Woo Hoo, LHC is Working

[7DSUSYstrings]

Erasmus00,

You can't understand this and declare "misuses" because you aren't thinking outside the box. I'm probably not going to waste my time trying to explain to you personally how null geodesics can involve more than a path that essentially form light cones. You would need to be thinking smaller than the Higgs fields (bosons) to fathom this. You would need to envision a universe far larger than we can detect.

 

Little Bang,

Some scientists think of a "multi-verse." I do not subscribe to this in the currently accepted context. When I refer to the universe, as we know it, I'm discussing the material body. It makes more sense, to me anyway, to establish a finite sector to compare to the infinite vacuuous void. The "universe" is everything. The void is all of nothing that surrounds it.

 

Dr. C.

[Erasmus00]

Erasmus00,

You can't understand this and declare "misuses" because you aren't thinking outside the box. I'm probably not going to waste my time trying to explain to you personally how null geodesics can involve more than a path that essentially form light cones.

 

You're right, I don't understand what you've been trying to say, but one of the reasons is that what you call a "null geodesic" is clearly different than what everyone else calls a null geodesic.

 

Theoretically the null geodesics emerge from ...

 

Null geodesics don't emerge- they exist in any geometry with metric that isn't positive definite- they are simply those geodesics with length 0. The first step to communicating effectively is using terms properly.

-Will

[alexander]

I simply have a different concept of how they are formed in nature and it is supported mathematically as well.

but i want to hear your perspective on how they form, the factors that contribute, and whether or not (with mathematics to back this ofcourse) you think LHC will (not) be able to form one... Hey if your theory makes more sense then what i so far think, i will gladly support it...

 

But you have to believe there is more than three spatial dimensions and one of time.

I hear that is the general consensus with any theory that is based on the string theory, no? M theory is the 11-dimensional superstring theory that unified a bunch of 10-dimensional string theories, with supergravity that interacts with 2 and 5 dimensional membranes supersymmetry and other craziness that i have yet to understand due to my low-level of knowledge of both physics and math...

 

If a black hole is formed and decays by emitting hawking radiation this will show up as photons in detectors.

Problem is at current size it will have to emit more energy then it will take to create, and that is simply not possible...

 

0 kelvin is defined by having an object in its lowest energy state.

Correct, however there has always been one tiny issue with that definition, object in the lowest energy state, would be a solid, however at 0K Helium is still liquid... which presents one problem, if heluim is still liquid, that means that it still has a lower energy state... thus the conflusteration is formed about 0K and below 0K, thus i think that 0k is not the absolute lowest temperature, though it is absolute zero... (btw solid helium is one really weird material (weird in its properties)...)

 

Erasmus, dont get bent out of shape on the working of that sentence on null geodesics, Dr. C was merely implying that after compaction (at which point the protons were traveling at each other using the shortest path (and shortest path is a form of a geodesic), eventually on compaction those geodesics decrease in size to a null geodesic, thus the term emerge, they are created as a result of outside forces, that does mean that geodesics just exist, it's a term, an entity, whatever you want to call it, but in that sense, they are created by the process of a collision...

 

I just think that you guys, being as educated as you are, should stop being 12 year old boys and instead of fighting and nitpicking at each other's words (sometimes appropriate), act civilized please, put your minds together to help solve the problem i have posted way back in the first posts!

 

Now stop accusing the other of not understanding physics, and ask questions leading to a better explanation or perhaps rewording of other's ideas in terms that will make sense.... I ask of thee both, and not just pertaining to this topic! (and its rare that i ask anything of anyone, so please consider it before dismissing)

[Erasmus00]

Problem is at current size it will have to emit more energy then it will take to create, and that is simply not possible...

 

Why? If a black hole is formed out of two colliding protons (unlikely, its more likely to be two quarks), the most energy it can have is 14 TeV. You can certainly have 14 TeV photons, though you need at least two of them to balance energy and momentum.

 

Granted, a 14 TeV black hole is about 10^-50 meters, which is much less than the planck length, so the physics isn't at all certain.

 

Correct, however there has always been one tiny issue with that definition, object in the lowest energy state, would be a solid, however at 0K Helium is still liquid...

 

At 1 atm of pressure and 0k, Helium is a liquid- this is because the ground state of Helium at low pressure IS the liquid (mostly because quantum mechanics changes the shape of the ground state so their is an energy cost to bonding into a crystal) increase the pressure, and you can make the solid.

 

Erasmus, dont get bent out of shape on the working of that sentence on null geodesics, Dr. C was merely implying that after compaction (at which point the protons were traveling at each other using the shortest path (and shortest path is a form of a geodesic), eventually on compaction those geodesics decrease in size to a null geodesic, thus the term emerge, they are created as a result of outside forces, that does mean that geodesics just exist, it's a term, an entity, whatever you want to call it, but in that sense, they are created by the process of a collision...

 

The thing is, most what Dr. C has written through this doesn't make sense to me, and I'm trying to understand it. "null" has nothing to do with size, and photons always travel on the geodesics, and these are always null. Its not a question of being civilized, but I'm trying to get at what he is trying to say.

-Will

[alexander]

you are talking about geodesics with a tangent vector with a zero norm... yeah i have no clue what any of that means, well aside from what a geodesic is, and what a tangent vector is... can you please explain the rest. why the timelike geodesics have tangents with norms opposite to spacelike, and what that all means in the realm of general relativity.

 

Thanks for understanding btw.

[Erasmus00]

Think of special relativity where the distance between two events (i.e. the length of the vector) is given by (units where c=1)

 

[math] d\tau^2 = dt^2 -(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) [/math]

 

And the distance between these events is the proper time between them. A normal particle cannot travel at the speed of light, and its time between events is always a positive number. A positive number, for that reason, is named time-like. Two events are time-like if the distance between them is positive.

 

Now, if two events happen simultaneously in some frame then dt is 0, so this number is negative. This is called a space-like separation

 

Now, for two events on the path of a light ray, the right hand side of the equation is always 0, this is light-like or "null." This is because such a particle travels at the speed of light, so (assume travel in the x direction) with c =1, then dx = dt, and the right hand side gives 0.

 

In general relativity, its slightly more complicated because the space is curved, and particles travel on geodesics. However, the sign convention is still true. If the length of the geodesic is positive, its timelike and massive particles follow such a path. If the lengh of the geodesic is null, then its lightlike and massless particles follow these paths.

 

Any given geometry always has null geodesics, and these are always the paths massless particles (photons, gravitons) take.

-Will

[Little Bang]

And you know photons and gravitons are particles because some physics book told you they are. Your like a computer Will, you can store large amounts of information but you can only do with it what your programmer tells you too.

[Erasmus00]

And you know photons and gravitons are particles because some physics book told you they are. Your like a computer Will, you can store large amounts of information but you can only do with it what your programmer tells you too.

 

A few of simple reasons to believe photons exist/light has a particle nature

 

experiment

1. quantum optics has now produced single photon detectors (pretty compelling)

 

experiment/theoretical

1. The photoelectric effect's most natural explanation requires quantizing light (Einstein won a nobel for this explanation)

2. Quantum mechanics works. I know of no experiment that it has failed to explain. Quantum mechanics insists that we quantize the electromagnetic field, just like everything else.

 

There are other reasons, but these are pretty straightforward I think.

 

I believe gravitons exist and are particles mostly because in the weak field limit general relativity turns into a theory of waves (in this case gravitational waves). Every other wave we know of is quantized so I suspect gravitational waves are quantized as well.

 

Its not a question of regurgitating theories- its a question of being familiar enough with WHY we believe what we believe. Any theory has to match the experimental data we already have, or its wrong.

-Will