Large Hardon Collider

[Khamsin]

Once the LHC begins running it's experiments in November, then...

1) How long will the initial experiment(s) take to run/gather data?

2) How long after that until we start hearing meaningful interpretations of the data?

[Eliseos]

Once the LHC begins running it's experiments in November, then...

1) How long will the initial experiment(s) take to run/gather data?

2) How long after that until we start hearing meaningful interpretations of the data?

1) They will gain data almost instantaneously, but it more than likely will be nothing significant, especially if they are running it at non-peak power to start with.

2)Until they find something significant, it could very well be a long time. It will be even longer for a person not very well acquainted with the math and the physics to hear a more meaningful interpretation (what's meaningful to a scientist may not be meaningful to you and I, for example).

[Evensong]

It depends who or what is retaining the information. I wasn't necessarily referring to scientists or even humans for that instance. For example, a scientific instrument or say, computer, can be supposed to be reliable. Naturally, it all depends on what observation we are speaking of and in what context and also, what we mean by reliable and true.

[Quicklet]

To give you an idea of how tricky it might be to sort through the data coming out of the LHC, for some of the newer discovered bottomonium particles from one of the other accelerators they decided they had something like 15 events +/- 5 out of trillions. It's the proverbial needle in the haystack situation. How easy it is to confirm any new particles or phenomena will depend greatly on how high they can crank that thing up.

[Eliseos]

All the same, two different measurements will not necessarily make the same measurements either; see Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Woozie]

I'm sorry, I'm not a scientist, but I really want to understand what's going on here as best I can. What's the difference between local and non-local in relation to GR?

Well, Max can go more into the details of locality in GR, but from a quantum mechanical standpoint, both non-locality and causality creates undesirable effects, but in most cases there are workarounds. There are workable theories in theoretical physics that assume non-locality, and working theories that assume non-causality (it's been experimentally verified hundreds or maybe thousands of times that any theory with both locality and causality is wrong, so we are forced to choose between them).

[Woozie]

Who Posted?
Total Posts: 1,270
User Name Posts
Mizango 241
Max™ 167
Woozie 165

dangit Max, I was really enjoying my silver medal till you came along. Bronze sux.

Edit: Maybe we should get together and overthrow Mizango somehow. He got us beat by a decent margin.

[Mizango]

dangit Max, I was really enjoying my silver medal till you came along. Bronze sux.

Edit: Maybe we should get together and overthrow Mizango somehow. He got us beat by a decent margin.

lol Woozie

[Evensong]

All the same, two different measurements will not necessarily make the same measurements either; see Time dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not necessarily, no, but there is a point where we have to agree that they do. I'm guessing that's what we can call reliable...to use an example related to the thread even (!) I'm certain we consider the LHC as reliable enough. The data it will be collecting will be, in a way, reliable retainment of the present that will in the future come to be and so the 7000 scientists will be analyzing that retained present. If SSC were working, it too would yield the same reliable results.

Just before anyone bombards me with equations, I'd like to clarify that I'm no natural scientist, but that I am particularly interested in the history, development and ideas of science and technology. Thanks for that link to wiki, and I'm open to anything new that - to the best of my abilities - I can learn. ^^

[Eliseos]

Not necessarily, no, but there is a point where we have to agree that they do. I'm guessing that's what we can call reliable...to use an example related to the thread even (!) I'm certain we consider the LHC as reliable enough. The data it will be collecting will be, in a way, reliable retainment of the present that will in the future come to be and so the 7000 scientists will be analyzing that retained present. If SSC were working, it too would yield the same reliable results.

Just before anyone bombards me with equations, I'd like to clarify that I'm no natural scientist, but that I am particularly interested in the history, development and ideas of science and technology. Thanks for that link to wiki, and I'm open to anything new that - to the best of my abilities - I can learn. ^^

That's the thing about science, we can never be sure what we are seeing is correct If we have enough measurements in a lab that we can say this event happens because of that, all it takes is one (even in one in a thousand million million) experiment to prove us wrong and it's back to the drawing board. All scientists can do is add more 9's to the "we're 99.9999999% sure this is what happens" statement.

[Evensong]

That's the thing about science, we can never be sure what we are seeing is correct (...) All scientists can do is add more 9's to the "we're 99.9999999% sure this is what happens" statement.

Yes I guess I could say we can be 99.99999999% sure (<-note: an added 9 to yours!) that we aren't sure of anything!

[Pirian]

The only thing I know is that I know nothing.

Go So-crates!
http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/Albio...billandted.jpg

[Evensong]

lol! back to the basics, where it all began

[Max™]

Remember, I'm not advocating a total trashing of causality, and it isn't so much acausal behaviors, as extended causal interaction.

It isn't exactly the values required to explain effects, but imagine an electron has R = 3, and we have R = 1.

We're actually above the R = 1 point, which should be roughly where quantum effects disappear, i.e. the planck mass (22 nanograms, the mass of a dust particle).

Nonetheless.

We observe a series of events.

Event A at 0:01
Event B at 0:02
Event C at 0:03

An electron would see the states of A and B overlap with a state from 0:00, then see the state of event B overlapped with A and C, then see Event B and C overlap with a state from 0:04.


When I say, see, or observe, I just mean interact with.

So if we observed an electron at any point in that sequence, the total state of the particle would depend on which portion it was overlapping with.

The electron we observe coinciding with Event A is interacting with the 0:00 state, and Event B.

The electron we observe at Event B is interacting with A and C, and so on.


It helps to think of what we call Now, or the Present, as a slice through a 4 dimensional structure.

Each slice appears to have 3 spatial dimensions, but two observers won't necessarily see the same slice, from either a spatial point, or temporal portions of those spatial dimensions.

[Khamsin]

Speaking of slices of 4-dimensional structures, why is the conservation of energy applicable only to a slice across 3-space (x,y,z) at a particular time (t), instead of say, a slice across (x,y,t) at a particular z plane. Or across (y,z,t) at a particular x plane? Same goes for other principles of physics applicable to a particular time, rather than applicable to a particular x plane, y plane, or z plane, taking into account all of time.

[Max™]

Because energy is a property that arises when you bend a spatial dimension through a temporal dimension?




I'm serious, btw, that is the answer that I've come up with regarding that law.

[Khamsin]

Because energy is a property that arises when you bend a spatial dimension through a temporal dimension?




I'm serious, btw, that is the answer that I've come up with regarding that law.

And why are the states of one slice across (x,y,z) at time (t) dependent on the state of the slice across (x,y,z) at (t-1), yet the states of a slice across (x,y,t) in plane z are independent of the state of a slice across (x,y,t) in plane z-1?

There's only continuity along the time axis, but not necessarily along the other three axes. In a 4 dimensional space, shouldn't all 4 axes have equal meaning?

[Max™]

And why are the states of one slice across (x,y,z) at time (t) dependent on the state of the slice across (x,y,z) at (t-1), yet the states of a slice across (x,y,t) in plane z are independent of the state of a slice across (x,y,t) in plane z-1?

There's only continuity along the time axis, but not necessarily along the other three axes. In a 4 dimensional space, shouldn't all 4 axes have equal meaning?

Ohh, I see what you're asking.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Our slices across (x,y,z) at (t) are not the full nature of things, we are only seeing a limited angle of events.

Thus our limited angle is panned across (x,y,z,t) in such a way that we see (x,y,z) + (t-1), then (x,y,z) + (t), then (x,y,z) + (t+1), and so on.

In reality t is not a series of slices, we are only able to observe it that way because we are made from folded up bits of the (x,y,z) directions.

The tightly curved shapes are such that we are able to change our (x,y,z) location in respect to other locations, but are unable to fully interact with the (t) direction. We only observe limited angles of it, as slices, which we call moments, or the present.


The (t) direction arises as the way in which the (x,y,z) directions can be folded and bent.

Sliding something along a spatial (x,y,z) direction is not the same as sliding the (x) direction in relation to itself.

You can't really say right moved upwards, or right moved to the right.

So if you bend a direction, the states can be related to each other with temporal labels.

If you bend the direction (x), it is bent along the direction (t) and the relationship from the (x) state to the (x') state is such that you can declare one is the past and one is the future.


The orientation of the folded directions we are knotted up out of are along those directions as well, positively charged matter is knotted into the past, and back towards the future. So we are future facing. We observe events along one axis of time, but this is arbitrary, only a matter of chance that we wound up knotted this way instead of the other.

There could be other temporal directions you could conceive of as well, but matter would not be stable with so many possible orientations, just as orbits would not be stable with more than 3 spatial dimensions... but I digress as I am probably seeming way off topic, though it's all related really.

[Khamsin]

Ohh, I see what you're asking.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

Our slices across (x,y,z) at (t) are not the full nature of things, we are only seeing a limited angle of events.

Thus our limited angle is panned across (x,y,z,t) in such a way that we see (x,y,z) + (t-1), then (x,y,z) + (t), then (x,y,z) + (t+1), and so on.

In reality t is not a series of slices, we are only able to observe it that way because we are made from folded up bits of the (x,y,z) directions.

The tightly curved shapes are such that we are able to change our (x,y,z) location in respect to other locations, but are unable to fully interact with the (t) direction. We only observe limited angles of it, as slices, which we call moments, or the present.

Yet, we are merely observers. So we should have no bearing on the nature of spacetime. It is what it is, whatever that may be. However, the universe itself also treat t in a special manner. e.g. conservation of energy only applies given a particular t. For any one slice at t, the total energy across x,y,z is equal to the sum at any other t. It falls apart if you try to apply it across the x-y plane for all time at a particular z coordinate, for example. Same goes for pretty much any other principle of physics.

Although, there's no way to know for sure what the sum of energy in a particular x-y plane spanning all time is, to prove or disprove. For all we know, it might work out in all directions and the universe is one giant 4-dimensional sudoku grid.

That aside, take spacetime as the whole, all-inclusive 4-dimensional cube spanning the entire x spectrum, y spectrum, z spectrum, and t spectrum. Everything, everywhere, all that has been, is, and ever will be.

Imagine we're ambling along the t axis, experiencing the universe one slice at at time as t increases.

Now rotate the cube (or our axis of movement, either way). As mere observers, we are still be limited to incremental observations along a single axis, yet now we observe wild fluctuations of energy or matter. There could be a huge amount one moment, then none, then some, as we would see if we were following, say, the z axis instead of t. The universe would look vastly different following some other axis. But would it uphold the laws of physics? Or just different laws that are only valid for that axis, as ours is only valid for following t?

[Max™]

The entire sum of the (x,y,z,t) dimensions is a conserved value.