader who will start a movement of donating a cat each to all the nuclear physicists in this world, with the gift card saying, "Study this beast's behaviour." A gift that will truly keep on giving. Millions of amps of energy are lost in the rings so the energy there doesn't really matter (except for the light bill). The only energy that is counted is that which enters the experiment chamber such as Atlas. The speed of the two protons is known to great accuracy so their energy is known to great accuracy. When the two particles collide and annihilate, the pool of energy is known to great accuracy. The Higgs is a pillar of the Standard Model but where the it lives and how it interacts to create gravity is unknown. The Standard Model only claims it's existence. Much is left to understand. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millions of amps of energy are lost in the rings so the energy there doesn't really matter (except for the light bill). The only energy that is counted is that which enters the experiment chamber such as Atlas. The speed of the two protons is known to great accuracy so their energy is known to great accuracy. When the two particles collide and annihilate, the pool of energy is known to great accuracy. The Higgs is a pillar of the Standard Model but where the it lives and how it interacts to create gravity is unknown. The Standard Model only claims it's existence. Much is left to understand. Thanks, but my initial two reservations are still not answered. One is that as I understand it, the energy loss is not known for its actual amount before the experiment. the other is that the energy loss will happen in Atlas, but still, I can't see how the pool of energy is dierectly and accurately measured. Yes, the mass/energy going into the experiment is known, not only measured and inferred. We know the mass of the protons, their speed, and that gives us enough to calculate their energy. We know that very much. But if the experiment shows that some energy left the dimension in the form of matter going to another dimension, we can't possibly KNOW the amount of energy left. We don't know what if any particles will leavy. That's not known, that's why we are conducting the experiment. If we knew that, no experiment would be needed. Bt we don't know that. We can only measure what energy and mass remains after the collision(s), and that measurement has its limits of error or limits of sensitivity. If the amount of energy that leaves will reduce the amount of energy remaining in amounts that the sensitivity of the sensors can't pick up, then our experiment will be a success, but we won't know it. It seems that we agree on the second part, that the Higgs bosom is a theoretical concept which is a hypothetical physical reality, and the experimentation heavily relies on its existence, whereas the existence of Higgs Bosom is only a conjecture, nothing more, at this point. That is why I was so surprised that they could raise that kind of money to support an experiment which presupposes the existence of something highly imaginary and nothing more than fictious at this point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Standard Model lives. Higgs boson looks to be there announcement forthcoming. Actually it is very exciting because nobody knows what to make of it exactly. But it is another clue. How is this different from wishful wishing? Should we accept the Standard Model NOW because we expect some experimental results forthcoming in the near FUTURE? I fully admit I know NOTHING about the standard model, and whatever I know about Higgs Bosom is what I learned here in this thread form Metalwing. I am not arguing the theory. I am arguing that experimental results can't be expected fully to happen. It can be wished fully to happen. Enthusiasm does nothing to make physics experiments to work. (It works in biological experiments, enthusiasm does; it's the reason for double blind studies, and it's the only scientific clue so far that the soul exists, but it's a scientific axiom that souls don't exist. I think it's an invalid axiom. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millions of amps of energy are lost in the rings so the energy there doesn't really matter (except for the light bill). The only energy that is counted is that which enters the experiment chamber such as Atlas. The speed of the two protons is known to great accuracy so their energy is known to great accuracy. When the two particles collide and annihilate, the pool of energy is known to great accuracy. The Higgs is a pillar of the Standard Model but where the it lives and how it interacts to create gravity is unknown. The Standard Model only claims it's existence. Much is left to understand. Thanks, but my initial two reservations are still not answered. One is that as I understand it, the energy loss is not known for its actual amount before the experiment. the other is that the energy loss will happen in Atlas, but still, I can't see how the pool of energy is dierectly and accurately measured. Yes, the mass/energy going into the experiment is known, not only measured and inferred. We know the mass of the protons, their speed, and that gives us enough to calculate their energy. We know that very much. But if the experiment shows that some energy left the dimension in the form of matter going to another dimension, we can't possibly KNOW the amount of energy left. We don't know what if any particles will leavy. That's not known, that's why we are conducting the experiment. If we knew that, no experiment would be needed. Bt we don't know that. We can only measure what energy and mass remains after the collision(s), and that measurement has its limits of error or limits of sensitivity. If the amount of energy that leaves will reduce the amount of energy remaining in amounts that the sensitivity of the sensors can't pick up, then our experiment will be a success, but we won't know it. It seems that we agree on the second part, that the Higgs bosom is a theoretical concept which is a hypothetical physical reality, and the experimentation heavily relies on its existence, whereas the existence of Higgs Bosom is only a conjecture, nothing more, at this point. That is why I was so surprised that they could raise that kind of money to support an experiment which presupposes the existence of something highly imaginary and nothing more than fictious at this point. There is a new version of the bubble chamber the is far more accurate and won a Nobel Prize for it's inventor. It knows the exact speed of the protons coming in and therefor their energy. It also knows the energy of the particles that are formed so the aggreate must add up to the energy that came in. The physics predict the mass of a "proposed particle" such as a Higgs and if such as 335 million electron volts and if the missing energy equals that amount, the particle is determined to be "found". If it is found but disappears, M theory predicts that is went to a different dimension but still in our universe. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Standard Model lives. Higgs boson looks to be there announcement forthcoming. Actually it is very exciting because nobody knows what to make of it exactly. But it is another clue. How is this different from wishful wishing? Should we accept the Standard Model NOW because we expect some experimental results forthcoming in the near FUTURE? I fully admit I know NOTHING about the standard model, and whatever I know about Higgs Bosom is what I learned here in this thread form Metalwing. I am not arguing the theory. I am arguing that experimental results can't be expected fully to happen. It can be wished fully to happen. Enthusiasm does nothing to make physics experiments to work. (It works in biological experiments, enthusiasm does; it's the reason for double blind studies, and it's the only scientific clue so far that the soul exists, but it's a scientific axiom that souls don't exist. I think it's an invalid axiom. The observations at the LHC have been undergoing the most rigorous scrutiny. The announcements have been very cautious. Enthusiasm is all important in tedious scientific work. Everyone needs to be motivated by curiosity - the ambition to learn the truth. But correct verifiable scientific results are not colored by the thinking or enthusiasm of the researchers. Here is a little more about the Higgs boson and Higgs field from the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson In the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, the Higgs boson is an elementary particle that gives mass to other elementary particles such as quarks and electrons through the Higgs mechanism. It belongs to a class of particles known as bosons, characterized by an integer value of their spin quantum number. The Higgs field is a quantum field that has a non-zero value in its ground state. The Higgs boson is the quantum of the Higgs field, just as the photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field. The Higgs boson has a large mass however, which is why a high energy accelerator is needed to observe it. The existence of the Higgs boson was predicted by the Standard Model to explain how spontaneous breaking of electroweak symmetry (the Higgs mechanism) takes place in nature, which in turn explains why other elementary particles have mass.[Note 1] Its tentative discovery may validate the Standard Model as essentially correct, as it is the final elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model awaiting observation in particle physics experiments.[3] The Standard Model completely fixes the properties of the Higgs boson, except for its mass. It is expected to have no spin and no electric or color charge, and it interacts with other particles through the weak interaction and Yukawa-type interactions between the various fermions and the Higgs field. Alternative sources of the Higgs mechanism that do not need the Higgs boson are also possible and would be considered if the existence of the Higgs boson were ruled out. They are known as Higgsless models. Experiments to confirm and determine the nature of the Higgs boson using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN began in early 2010, and were performed at Fermilab's Tevatron until its closure in late 2011. Mathematical consistency of the Standard Model requires that any mechanism capable of generating the masses of elementary particles become visible at energies above 1.4 TeV;[4] therefore, the LHC (designed to collide two 7 to 8 TeV proton beams) was built to answer the question of whether or not the Higgs boson actually exists.[5] In December 2011, the two main experiments at the LHC (ATLAS and CMS) both reported independently that their data hinted at a possibility the Higgs may exist with a mass around 125 GeV/c2 (about 133 proton masses, on the order of 10−25 kg), with masses outside the range 115–130 GeV/c2 very likely to be ruled out.[6][7][8][9][10] On 4 July 2012, CERN confirmed the "five sigma" level of evidence needed to show a formal discovery of a particle which was "consistent with the Higgs boson", acknowledging that further work would be needed to conclude that it indeed had all theoretically predicted properties of the Higgs boson, and exactly which version of the Standard Model it best supported if confirmed.[2][11][12] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Wed 07/04/12 09:20 AM
|
|
This a very significant result for the Standard Model and indicates
that future revisions to our understanding of particle physics must be a superset of the standard model and/or reduce to the standard model under conditions we are able to observe at this time. "It's a Boson!" http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-unveil-milestone-higgs-boson-hunt-044513533.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I LOVE Swedish gang bangs! (they are so really polite)
Back on topic.... Swedish gangbangs.....I have loved them since I found my Dad's porn drawer in 1976. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Killed it with the Swedish Porn!
 Porned to death. But don't discount the Swiss Porn! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wux
on
Sat 07/07/12 06:48 PM
|
|
Never mind, I kept reading the posts and saw the July 4 announcement.
So now we know what holds the centre. Sort of. Four sigma accuracy is great, if it's above (to the right) of the normal. Four sigma to the left of the normal is not so good. I assume, judging from the enthusiastic voice of the article, that it's four sigmas to the right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Sun 07/08/12 03:49 AM
|
 Cliff Burgess Early Wednesday scientists at CERN, the international particle physics laboratory in Geneva, announced the discovery of the long-sought Higgs particle. This discovery culminates literally decades of effort by thousands of physicists and engineers spending billions of euros to build the Large Hadron Collider (or LHC). So, are they now done? Was it worth the effort, given that the Higgs particle was predicted over 30 years ago by the Standard Model of particle physics, itself tested in many other ways over the intervening years? Is it all much ado about nothing? I would argue yes, but perhaps not in the way one might think. Discovering the Higgs is indeed a Nobel-worthy Big Deal. But it is all about nothing: it is significant because of what it says about the vacuum. Colloquially, a vacuum is a space entirely devoid of matter, but to physicists the vacuum is the physical state having the lowest energy. Until the 1960s these two notions of vacuum were thought to be synonymous. Since matter carries energy, when you remove it all what is left should have the least possible energy. But over 40 years ago Peter Higgs and others realized that the state with least energy needn’t be empty, it can instead be filled with a physical quantity called the Higgs field. A field is something that can mediate a force, much like the gravitational field mediates the attraction felt by a ball falling to the Earth or a magnetic field mediates the force between the Earth and a navigational compass. The hypothetical Higgs field would similarly mediate a new force between particles. What is unusual about the Higgs field is that it costs less energy to have it than not to have it, so although gravitational and magnetic fields on Earth would vanish without our planet to act as a source, the Higgs field can be present even in the vacuum, without any particles. As such, it provides a ubiquitous environment through which all elementary particles swim, and so must be an important part of any understanding of their properties. The idea that the vacuum is pervaded by a physical field seems very bizarre. Its proposal in the 1960s was provoked to reconcile some new-found properties of the weak interactions — those interactions that mediate radioactive decays — with familiar properties of elementary particles. In particular, the weak interactions appeared to require elementary particles like the electron to move at the speed of light, which it doesn’t. But the puzzle could be resolved if a particle’s interactions with the Higgs field in the vacuum could slow it down. How could such a radical speculation be tested? What better way than to excite a wave in the vacuum. This is what CERN physicists have just done. By colliding particles with sufficient violence in the LHC, they have caused a wave to move through the vacuum. In the same way that electromagnetic waves (including light, radio and UV waves) are known to consist of swarms of particles called photons, the newly discovered Higgs particles make up waves in the Higgs field: that is, waves in the properties of the vacuum itself. It has been an epic journey. After being out on a theoretical limb for more than 40 years, a pillar of experimental evidence now supports a radical view of the vacuum. And now that waves in the vacuum can be produced at will, their study can test whether the vacuum is better described by the Standard Model or by one of the alternatives that wait to replace it. Discovering a flaw in the Standard Model would be an even Bigger Deal. Last week saw the first dividends from many far-sighted investments. These range from decisions by individual physicists to expenditures by universities, laboratories and funding agencies worldwide. Research in pure science can be a hard sell to an investor looking for a quick return. Yet many talented people, essential products and inspiring ideas are unexpectedly spun off from fundamental science. Will the LHC affect our lives? In some ways it already has: the ability to reach the world at the click of a mouse is partially due to the invention at CERN of the World Wide Web in the early days of LHC development. In the long run, its long-term impact is difficult to predict. But if revolutions in computer miniaturization can be traced to our ability to manipulate atoms, imagine what an ability to manipulate the vacuum might bring. Much ado about nothing indeed. Cliff Burgess is an Associate Member at Perimeter Institute and Professor of Physics at McMaster University. In some ways the Higgs field is more interesting than the Higgs particle and falls into Einstein's "Spooky action at a distance" concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those interested there is a fairly nice accessible Wiki
article introduction to the Higgs field here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_Higgs_field |
|
|
|
|
