Large Hardon Collider

[Woozie]

Hubble's law, yeah I understand that. Let me phrase my question another way: say we happened to find a way to leave our galaxy. We would have to faster than the universe is expanding in order to reach another galaxy, and that can be measured, right? Just like how a fly on a train doesn't realize it's moving at the speed of the train. Or rather, lets use your example of a balloon: the ant on the ever expanding balloon is at point A. In order for the ant to make it to point B he has to overcome the rate at which the balloon is expanding, and that can be measured. Furthermore, as the ant gets closer and closer to the speed of light everything around the ant, from the ants prospective, starts to slow down. Therefore the ant perceives the rate of expansion of the balloon to be slower than it actually is the faster the ant goes.

Edit: Going out to brunch or I would turn on the tube

To reach another galaxy, we would in fact have to travel faster than the expansion. As the ant slows down, it would, in fact, see time dilation around it, but that's not the reason the expansion appears to slow.

Remember, from our point of view, it looks like galaxies are moving away from each other at a certain (accelerating) speed. If I move faster, it appears to me that everything else is going slower simply because of the differences in our velocity changing. It's just like how a car going 60 appears slower to a car going 50 than to a car going 40.

Since we normally measure the expansion based on how fast the galaxies are moving, then we'd definitely think expansion was going slower since the galaxy would seem slower compared to a faster moving observer.

Remember, the rate at which something moves compared to you is what determines how fast their clocks tick compared to yours, not the other way around (i.e. it's not that the rate of their clocks determine how fast they seem to move compared to you).

[Woozie]

Though humans claim to reach for the unknown, we breed our contempt in the familiarity of tradition.

This is one of the things I find very interesting about people. We always want to discover something new, but we never want anything new to come.

I had to do a report on Satyendra Nath Bose (the Bose-Einstein statistics guy) in my statistical physics class. He originally developed Bose-Einstein statistics all on his own, but no one would publish his work. They didn't want to believe that identical particles in symmetric states would behave in such a manner (and no experiments have proven this yet). He sent his paper to Einstein, who translated it and resubmitted it, and they published it immediately just because Einstein himself submitted it.

One might argue that Bose's work was such a huge leap that it's hard to believe, and that Einstein's backing made a difference because he was already a renown expert on the matter. But then why did Einstein himself believe it? It boils down to people not wanting to accept something drastic and new. Being skeptical is a good thing, but if the math works, then you shouldn't just completely ignore it. I'm not saying we should accept everything where the math works, but I am saying we shouldn't dismiss it just because it's a radical change to our understanding.

Einstein himself was known for this same type of behavior, with the whole static universe thing. In this case, not only did the math work, but it was his own math. I'd say quantum mechanics without hidden variables is another example of him not wanting to accept something, but then Max and I are just going to end up arguing like we used to do in spam.

Max and I (and all physicists) also disagree on interpretations of quantum mechanics. Maybe I'm exhibiting this same attitude, but I think it's okay in this case because interpretations of quantum mechanics is more philosophy than science. Every philosopher have these kind of prejudices in some way. That's pretty much what philosophy is, for the most part lol. No one can ever prove anything, you just form an opinion based on what sounds right to you, admit that your theory isn't provable, then proceed to tell everyone else that they're wrong and you're right anyways lol.

When the big bang was originally proposed, everyone thought it was ridiculous. People bought into the steady state theory, refusing to believe that the universe wasn't always here. In this case, the math for the Steady State model didn't work because they violated conservation of energy. Scientist were more willing to break the most important law than to believe a radically new idea.

Quarks were thought to be ridiculous at first. "After all, how could a particle have a third of a charge? That's just silly!". Mathematically, not only did quark theories work, but it was the only way to account for experimental observations, and yet it still was accepted at first.

The idea behind black holes actually originates in the late 1700s, but wasn't accepted until the mid 1900s. Of course, we didn't have sound mathematics for it until Einsteins GR in 1915, but the subject remained controversial for decades.

Even now, even with all the radical theories we come up with today, we probably still exhibit this same attitude without realizing it. I probably have this attitude to some extent, despite me sitting here talking about how much this holds us back. I wouldn't be surprised if we have another revolution in understanding similar to what Quantum Theory did to us in the last century. I kinda hope we do.

Also, Kryssan is one of my new favorite BG posters.

[Eliseos]

When the big bang was originally proposed, everyone thought it was ridiculous. People bought into the steady state theory, refusing to believe that the universe wasn't always here. In this case, the math for the Steady State model didn't work because they violated conservation of energy. Scientist were more willing to break the most important law than to believe a radically new idea.

The Science Channel had an hour long documentary on Hoyle and his contempt for the Big Bang theory last week. Interesting how he basically went to his grave flat out refusing to believe it, even after Hubble, the CMB, etc.

I only caught the last 15 minutes or so of the Atom show that was on this morning, it was awesome when they showed the Schrodinger's cat experiment lol. What did I miss before all that?

A sort of unrelated question, what do you guys do with your old notebooks? I'm trying to find a better, more accessible way of storing them besides random boxes in the closet.

[Woozie]

I only caught the last 15 minutes or so of the Atom show that was on this morning, it was awesome when they showed the Schrodinger's cat experiment lol. What did I miss before all that?

I missed most of it too. It was on since like 8, I think. They talked a little bit about matter/antimatter, the big bang vs steady state, and a bit of particle physics, from what I saw.

[Pirian]

Remember, the rate at which something moves compared to you is what determines how fast their clocks tick compared to yours, not the other way around (i.e. it's not that the rate of their clocks determine how fast they seem to move compared to you).

I had thought of it this way originally but thought it narcissistic of me to try and make the comparison from my point of view. I guess I was asking the wrong question...Or maybe not the wrong question, but I asked that question without first asking if there was a base point for time other than what we experience as time. This whole concept just fascinates me!

[Woozie]

Relativity requires us to be narcissistic. My frame of reference is the frame of reference as far as science concerned. For another person, his frame of reference is the frame of reference as far as science is concerned. Every individual privileges his frame of reference as the vantage point, though in the end, no person can prove that his is more valid than someone elses.

[Mizango]

Relativity requires us to be narcissistic. My frame of reference is the frame of reference as far as science concerned. For another person, his frame of reference is the frame of reference as far as science is concerned. Every individual privileges his frame of reference as the vantage point, though in the end, no person can prove that his is more valid than someone elses.

Exactly Woozie.

Once you delve head long into Relativity and actually are able to visually conceptualize what is taking place around you then there is no going back. GR usually fascinates people in a very hypnotic fashion when they first get into it so I know what you mean there.

Wow you guys were busy while I was away lol. Going for some lunch with the wife real quick, Ill post a relevant video when I get back.

[Max™]

Relativity tells us that time is not a process, it is a parameter.

Our perception of time is that it is something which happens, that there is a single universal moment which keeps evolving.

Relativity says this is just our limited ability to see what time is.


The whole thing about frames of reference is saying that you and I are not looking at the same moment in time.

My location is different from yours in space, my state of motion is slightly different from yours, so the angle which I view time through is slightly different.

At our relative velocities, there is virtually no perceptible difference, but as an example, you might observe two particles decaying through a telescope and claim it was simultaneous, while I observe them from my perspective and claim the left particle decayed slightly before the right one.

My observation would mean one of the events happened in the past or future relative to your observation of the events, but that is not accurate either.

Events don't happen, they exist as 4 Dimensional structures in the Universe, I simply saw a differently oriented 3 Dimensional slice of the structure than you did, and the orientation I observed had a different arrangement than yours.

Like holding both of your hands up in front of your face.

If you look from in front of you, they're clearly separated by a foot of distance, but as you move around to the side, they get closer and closer, until from directly to the side, where they appear to be in the same location.

Time is no different, it is just harder to grasp as a concept due to how our brains work.

Your awareness feels like a constant process while it gives the strange flashbulb sequence of nows, but it is more like a ripple traveling downstream towards the past, subtly altering later states of itself as it reflects the prior states.


You do not observe time as it truly is, just as you do not exist in all of space as it truly is.

You are localized at a single location in space, and your locus of awareness is oriented across a single slice of events in time.


As you change your motion through space, you change the angle at which you view time, increasing your interaction with one portion of spacetime reduces your interaction with the others.

You can move left, but that limits moving right or down or backwards.

You can move through time, but that limits moving around through space.

You can move through space, but that limits moving onwards through time.

[Mizango]

Basically the idea of acceleration and how it relates and deals with gravity is best described in Albert Einstein's Equivalence Principle, which states "that you cannot tell the difference between a Gravitational field and an equivalent uniform rate of acceleration". Objects that are in total and unrestrained free fall under gravity all accelerate by the same amount.

So basically they move the same way as if there were no gravity present (i.e. weightlessness). So what may appear to an observer to be the result of gravity is really the result of a curved spacetime. Since using GR has established that spacetime is curved around massive objects, the Earth is merely plodding and moving along the shortest possible path in curved spacetime. Which would appear to a random observer as if the Sun were pulling and tugging on the Earth due to immense gravity.

Einstein used a "Gedanken experiment" in which he light as an protagonist to illustrate and to attempt to visualize a lot of his ideas. I wish I could just throw down on a pipe and just sit in a library and zone out for hours and hours at a time.

This was a question I got via pm so feel free to add. Figured id post the answer here since we were on the topic of Relativity and all.

[Khamsin]

And yet, despite differences in time, we can't seem to eke out far enough ahead to take advantage of causality. Or lag behind far enough to be taken advantage of.

And despite seeing one particle decay before the other, you can't seem to warn the other observer fast enough before he sees them decay simultaneously.

[Tristam]

Meanwhile, the small planet collider seems to be working just fine.

NASA - Planetary Smash-Up

Has a cool animation, if you ever wanted to see an artistic rendering of two planets get into a fender bender at 22000 km/hr relative to each other.

edit: I fail at units

[Eliseos]

That video is awesome, Tristam.

Today was Special Relativity day in my Physics class. It blows my mind every time I think of it. I brought it up the other night with my friends, since we were talking about GPS systems. They were actually interested in it, and my friends have little to no science background. I wish we were spending more time on it, we're doing a basic Quantum Mechanics lecture tomorrow, then review for the final on Wednesday, with the final on Thursday.

I'm seriously considering double majoring Physics with the rest of my CS degree (a year left on that). Judging by what credits I would need vs. what I already have, it would be about 2 extra years to do that, taking a mixture of both subjects each semester. I just wish I would have decided to do this sooner.

[Eliseos]

Saw this today:
NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says - Nation - MiamiHerald.com

[Mizango]

Saw this today:
NASA's moon plan too ambitious, Obama panel says - Nation - MiamiHerald.com

Same ol' story for NASA and our space ambitions. Now if this was for a war we would get a 3 trillion to fully fund it. Sadly it's the day and time we are living in.

Woozie and I were talking about this very thing on MSN on Tuesday.

[Eliseos]

I was hoping for some better news from this panel other than "hey, if you want to do this, you're going to have to sacrifice the space station" or "you guys can get your turn in 2028 when this Apophis is supposed to hit." NASA needs a bailout, fuck GM.

[Mizango]

Exactly.

[kuronosan]

Stimulus - Because averting disaster means protecting the world from economical collapse instead of extra-celestial collision.

[Siniroth]

"you guys can get your turn in 2028 when this Apophis is supposed to hit."

No see then we just throw 2 Air Force officers at it, some random doctor who gets laughed at, and an alien, fuck NASA

[Eliseos]

Bruce Willis would fuck it up, for free.

[Xfaustx]

So I picked up a book called "The Quantum World" by Kennet W. Ford. It's a basic intro to quantum physics and what have you. Anyone read it and have any thoughts if it's a good book or helped them understand the topic better? Or even what would be a good book after reading this to delve a little deeper into the topic?