Large Hardon Collider

[Max™]

Ok, if you mean that Now is the only time that exists, how do you reconcile that with the result of Relativity that no two observers will claim the same Now as the other?

If I'm in motion relative to you, the order of events I claim is simultaneous is different from yours, not just from my movement changing my perspective, as some seem to think... but also from the perspective itself being altered by the motion... such that you could say I'm moving through time at a shallower angle than a resting observer.

What would you say if I told you that as I am writing this, the moment when you read it and reply to it is a real event. It is somewhere off in the future from my perspective, but it definitely exists.

It is not coming into existence as you reach it, nor has the moment when I wrote this ceased to be at this later time.


We are looking at time in a very limited manner. Like looking into a large room through a keyhole. You can pan around and change what you can see through the opening, but the room doesn't stop existing where you aren't looking, does it?

[kuronosan]

You just blew my fucking brain up.

[zoobernut]

You just blew my fucking brain up.

From my perspective in time your mind was already blown.

I think that it gets really difficult to verbalize how time relates to different observers from different perspectives.

What I would say though is that the time discussion definitely starts to blur the line between philosophy and physics because when we begin to question what time is we can only look at it from our own perspective and then I have to question of all the things our brains are observing which is actual reality and which is just our brains interpretation. I still think that time exists as a singularity and the disparity between events happens because it is our brains attempting to reconcile and fill in the gaps so evens make sense to us. Similar to an optical illusion.

[Neosutra]

Ironically, I dont have enough time or space to answer that question on this forum Max.

Time is a direct bi-product of spacial geometry however, and in the true order of the universe (photonic space, where everything is a single point), there is no time. But the answer really isnt that simple.

[Max™]

Smart guy, though I have to take issue with the many worlds hypothesis, and am convinced that the Universe is not a visible bubble in infinite space, but a bubble of spacetime in something much harder to define due to the limitations of our experience and language.

What I was saying about the keyhole perspective, that's the frog's view.

We're embedded in this structure, your awareness is not a flashlight panning across that structure, you believe you're only aware in each moment that the structure representing your mind functions, so why are you not more broadly aware of all of those moments at once?


I have a thought on that... you're larger than the Planck Mass, narrowing your interaction with time, and you're mostly composed of positively charged mass.

That charge orients your interactions in a certain direction, such that you're facing towards the future.

The information from prior states which have been reflected within your awareness leaves a residual imprint on later states along that orientation.

Your awareness is like a ripple moving down the length of a slinky.

The structure itself exists on a level independently of the ripple, but the ripple adjust the structure as it passes, and carries information in a certain direction.

In a sense you do remember the future, the moments you just passed were the future before you saw them, and you still exist back there. You also exist up ahead, further downstream.

[Max™]

Remember my rambling earlier about directions having identity unto themselves?

How spacetime itself is woven out of these threads with no identity other than being oriented differently than their crossing threads, and arranged parallel to their neighbors?

If those threads are actually the belts which the loops composing our atoms "roll" across, then they are indeed the actual directions we identify as space.


How do you fit time in there? Remember when I said I wouldn't go further into that? Well, I lied.

You can't simply say that you're bending, for example, a left/right (x) thread along the up/down (z) axis. The x threads don't move along those directions, they ARE those directions.

So if you did bend one of those threads, what direction is this motion identified as being?

That direction is Time. A certain change in the orientation of the threads can be identified by a causal order, the states can be identified in a new manner such that one came before the other.

A knot in one of these threads isn't just tied through the directions of the other threads (the spatial extent of a particle or object), it is also tied in a direction related to the other orientations of the thread itself.

The difference between a positive and negative charge then becomes the manner in which they are folded, from a past state towards a future state (positive) or from a future state towards a past state (negative).

Spoiler: show

This is the first of my attempts at expressing this idea.
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...aru/knots2.jpg

Later I fleshed out the heavier quark based structures.
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...rticles801.jpg

Then I added the time and space designations to better express the way these knots are folded, and the orientation of interactions.
http://i341.photobucket.com/albums/o...redfamily2.jpg

I phrase that idea about light a bit differently, Neo, from the perspective of a beam of light all moments should appear simultaneous along it's path.

[oldoldman]

We are looking at time in a very limited manner. Like looking into a large room through a keyhole. You can pan around and change what you can see through the opening, but the room doesn't stop existing where you aren't looking, does it?

If you want to get incredibly quantum, maybe.

[Max™]

Even going by quantum mechanics, it doesn't stop existing.

It's simply in an undecided superposition of states.

[Woozie]

I had a thought this morning while I was taking a crap and I wanted to see if I was approaching this from the right direction. I am still contemplating how matter is put together and all the different pieces. I understand the abstract concept of the 'spin' and the intrinsic angular momentum that the particles have.

Is that why the bubble trails that particles leave in a collider are curved? It seems like if the quarks had no angular momentum then as the particles were smashed together and broken up the pieces would fly off at straight angles. But since they have that component they curve off. That would lead me to believe that the direction they spin off at is also connected to their spin property.

Intrinsic angular momentum has nothing to do with our trajectory through space. The Earth's intrinsic angular momentum isn't the reason it revolves around the sun. It revolves because of the other form of angular momentum.

Bubble chambers have magnetic fields going through them. Magnetic fields curve the path of charged particles, causing them to travel in circles (and a non-charged particle in a bubble chamber travels in straight lines).

Edit: Let me clarify something. Neutral particles do not show up in bubble chamber photos. If you see a straight line in a bubble chamber photo, that's a charged particle that's traveling so fast that it's curvature is very low. So it is traveling in a circle, but a large circle. And since we're only seeing a small part of the large circle, it appears straight (take a photo of a perfect circle and keep zooming in on a certain part. Eventually it will look like a straight line). Sometimes we can tell if there's a neutral particle because we'll see two spiraling charged particles in the middle of the photo going opposite directions. That means a neutral particle decayed into two charged particles going in opposite directions.

[zoobernut]

Intrinsic angular momentum has nothing to do with our trajectory through space. The Earth's intrinsic angular momentum isn't the reason it revolves around the sun. It revolves because of the other form of angular momentum.

Bubble chambers have magnetic fields going through them. Magnetic fields curve the path of charged particles, causing them to travel in circles (and a non-charged particle in a bubble chamber travels in straight lines).

Edit: Let me clarify something. Neutral particles do not show up in bubble chamber photos. If you see a straight line in a bubble chamber photo, that's a charged particle that's traveling so fast that it's curvature is very low. So it is traveling in a circle, but a large circle. And since we're only seeing a small part of the large circle, it appears straight (take a photo of a perfect circle and keep zooming in on a certain part. Eventually it will look like a straight line). Sometimes we can tell if there's a neutral particle because we'll see two spiraling charged particles in the middle of the photo going opposite directions. That means a neutral particle decayed into two charged particles going in opposite directions.

That is very interesting thank you.

[Enygma55]

Well to answer the original title of this thread, it looks like the LHC is set to be back in action in October. Just in time to go trick-or-treat one last time before the world ends.

Large Hadron Collider completes massive stress test | DVICE

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10...=2547-1_3-0-20

but dont let this derail from all this Astrophysics talk I find it very stimulating hehe.

[Khamsin]

Well to answer the original title of this thread, it looks like the LHC is set to be back in action in October. Just in time to go trick-or-treat one last time before the world ends.

Large Hadron Collider completes massive stress test | DVICE

Large Hadron Collider grid stress-tested | Cutting Edge - CNET News

but dont let this derail from all this Astrophysics talk I find it very stimulating hehe.

Halloween is the last day of October, so at the latest, this would put the big day on Halloween.

You won't have time to trick or treat, or at best, you'll be trick or treating when they fire up the LHC.

[Kaylia]

Math is a system by which you can define relationships in not merely a falsifiable manner, but a positively provable one.

It is a language, but it is not one we made, it is one we found.

Math is all around you, physics is trying to understand the Universe, and when you attempt that, you find math is woven into the very fabric. Hell, the fabric is woven of math.

I don't think you can make stament like this...At least, express it as an opinion.

And mathematics were developped to communicates accurate informations about the universe. It's only normal you see mathematics everywhere when you use the language that was developped for this.

[Enygma55]

Maybe the word "Language" is too confusing to describe Math. Maybe "Truth" fits the profile better.

Math is a Universal Truth. How we interpret it is the language we use to understand or express it.

[Max™]

There is no need to bring opinion into it, there is a set of mathematics which describes this Universe arbitrarily well, at some point it becomes nearly meaningless to attempt to distinguish between the math and reality, whatever reality may be.

Again regarding the term language, relating mathematics to language is not doing justice to either. I'm saying that anyone could study their environment and come to the conclusion that an integer such as 2 should exist. That there are ways you can manipulate this concept, and from there you can extrapolate to the logical truths of mathematics.

There is no reason to assume anyone should arrive at the letter B. It is not a fundamental concept found in reality. It has it's own unique utility, due to the abstract nature of expression which language allows, but it has to be created, reinforced, accepted.

There is no fundamental truth to the concept of a letter, it is just a tool we use to ease communication.

There is a fundamental truth to the concept of a number, it is a concept that emerges any time you study your environment.

It would be an amazing coincidence if the fundamental truths of mathematics were not deeply tied to reality, yet we were able to produce the mathematical descriptions we are able to currently.

You can describe a Universe with a set of mathematical statements, yet you are not limited to that set.

You can in fact produce an infinite number of such sets, with a perhaps finite subset that describes Universes which could be observed.

That the limitations of the Universe do not seem to apply to mathematics suggests that one is more fundamental than the other.

You can describe math without a Universe.

You can not describe a Universe without math.

[zoobernut]

I don't think you can make stament like this...At least, express it as an opinion.

And mathematics were developped to communicates accurate informations about the universe. It's only normal you see mathematics everywhere when you use the language that was developped for this.

I think if you think about math without thinking about our set of rules and the symbols we made up to represent math then you can understand how math is a universal truth. Take the golden ratio as an example. We can quantify it with our numbers but even if human math did not exist and we did not have numbers to represent it the relationship would still be there.

[Seraph]

Well to answer the original title of this thread, it looks like the LHC is set to be back in action in October. Just in time to go trick-or-treat one last time before the world ends.

Large Hadron Collider completes massive stress test | DVICE

Large Hadron Collider grid stress-tested | Cutting Edge - CNET News

but dont let this derail from all this Astrophysics talk I find it very stimulating hehe.

Sexy, looks like I will have Hitchhikers 6, Superfreakanomics, and LHC reports to read in October. Nice.

[bigrougabagel]

therein lies our problem, math is not the universal truth, google is.

[Kaylia]

There is no need to bring opinion into it, there is a set of mathematics which describes this Universe arbitrarily well, at some point it becomes nearly meaningless to attempt to distinguish between the math and reality, whatever reality may be.

Again, that's an opinion. We use maths to talk about the universes, but we could build a language around physics's interaction directly. Describe the universe with bosons, mesons, energy..etc. The problem is, you can't do that unless you understand everything, so it's not very useful for us.

Again regarding the term language, relating mathematics to language is not doing justice to either. I'm saying that anyone could study their environment and come to the conclusion that an integer such as 2 should exist. That there are ways you can manipulate this concept, and from there you can extrapolate to the logical truths of mathematics.

Why "2" exist"? I can [indirectly] come to the conclusion that 2 particles exists, but why do I need the number 2? The number here is insignificant, because every particles are independant. If you bundle them together, you're not describing the universe accurately anymore.

[Demosthenes11]

Where Mathematics Comes From - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are books on this stuff you guys know right? lol