Large Hardon Collider

[zoobernut]

Do you know where a large resolution version of that picture might exist? That is simply amazing.

[Mizango]

This is what the sky would look like if we got rid of our light saturated high pressure sodium lamps that we use in our cities.

Speaking of which, from yesterday on to Thursday you can see the ISS passing across the night sky. May have to Google it as far as what time and in what direction in your respective cities but my daughter and I saw it last night. It was up there for about a good 15 mins or so traversing across the night sky.

It was unbelievable.

[Mizango]

Do you know where a large resolution version of that picture might exist? That is simply amazing.

Yes it is, try looking through NASA's website?

APOD: 2009 July 29 - The Milky Way Over Devil's Tower

There is the picture in all of its glory.


Edit: Here is a link to NASA's pictures of the day. I have this set to auto-refresh on my homepage each morning.

[Khamsin]

This is what the sky would look like if we got rid of our light saturated high pressure sodium lamps that we use in our cities.

Some cities (especially bigger ones with an active nightlife and well-lit downtown area) use metal halide which produces a nicer, whiter light compared to the yellow HPS luminaires!

Of course, doesn't help you see the night sky any better.

[Mizango]

Some cities (especially bigger ones with an active nightlife and well-lit downtown area) use metal halide which produces a nicer, whiter light compared to the yellow HPS luminaires!

Of course, doesn't help you see the night sky any better.

I bet they are still much nicer though Id trade in a heartbeat lol

[Max™]

Yes, the event horizon is the black hole in the sense that once something crosses the event horizon it will inevitably fall to the center with no escape. This is only because the escape velocity is equal to the universal speed limit. Once you cross the event horizon, you're still in empty space just as you were before you crossed it and if you could go fast enough (faster than light somehow) you could leave. It's kind of like how the moon is trapped in the Earths Gravity, but is not actually on Earth or touching the Earth or in Earth. It's just not fast enough to get away. In the case of a black hole, nothing in the universe can escape the black hole once you pass the event horizon.

Well, as I said, that is my interpretation of things there after my warning.

It isn't really useful to consider the interior of an event horizon being causally connected to the Universe, since it isn't. Trying to model it as though it were produces the "pernicious infinities" we're talking about below.

I am actually fairly certain that if you crossed the event horizon, you would no longer be inside of this Universe any longer, and no there is no way you could leave.

I don't actually think you can cross the event horizon though, but rather as string theory suggests, you get smushed into it.

But the actual material that makes up the black hole, the actual thing itself should fall into an infinitely dense point as far as our math can tell us.

As far as the improper assumptions of arbitrarily divisible particles applied to the equations of general relativity can tell us, yes.

QFT describes the processes accurately, but there are key assumptions which produce these troubles, the main being that just because the quantum nature of subatomic behaviors suggests an inherently divided, or separable, nature of matter and energy into identifiable bits, does not require there to actually be said stand-alone particles. Only that the material of the Universe behaves in such a fashion.

The math you're speaking of works ok until you consider a "dust" solution, rather than an empty space solution.

This certainly indicates that there's a problem since a black hole literally divides by zero in a certain sense. But nevertheless, the infinitely dense scenario is the best model we have so far. Our math tells us that the substance definitely can't not be infinitely dense. The problem is it kinda also tells us that it can't be infinitely dense either, especially since QM puts a lower limit on size.

The infinitely dense scenario isn't a model though, it's just an unpleasant result of trying to apply formulas beyond their region of applicability.

It's a bad thing, it needs to be corrected, not accepted and worked around.

[Max™]

>.>

What?

Having a visual metaphor can be handy in many cases, we're very visual creatures.





I still can't figure out why there is so much resistance against shedding the point particle concept, it's trivially wrong, it's incredibly troublesome, it isn't even mathematically helpful when you start considering the dynamics of those particles when gravity comes into play... yet it still clings on, and the popular contender to replace it is just a *nod* and a *wink* adjustment to make things play nicer. (String Theory)



We can't get away from that damn "there has to be SOMETHING down there underneath everything" idea.

[Woozie]

What do you mean by "dust" solution? Are there solutions that allow stray particles to exist in the interior of the event horizon without inevitable crashing into the singularity? I've heard that spinning black holes or charged black holes allow such a thing, but I'm not sure if that's what you're refering to.

The infinitely dense scenario isn't a model though, it's just an unpleasant result of trying to apply formulas beyond their region of applicability.

I'll concede to this. You're right, we really can't know for sure how the interior of a black hole looks with our current math, and the singularity is really just a huge mathematical flaw we can't get rid of. But even most of our theories that try to reconcile QM and GR still end up with singularities in some form or another. One could argue that it just proves that these theories are also incomplete (or inconsistent). And I kinda agree with that. Singularities don't make any sense in the Quantum Universe I believe in (you know I'm a big fan of quantum descriptions of the universe).

[Neosutra]

I just dont like overstretching metaphors about concepts that are already overstretching metaphors..

[Woozie]

What?

Having a visual metaphor can be handy in many cases, we're very visual creatures.





I still can't figure out why there is so much resistance against shedding the point particle concept, it's trivially wrong, it's incredibly troublesome, it isn't even mathematically helpful when you start considering the dynamics of those particles when gravity comes into play... yet it still clings on, and the popular contender to replace it is just a *nod* and a *wink* adjustment to make things play nicer. (String Theory)



We can't get away from that damn "there has to be SOMETHING down there underneath everything" idea.

Is string theory not a theory that throws away the concept of point particles? One of the biggest problems with point particles is the fact that they're pointlike, and string theory does away with that. I can understand a person disagreeing with string theory, but I can't see why a person should disagree with string theory because they don't like point particles.

[Max™]

Eh, it makes it more interesting for my audience when I get bored and start rambling on about motion through spacetime and shit...


Dust solutions are a way to represent mass in general relativity, you assume a volume filled with a generic dust with no other properties other than mass, evenly spread throughout the volume.

If you try to fully consider the properties of actual particles in said solution, and you increase the mass enough to produce an event horizon, you get a breakdown where this dust which was only supposed to be a stand-in, gets taken as a real object with no physical dimensions besides mass.

So you can start stacking them on top of each other, the quantum mechanic parts of the calculations work fine... but all of a sudden BOOM everything shoots off to infinity and you're left with your underwear inside out wondering what happened.


String Theory still assumes a divisible nature for matter.


You can't stack them infinitely, so you avoid that blowup, but you still get the problem that the Universe only BEHAVES as if it can be finitely divided, and assuming that it actually can be produces the slight, and maddening, mismatch between String Theory and an actual predictive theory.


Strings work great as a model for a single object, when you try to add other objects, shit starts getting weird.

When you consider a huge object comprised of some arbitrary combination of strings, shit blows up again.


I'm saying the answer might not be in trying to find the final indivisible building block. I don't think there is one, rather the Universe is a single extended object, and what we call building blocks are just states within it.

[Neosutra]

Eh, it makes it more interesting for my audience when I get bored and start rambling on about motion through spacetime and shit...


Dust solutions are a way to represent mass in general relativity, you assume a volume filled with a generic dust with no other properties other than mass, evenly spread throughout the volume.

If you try to fully consider the properties of actual particles in said solution, and you increase the mass enough to produce an event horizon, you get a breakdown where this dust which was only supposed to be a stand-in, gets taken as a real object with no physical dimensions besides mass.

So you can start stacking them on top of each other, the quantum mechanic parts of the calculations work fine... but all of a sudden BOOM everything shoots off to infinity and you're left with your underwear inside out wondering what happened.

Dust solutions arent really a good representation as it uses as a physical representation of the volume, yet you associate no geometric qualities, which doesnt fit our observation of the universe. It is basically like saying "this empty space has mass, and Im going to treat it like empty space (which is inherently massless) and be suprised when the calculations dont work".

[Mizango]

Is string theory not a theory that throws away the concept of point particles? One of the biggest problems with point particles is the fact that they're pointlike, and string theory does away with that. I can understand a person disagreeing with string theory, but I can't see why a person should disagree with string theory because they don't like point particles.

You are exactly right in that respect Woozie. Seeing as how the reason behind our current point particle theories can hypothetically be replaced by string theory is due to the fact that the strings themselves are are so small, in theory.

Point particles and String Theory are like step brothers.

[Max™]

Dust solutions arent really a good representation as it uses as a physical representation of the volume, yet you associate no geometric qualities, which doesnt fit our observation of the universe. It is basically like saying "this empty space has mass, and Im going to treat it like empty space (which is inherently massless) and be suprised when the calculations dont work".

There are exact dust solutions which consider the geometric properties of the spacetime altered by the mass.

The problem is GR never says what matter/mass is, so trying to make it say what it is fucks everything up.


Mass in GR is a value you insert, then put a sticky note saying "there's matter here" after the fact.


Also: to better explain that extended object idea.

If you took String Theory, and modified it so there was only one actual object, an unbelievably long strand or thread, and specified that what we call strings are just loops in that thread... it seems to work wonderfully.

Prof. Schiller has been working on the same basic concept as myself, the math works out on the idea. Just a matter of getting attention for it in a string theory dominated field.

Classical electrodynamics:
http://www.motionmountain.net/mmdown...-photon-v6.pdf

General Relativity:
http://www.motionmountain.net/mmdown...f=cs-gr-v6.pdf

QM/QED:
http://www.motionmountain.net/mmdown...quantum-v6.pdf

QFT/Standard Model/Gauge Interactions:
http://www.motionmountain.net/mmdown...-gauge-v10.pdf

[Max™]

WAKE UP, MO-FO'S!

Someone other than me make the last post visible, I think I'm scaring people off.

[Neosutra]

Im just not seeing where the math works out for your claim of a single strand. It doesnt really follow basic string theory either, as it conflicts with many of the core concepts, so I am not sure how you could just visualize just one "object" or membrane and count other "strings" as just loops in that object. Thats like saying "its like string theory, except completely not".

[Max™]

What Schiller is working out is roughly an extension of quantum topological field theory, treating the particles and interactions as crossing points, and stating that only the crossing changes are observables quite respectably reproduces the mathematical structure of the standard model.


The relation to strings is NOT something he made, it is something I noted, that if you used the rule that the non-crossing portions are unobservable, you could almost state this was string theory, just that the strings are really loops connected by portions of the strand you can't directly see (because to observe something you have to change the crossings, etc, etc, etc).

[Denchi]

I'm glad I live here. By buddy works at Lowell observatory up the hill a little bit, so he texts me whenever they point the giant telescope at anything cool. They pointed it at the International Space Station last week for about an hour, so I drove up and checked it out. Totally sweet. I've also seen a bunch of Nebula's and planets and star clusters. It's a really neat thing to have at my disposal.

Flagstaff, Arizona - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As home to a major astronomical observatory, the city has recognized an interest in preserving its dark skies by keeping light pollution to a minimum. In 1958, the city council passed the nation's first ordinance governing outdoor lighting, and similar ordinances in the latter half of the 20th century have maintained this commitment to preserving Flagstaff's dark skies.
On October 24, 2001, Flagstaff was recognized by the International Dark-Sky Association as the world's first "International Dark-Sky City.""

[Khamsin]

You guys should move to Science City, Philippines and join your brothers in science. Not sure if much research actually goes on there, but it's as cool of a place to have on your mailing address as any.

[Kryssan]

Beautiful isn't it? And low and behold, its not magic!

The universe around us is the best example of beauty one can find. I myself will never be able to get over the first time I saw the effects of Ĉerenkov radiation personally.


And as for magic:

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”