Check for yourselves when and how the world will end
The end is near... Monitoring the LHC experiment
Ok what's the buzz about this ? French people are requesting informations from worldwide 
Can someone give me a rational reason to fear that object ? Are we sure we can reach the density of a blackhole (most certainly it will vaporate in a fraction of picosecond, experiments are done in vaccum) ? Can we yet trap anti-matter (if yes we have the strongest energy/bomb available and "controlable" in this universe) ? Does this universe has a superficial tension and can local surface aggression (planck limits) disrupt something (heard about the vacuum-to-matter experiment) ? What what what ?
Elaborate please
Can someone give me a rational reason to fear that object ? Are we sure we can reach the density of a blackhole (most certainly it will vaporate in a fraction of picosecond, experiments are done in vaccum) ? Can we yet trap anti-matter (if yes we have the strongest energy/bomb available and "controlable" in this universe) ? Does this universe has a superficial tension and can local surface aggression (planck limits) disrupt something (heard about the vacuum-to-matter experiment) ? What what what ?
Elaborate please
obsolete asset
Well, larger amounts of Anti-Hydrogen already where produced with precursors of the LHC...
Though, a black hole would be something totally new.
The danger in it is, that in those sizes the black hole will be, the quantum laws will take full effect... Which means that EVERYTHING is connected to "waves of probability".... There can't ever be a 100% certitude that the black hole will collide again.
Though, honestly, I also don't believe, it'll be dangerous....
(Still, in quantum size, everything's possible... Including the possibility of invalidate the laws of physics for just the length of a planck time... (the shortest blink of an eye, EVER possible) - that could cause very strange, under circumstances even problematic results.
Just waiting for a particle accelerator, where the particles run once around the equator!
Years ago, I actually heard that to find new, smaller particles, one would have to build an accelerator with a circumference, larger than the whole sun system! Seemingly, they improved performance a lot.....
Though, a black hole would be something totally new.
The danger in it is, that in those sizes the black hole will be, the quantum laws will take full effect... Which means that EVERYTHING is connected to "waves of probability".... There can't ever be a 100% certitude that the black hole will collide again.
Though, honestly, I also don't believe, it'll be dangerous....
(Still, in quantum size, everything's possible... Including the possibility of invalidate the laws of physics for just the length of a planck time... (the shortest blink of an eye, EVER possible) - that could cause very strange, under circumstances even problematic results.
Just waiting for a particle accelerator, where the particles run once around the equator!
Years ago, I actually heard that to find new, smaller particles, one would have to build an accelerator with a circumference, larger than the whole sun system! Seemingly, they improved performance a lot.....
Still, the process is destructive, I would prefer another way of investigating matter. Though no one explained why we must go ahead blindly...
Ok, in the case our universe is finite and contained in a n+x dimensions, admitedly 4+1 I think, wich must not be right since scientists tend to reconize in their majority a link between time and space exists. After all, no movement can't be conceived if "not in space" and time can't exist if there is just nothing, right ? Anyway, in this case, would it be right to go outside and see what's there ?
I think destructing things for knowing them is counter-productive, since "principle of precaution" ( ? rough translation) tells not to touch things we don't know the nature of. One question is: to what extent a local action can have global consequences ?
That said, we used electricity before understanding the why... maybe not the best way but that worked
Ok, in the case our universe is finite and contained in a n+x dimensions, admitedly 4+1 I think, wich must not be right since scientists tend to reconize in their majority a link between time and space exists. After all, no movement can't be conceived if "not in space" and time can't exist if there is just nothing, right
? Anyway, in this case, would it be right to go outside and see what's there ?I think destructing things for knowing them is counter-productive, since "principle of precaution" ( ? rough translation) tells not to touch things we don't know the nature of. One question is: to what extent a local action can have global consequences ?
That said, we used electricity before understanding the why... maybe not the best way but that worked
obsolete asset
4+1? That's a nice small number 
I heard different theories, yet...
8+1
10+1
and
21+1!
and once, only once for some reason, I heard about time with two dimensions, but there was no mention about space-dimension-counts....
n+2
We don't walk entirely blind, as there are theories. Of course, that's not perfect. It's about like you have to go to a place, you never where before, after a description, given to you by a friend. You wont know how accurate that description is, until you'll follow it.
Next problem is, that you literally can't find objects of that size without destroying the particles which are built of them.... Non-destructive Science doesn't work for anything smaller than electrons. And actually, it already was quite hard to fathom them... only protons where relatively easy to find...
And that last question hits the Butterfly Effect ^^
Why should it be wrong to go outside and see what's there. One of the natural fears of humans is the fear of not knowing what's going on. Though, it's more like going INSIDE rather than OUTSIDE...
I heard different theories, yet...
8+1
10+1
and
21+1!
and once, only once for some reason, I heard about time with two dimensions, but there was no mention about space-dimension-counts....
n+2
We don't walk entirely blind, as there are theories. Of course, that's not perfect. It's about like you have to go to a place, you never where before, after a description, given to you by a friend. You wont know how accurate that description is, until you'll follow it.
Next problem is, that you literally can't find objects of that size without destroying the particles which are built of them.... Non-destructive Science doesn't work for anything smaller than electrons. And actually, it already was quite hard to fathom them... only protons where relatively easy to find...
And that last question hits the Butterfly Effect ^^
Why should it be wrong to go outside and see what's there. One of the natural fears of humans is the fear of not knowing what's going on. Though, it's more like going INSIDE rather than OUTSIDE...
About dimensions I was refering to the world above Planck limits (sensible, matter world), I think these extra dimensions you are mentioning are well under that, but in a sense I see no reason to limit their count since that's about maths and something potentially infinite...
It could be wrong to go (or try to go) outside because such exchanges were not demonstrated as possible (does it even make sense ?), and if they were they should be quantified (locally/globally) before we try anything. As of today we can't exclude trigging a (instantaneous, "out of time") collapse or anything out of control. I mean we just don't know, going outside this universe would be a singularity and we can't resolve that atm
Just talking
It could be wrong to go (or try to go) outside because such exchanges were not demonstrated as possible (does it even make sense ?), and if they were they should be quantified (locally/globally) before we try anything. As of today we can't exclude trigging a (instantaneous, "out of time") collapse or anything out of control. I mean we just don't know, going outside this universe would be a singularity and we can't resolve that atm
Just talking
obsolete asset
not possible, outside from conditions, existing in the LHC...It could be wrong to go (or try to go) outside because such exchanges were not demonstrated as possible (does it even make sense ?),
- that's the point. That's why that LHC is needed...and if they were they should be quantified (locally/globally) before we try anything.
???I mean we just don't know, going outside this universe would be a singularity and we can't resolve that atm Smile
No no we don't agree, may be a vocabulary mismatch... The LHC can help inquiring toward limit of mateial world, it was never designed to crack it... I mean it's not supposed to bring us to a point where space and time do not exist as such, not beneath Planck limits at least, as you seemed to say.Kram1032 wrote:not possible, outside from conditions, existing in the LHC...It could be wrong to go (or try to go) outside because such exchanges were not demonstrated as possible (does it even make sense ?),- that's the point. That's why that LHC is needed...and if they were they should be quantified (locally/globally) before we try anything.???I mean we just don't know, going outside this universe would be a singularity and we can't resolve that atm Smile
1- Not even in the conditions existing in the LHC I bet.
2- LHC has nothing to do with that in my opinion, since it is bound to the level of energy it can use. Not enough to disrupt matter in pure waves, again my bet.
3- A human being, as a spatially tridimensional body would be a singularity out of the recipient he grew in (what I call our universe). Most probably, absolutely anywhere, a singularity is highly unstable. Either it vanishes spontaneously, or it's interaction with the medium it is a singularity to is limited in it's nature, and dramatic in it's extend.
Are we in phase now
?obsolete asset
That's true. Nothing currently can go beyond planck limits. Though, noone said something about such huge steps.
Actually, nothing ever COULD go beyond planck limits, as physics don't make sense beyond them. Planck limits are the smallest (or in case of speed of light, highest) limits, you can reach. No chance to search for smaller scales / bigger speeds.
Though, things that the scientist are searching are maximally exactly at planck lenght; usually far bigger.
Seen like that, of course, not even the LHC can go beyond Planck limits.
Though, matter was already split to energy in EARLIER cases, far weaker than the LHC
Sorry, I still can't follow you with point 3... I wouldn't say, we're unstable. We're made of the more stable Elements. (besides some radioactive substances, built in "by accident" [C-14 for instance])
And what do you mean with human beings being singularities? singularities are things, pushed to the planck limits. And we're FAR bigger than a single planck length, we life FAR longer than a single planck time unit and we move FAR slower than with lightspeed...
In fact, the theories don't speak of singularities of size 0 anymore but of size r=(planck length)/2pi
Actually, nothing ever COULD go beyond planck limits, as physics don't make sense beyond them. Planck limits are the smallest (or in case of speed of light, highest) limits, you can reach. No chance to search for smaller scales / bigger speeds.
Though, things that the scientist are searching are maximally exactly at planck lenght; usually far bigger.
Seen like that, of course, not even the LHC can go beyond Planck limits.
Though, matter was already split to energy in EARLIER cases, far weaker than the LHC
Sorry, I still can't follow you with point 3... I wouldn't say, we're unstable. We're made of the more stable Elements. (besides some radioactive substances, built in "by accident" [C-14 for instance])
And what do you mean with human beings being singularities? singularities are things, pushed to the planck limits. And we're FAR bigger than a single planck length, we life FAR longer than a single planck time unit and we move FAR slower than with lightspeed...
In fact, the theories don't speak of singularities of size 0 anymore but of size r=(planck length)/2pi
full digression in outer-the-world
Ok from now let's document numbers when possible, btw I'm curious about your source for this one. I am fine with conceptualization in general, but have nothing against rationalization tooIn fact, the theories don't speak of singularities of size 0 anymore but of size r=(planck length)/2pi
Haven't heard of a case where the conversion was total, afaik it's mainly sub-particles and a few... photons, electrons ? Dunno really. Electrons still have a mass.Though, matter was already split to energy in EARLIER cases, far weaker than the LHC
Yes yes yes, that's true within our universe, but point 3 is where i'm considering what we would be outside of it: singularities.Sorry, I still can't follow you with point 3 [...] lightspeed...
Of course that's not something possible, thought cells do compartimentation, and [endo|exo]cytosis. So theorically I could admit one could "provoque" an exocytosis from our universe, layered into a bubble where our known physical laws apply, I mean a bubble inheriting our universe "membrane" (a second, smaller universe just like our own). Thought, the process looks more like a mitosis, and that would be a destructive process for the whole universe. So, if one could have a good reason to provoque that, he should in first place look into protecting himself from the strenght of the operation. Here I'm talking about something manufactured or generated artificially. It would morally be right to survive and do that thing only if the process is triggered "naturally", that's a request actually. Erm sorry I can't document that
Still we ignore consequences, but the idea of a smaller universe born from ours is sci-fi pleasing because from that point of view you could better see what comes through the membrane, and if the membrane/universe is small enough you can admit that one could control the whole energy within using a machine, ie shapes changes (movement), external visualization and even orientation, interaction maybe ?
Because point 3 was a moral question too, wich, socially translated could be: are we promoting fondamental science enough, as compared to applied sciences ? My bet is: no, we are in a rush and do not take the time it takes to understand. thus we break things: the biosphere is on its road, and too many bombs still exist to feel safe. This doesn't has to be so, that's not the human nature, since our true nature is mimetism I believe (at the social scale. Science is a social fact too).
I won't blame anyone if you can't follow me, but just let me know
Quite a crapload, hope you enjoyed if you read it obsolete asset
My sources are often German...
1)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck-Einheiten
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck-Skala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale
+links, going away from those four
2) both
3) Ah, ok, now I know what you mean... I think... ^^
Well, to that topic, I read a book:
John D. Barrow "Theorien für Alles - Die philosophischen Ansätze der modernen Physik (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
English Original Title: "Theories of Everything. The Quest of Ultimate Explanation"
It's not the most up to date source: First English release was 1990 in Oxford University Press...
Though, what Barrow shows in this book, also includes parts of that question, what's outside.
For example, physicists are pretty sure, that there was a stage in the very early universe, where it expanded faster than light could travel. If you think about that further, it means, we Never EVER be able to see the whole universe. If you think of a ball (which probably isn't the best approximation), that's several light years wide, but the light around you only got as far as one light year, what you get is some sort of blackness, deeper than any shadow... Just as deep as if you are directly starring into a black hole, after breaking through the Schwarzschild radius...
Well, now, that ball keeps expanding. It slowed down, so it now continues to expand at exactly light speed. This results in a "constant" view, if you see it relative to the whole size of the universe. Of course, in absolute values, you see farther with every second, though what you see is only new stuff, relatively young stars and such. Nothing from the other parts of the original universe. (Although there are some pics of the very young universe, made with hubble... Though, they all are from those parts, we where able to see from the beginning on... AND, the period, the light-beams come from, is AFTER that over-light-speed-period.
He further says, it might be, that our part of the universe is some sort of "more ordered", compared to other "completely chaotic" parts, where no life could ever be created. And that it also could be, that our laws of physics aren't global but only in this "ordered" section. There probably are an infinite amount of such ordered sections, as well as there's an infinite amount of chaotic ones.
The next thing he says (he doesn't claim those things. He only lists many common theories, which might have changed quite a bit in those eighteen years and tries to be as objective as possible, letting the reader decide what he thinks is true)
is that the universe probably isn't even a "ball" but it's "split" into sub-universes, and "mother"-universes, connected via warp tunnels. (Which seem to exist, but only in sizes and time spans, of less than ten Planck units). Those warp tunnels could partly explain the quantum tunneling, which helps stars with their hydrogen-to-helium-fusion...
Btw: The two newer books Einsteins Veil and Einsteins Spook roughly say the same, but far simpler and less detailed as those are meant to be read by the masses... Some things might have changed, but fundamentally, I'm pretty sure, it's the same theories... The difference in the standards of the books show in the facts that I understood about 99,9% of Anton Zeilinger's books, as opposed to about 66,7% in John D. Barrow's....
I am enjoying this discussion^^
It's somehow a (more serious) "second episode" of our quantum physics thread
My problem in understanding is your vocabulary. 'till now, Leo did a good job in translating... but now, it's stuck: What's mimetism?
Edit: Found it on Wikipedia^^ Though, I wonder how you mean it, anyway. Mimicry... Explain, pls^^
1)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck-Einheiten
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck-Skala
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale
+links, going away from those four
2) both
3) Ah, ok, now I know what you mean... I think... ^^
Well, to that topic, I read a book:
John D. Barrow "Theorien für Alles - Die philosophischen Ansätze der modernen Physik (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag)
English Original Title: "Theories of Everything. The Quest of Ultimate Explanation"
It's not the most up to date source: First English release was 1990 in Oxford University Press...
Though, what Barrow shows in this book, also includes parts of that question, what's outside.
For example, physicists are pretty sure, that there was a stage in the very early universe, where it expanded faster than light could travel. If you think about that further, it means, we Never EVER be able to see the whole universe. If you think of a ball (which probably isn't the best approximation), that's several light years wide, but the light around you only got as far as one light year, what you get is some sort of blackness, deeper than any shadow... Just as deep as if you are directly starring into a black hole, after breaking through the Schwarzschild radius...
Well, now, that ball keeps expanding. It slowed down, so it now continues to expand at exactly light speed. This results in a "constant" view, if you see it relative to the whole size of the universe. Of course, in absolute values, you see farther with every second, though what you see is only new stuff, relatively young stars and such. Nothing from the other parts of the original universe. (Although there are some pics of the very young universe, made with hubble... Though, they all are from those parts, we where able to see from the beginning on... AND, the period, the light-beams come from, is AFTER that over-light-speed-period.
He further says, it might be, that our part of the universe is some sort of "more ordered", compared to other "completely chaotic" parts, where no life could ever be created. And that it also could be, that our laws of physics aren't global but only in this "ordered" section. There probably are an infinite amount of such ordered sections, as well as there's an infinite amount of chaotic ones.
The next thing he says (he doesn't claim those things. He only lists many common theories, which might have changed quite a bit in those eighteen years and tries to be as objective as possible, letting the reader decide what he thinks is true)
is that the universe probably isn't even a "ball" but it's "split" into sub-universes, and "mother"-universes, connected via warp tunnels. (Which seem to exist, but only in sizes and time spans, of less than ten Planck units). Those warp tunnels could partly explain the quantum tunneling, which helps stars with their hydrogen-to-helium-fusion...
Btw: The two newer books Einsteins Veil and Einsteins Spook roughly say the same, but far simpler and less detailed as those are meant to be read by the masses... Some things might have changed, but fundamentally, I'm pretty sure, it's the same theories... The difference in the standards of the books show in the facts that I understood about 99,9% of Anton Zeilinger's books, as opposed to about 66,7% in John D. Barrow's....
I am enjoying this discussion^^
It's somehow a (more serious) "second episode" of our quantum physics thread
My problem in understanding is your vocabulary. 'till now, Leo did a good job in translating... but now, it's stuck: What's mimetism?
Edit: Found it on Wikipedia^^ Though, I wonder how you mean it, anyway. Mimicry... Explain, pls^^
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests