Large Hardon Collider

[Eliseos]

Oh man, that is so awesome rofl.

[Neosutra]

This isn't the first time time-travel has been blamed for mishaps at the LHC. Last year, the Japanese physicist Masao Ninomiya and Danish string-theory pioneer Holger Bech Nielsen put forward the hypothesis that the Higgs boson was so "abhorrent" that it somehow caused a ripple in time that prevented its own discovery.

Awesome.

[Kaylia]

http://saintgasoline.com/comics/2009..._Mechanics.JPG

This is awesome.

[Kryssan]

This was posted over at ITER Newsline on 01 April:

Sometime in the mid-1970s, the Russian Soviet Center for Science Film produced a documentary on the early years of fusion research.

"O lyudyakh I atomakh" ("Of people and atoms") takes us to the very beginning of the fusion adventure, when in 1950 a young soldier named Oleg Lavrentiev wrote a letter to Stalin describing his concept for an "electronic trap". This was later to evolve into "magnetic confinement".

The "heroes" of fusion in Russia are all there: Lavrentiev, Igor Tamm, Igor Kurchatov, Boris Kadomtsev, Lev Artsimovitch etc.. The film even provides a glimpse of Vladimir Mukhovatov, now a senior scientist at ITER, back when he was a young scientist in the control room of T-4 - or was it T-6? "At the time", he says in this trailer, "we were building one and a half tokamaks every year."

Video links are in the article.

[Max™]

http://saintgasoline.com/comics/2009..._Mechanics.JPG

This is awesome.

Fact'D.

[Mizango]

Talked about this in class today, figured id post it since it is an interesting read. Unfortunately I have a major migraine and will catch up on comments tomorrow.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0406172648.htm

[Eliseos]

God damn, I wish I could come up with cool theories like that. Even if it isn't true, it's a pretty interesting theory to think about.

[Kaylia]

Talked about this in class today, figured id post it since it is an interesting read. Unfortunately I have a major migraine and will catch up on comments tomorrow.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0406172648.htm

This idea isn't new though. Back in high school (10 years ago), I remember doing a presentation on this exact topic. Of course, there was no mathematics, but the idea was pretty much the same as the one described here.

[Woozie]

This idea isn't new though. Back in high school (10 years ago), I remember doing a presentation on this exact topic. Of course, there was no mathematics, but the idea was pretty much the same as the one described here.

Yeah, it is pretty old. Brian Greene wrote about a similar theory in either The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos 11 years ago. And others have come up with this way before him. Still an extremely fascinating theory nonetheless. And the fact that it's being published in the physics review means there's something different or more significant about this particular paper, though I can't tell from the article what it is.

[Max™]

It was Smolin, not Greene, last I checked. I reached a similar conclusion as Smolin did, that Universes which produce the most black holes wind up producing more Universes with similar conditions, making it unlikely that we would not find ourselves in a Universe like our own.

[Woozie]

Perhaps it was both. I know for sure I read it in a Brian Greene book. They probably came to the conclusion for entirely different reasons though, and there are probably drastic differences in their proposals.

[Max™]

http://www.pnas.org/content/100/20/11216.full.pdf

and

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...901.1639v1.pdf


Haven't found anything by Greene explicitly regarding this idea, but it is possible to model this using the EFE's, and produce an expansion wave solution that appears to represent a big bang type event.

Still reading the second paper, neat stuff.

[Tricen]

What the fuck is tweed?

[Eliseos]

ur a tweed

[Kaylia]

Yeah, it is pretty old. Brian Greene wrote about a similar theory in either The Elegant Universe or The Fabric of the Cosmos 11 years ago. And others have come up with this way before him. Still an extremely fascinating theory nonetheless. And the fact that it's being published in the physics review means there's something different or more significant about this particular paper, though I can't tell from the article what it is.

Oh, I agree, I was mostly commenting about the science daily news that isnt really new, and people reacting like it's the first time this idea came up. They should at least have insisted on the difference, because they made it sound identical.

We consider the radial geodesic motion of a massive particle into a black hole in isotropic coordinates, which represents the exterior region of an Einstein–Rosen bridge (wormhole). The particle enters the interior region, which is regular and physically equivalent to the asymptotically flat exterior of a white hole, and the particle's proper time extends to infinity. Since the radial motion into a wormhole after passing the event horizon is physically different from the motion into a Schwarzschild black hole, Einstein–Rosen and Schwarzschild black holes are different, physical realizations of general relativity. Yet for distant observers, both solutions are indistinguishable. We show that timelike geodesics in the field of a wormhole are complete because the expansion scalar in the Raychaudhuri equation has a discontinuity at the horizon, and because the Einstein–Rosen bridge is represented by the Kruskal diagram with Rindler's elliptic identification of the two antipodal future event horizons. These results suggest that observed astrophysical black holes may be Einstein–Rosen bridges, each with a new universe inside that formed simultaneously with the black hole. Accordingly, our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe.

As cool as it would be, do we have any reason to believe this? Gravity alone wouldn't be enough to create these kind of wormhole. Maybe I'm missing something.

[Mizango]

Perhaps it was both. I know for sure I read it in a Brian Greene book. They probably came to the conclusion for entirely different reasons though, and there are probably drastic differences in their proposals.

Absolutely right on the Greene reference, I dont recall if it was in Fabric of the Cosmos or if it was the Elegant Universe but I know for fact that he went into detail about this as did Smolin on several instances as well.

This was a topic that Al-Khalili touched on as well in Black Holes, Wormholes & Time Machines.

This idea isn't new though. Back in high school (10 years ago), I remember doing a presentation on this exact topic. Of course, there was no mathematics, but the idea was pretty much the same as the one described here.

Yeah it is an old theory, I was surprised that something had been submitted on it lol. I plan to look deeper into it because like Woozie said the article just scratches the surface and rehashes a lot of things that we already thinking. I saw it and had a major nostalgia moment, but with my stupid headache gone Im going to dig a bit further and see what specifics I can find.

[Takedown3]

What the fuck is tweed?

tweed is a past tweet

usage: i tweed yesterday did u see? :: did u see the tweed a few days ago?

[Eliseos]

Can't tell if you're being serious or not, but a tweed as defined by the dictionary is a piece of unfinished woven cloth (hence why the guy in the article had too much of it). If you weren't serious then nevermind

[Milks]

Perhaps I'm late to the game, but has the thread title always been Large Hardon Collider?

[Eliseos]

Think it was changed on April Fool's Day, or at least that's when I noticed it.