Large Hardon Collider

[Max™]

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Kryssan]

Unfortunately, I'm not cool enough for a flip chalkboard. Actually though, I find the slider boards to be even cooler. You know, where it's like 3~5 boards stacked back to back, and you just slide them to the left or right as you finish with one? Loved those things.



I used to have a lot of notes, but every time I change commands they typically get left behind with my last command. I have to leave behind the stuff that's C-RD anyway, but a lot of people like my notes too much to let me just burn 'em when I leave, so they typically wind up as handmedowns, hehe.

[Woozie]

do you guys seriously just kick it at your house and do physics and shit

DO YOU OWN FUCKING FLIP CHALKBOARDS

Unfortunately, no D: the chalkboard in my office doesn't flip and I don't have a chalkboard or a whiteboard at home.

..Fascinating, but I don't think it's going to bear fruit..

Hmm, so Max and I actually agree on something...I think string theory is interesting, but way over emphasized in theoretical physics. It's not the only theory out there, and it's not necessarily any better than any of the other theories out there. It gets all this attention because it is a fascinating concept, but being fascinating doesn't really make it better or more accurate. It would be nice if string theory turned out to be correct, but I don't think we're in a position to assess the validity of the theory. It could easily turn out to be wrong. I just hate the whole "it has to be right because it's beautiful!" idea that some physics buffs seem to have.

I wont outright say that string theory definitely is wrong, so I guess we're not in complete agreement though. Overall, I'm definitely a little skeptical of the theory, but I withhold judgment until more evidence is presented (and most likely the evidence will either never come or it will disprove the theory).

[Max™]

We agree on more than you think, lol.

I just have a weird approach due to my strange education.

It isn't that it's wrong, I think string theory is the right general idea, just the root is misguided due to the central assumptions of quantum physics with the particle system and discreteness.

[Neosutra]

Ill post some more detailed information this weekend when I have some more time, since we are back to some interesting discussions on models. However I need to give some thought on what is acceptable to release just yet.. >.>

[Mizango]

Ill post some more detailed information this weekend when I have some more time, since we are back to some interesting discussions on models. However I need to give some thought on what is acceptable to release just yet.. >.>

Sweet!

[Max™]

As long as it's published in your name already you don't have to be too careful.

Can just give layman rundowns as well, not like we're out to steal your work.

Helpful to compare if anything has been published similarly before, I know I was pleasantly surprised to find Schiller's work so similar to my own.

[Max™]

Ah, that is what I was trying to explain.

The reason why I went to this silly idea of 1 dimensional orientable threads is to avoid shit like the Banach-Tarski paradox.

According to BT you can take one ball, dismantle it into an uncountable set of infinitely small points, then reassemble it into two balls, identical to the first.

I knew at a young age that point particles are bad, if they are 1 dimensional then you can just keep stacking them on top of each other without gaining any sense of size, but you have more material there, more energy, more mass.

That's one of the places where GR and QFT blow up.

String Theory tries to maintain a divisible sense of material structures, but with the extended nature so you can't stack them infinitely.

Simply replace the closed loops of string theory with overlapping loops folded out of a contiguous structure and you keep the fascinating properties, produce a few new ones, and don't get the pernicious infinities.

[bigrougabagel]

Derail: I watched me a good ol hunk o' science on tv last night. Unsure of the channel. It was mainly about SETI and long distance communication, but they touched on some black hole deals again. The speaker again said that gravity was so strong, it "sucked light in". This is against my understanding of how a blackhole works. The spacetime is what is bent, and the light still travels along that spacetime. So the light actually isnt affected by gravity at all, only the "plane" in which is it traveling in. Or is it how the narrator stated and the light is actually bent? I keep hearing it explained 2 different ways and want to make sure i dont spout out the incorrect explanation.

[Seraph]

Derail: I watched me a good ol hunk o' science on tv last night. Unsure of the channel. It was mainly about SETI and long distance communication, but they touched on some black hole deals again. The speaker again said that gravity was so strong, it "sucked light in". This is against my understanding of how a blackhole works. The spacetime is what is bent, and the light still travels along that spacetime. So the light actually isnt affected by gravity at all, only the "plane" in which is it traveling in. Or is it how the narrator stated and the light is actually bent? I keep hearing it explained 2 different ways and want to make sure i dont spout out the incorrect explanation.

Based on my understanding, you are correct. However, based on the observers point of view, and the fact the program was designed for a wide audience, they will explain the light behavior as 'being sucked in'.

[Mizango]

"Bent" and "sucked" are relative words used to make it appealing to the average Joe.

Due to the ENORMOUS gravities of black holes, the effect of gravity on light is slightly more pronounced so that light traveling past this gravity will slightly bend as long as it stays beyond and does not cross the threshold of the event horizon. Once anything whether it be light, gas, an Asteroid or even a planet crosses that horizon it is doomed and "sucked in" due to the lack of a simpler word for others to understand.

I think what you are referring to is the effect of gravitational lensing when light is bent or distorted when it comes into the frame of the Blackhole, yet does not cross the event horizon. I'd have to hear the the context the narrator used to say conclusively what he was talking about but I think you get the gist of what it is I am saying.

[Mizango]

Ok here is a hypothetical example of Gravitational lensing, this planet is not within our hypothetical Black hole so what yo use is light being bent and distorted due to the immense gravity. Had this planet crossed the even horizon there would be no lensing effect, only chunks being shredded and fed into the black hole.

Since nothing can escape its death grip once it crosses that line you would not be able see this effect at all. That is the main difference between light being contorted and bent and someone being "sucked in" never to be heard from again.

[Abandon]

No idea what you're talking about, but that was neat.

[Mizango]

No idea what you're talking about, but that was neat.

Science does indeed tend to astound and amaze with minimal effort. It's one of the driving forces behind my passion.

[Abandon]

White women are my motivation to succeed.

[Woozie]

Derail: I watched me a good ol hunk o' science on tv last night. Unsure of the channel. It was mainly about SETI and long distance communication, but they touched on some black hole deals again. The speaker again said that gravity was so strong, it "sucked light in". This is against my understanding of how a blackhole works. The spacetime is what is bent, and the light still travels along that spacetime. So the light actually isnt affected by gravity at all, only the "plane" in which is it traveling in. Or is it how the narrator stated and the light is actually bent? I keep hearing it explained 2 different ways and want to make sure i dont spout out the incorrect explanation.

I'm not sure if I understand what your saying, but it sounds to me like your original concept of it was correct. A light travels straight, but the black hole bends the space that it travels through. So a straight line through bent space is going to be curved. The space around a black hole has such an extreme curvature that the light falls into the black hole. But as Seraph explained, it's easier to explain it to people by saying it's sucked in.

[bigrougabagel]

only chunks being shredded and fed into the black hole.

If i am picturing this correctly, it is pretty damn mind blowing. So lets say a person walking thru the cosmos accidentally crosses an event horizon of a black hole (yeah there were signs up, yeah there were workers around and yes, they were texting while walking). That first foot that crosses begins to be pulled apart due to the gravity. Now that last sentence is pretty awesome when you think about it. If i understand correctly, the force of gravity is stronger at the front end of the foot than at the back, so much so that it is pulled apart. In fact even the atoms and pieces of atoms that are minutely further away from the singularity are pulled apart due to the strength of the gravity changing over that short distance. ok, back to work, checking back in later.

[Cephius]

I'm not sure if I understand what your saying, but it sounds to me like your original concept of it was correct. A light travels straight, but the black hole bends the space that it travels through. So a straight line through bent space is going to be curved. The space around a black hole has such an extreme curvature that the light falls into the black hole. But as Seraph explained, it's easier to explain it to people by saying it's sucked in.

Just to complete this point and add to it what Miz mentioned, light can still escape the area in the vicinity of a black hole, hence why you can still see things around it. However, as you approach the event horizon (point of no return, or however you want to describe it) less and less light is able to escape the gravitational pull. Once you pass that point, all forms of matter and light point inwards towards the singularity, and no escape velocity can resist the pull, which is why you can't see anything past that point.

I've mentioned this before in another thread but I dislike the "sucked in" terminology as that's not really what happens. Theoretically, if you had a space vessel capable of withstanding the immense gravity and fast enough to move out of the pull of it, you could fly right by a black hole and never get "sucked in" as long as you didn't pass the event horizon. Of course no one knows what the effect of time distortion would have on you, but yeah.

Cool stuff nonetheless. I believe that lensing effect actually allows astronomers to see astral bodies that would normally be hidden behind stars or other masses.

[Mizango]

If i am picturing this correctly, it is pretty damn mind blowing. So lets say a person walking thru the cosmos accidentally crosses an event horizon of a black hole (yeah there were signs up, yeah there were workers around and yes, they were texting while walking). That first foot that crosses begins to be pulled apart due to the gravity. Now that last sentence is pretty awesome when you think about it. If i understand correctly, the force of gravity is stronger at the front end of the foot than at the back, so much so that it is pulled apart. In fact even the atoms and pieces of atoms that are minutely further away from the singularity are pulled apart due to the strength of the gravity changing over that short distance. ok, back to work, checking back in later.

Hypothetical scenario:

Yes exactly right, the second your toe or foot crosses over into the void of the event horizon would become began to stretch and pull you in. The catch would be that you would be conscious as your toes, then your toe nails, bones, ankle, shin and so on and so on until you were elongated and shredded down into completely nothing.

So yes you were right in that regard. I'm sure I can dig up a NDT clip of him explaining.

[quannum]

YouTube - Neil DeGrasse Tyson - Death By Black Hole

i got your back.