Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 66 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696

The 100-tonne wheel, the fourth and largest detector, the last piece of an ambitious experiment that scientists hope will help unlock the secrets of the universe, was successfully lowered into an underground cavern on Friday.
Its expected that the world's most powerful particle accelerator which the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN) will
use to race Atoms in opposite directions around a 17 mile circle
at close to the speed of light, to eventually collide head on, will start running around June this year.
It may well created the conditions just after the Big Bang (if there was such a thing) and give the Scientists the answer to "everything"
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2886388120080229

However its giving a number of people cause for concern.
Since they believe that it could result in the Ultimate Catastrophic man-made phenomena, and destroy our Planet.

That the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN- will produce microscopic black holes, gigantic strangelets, and the tunneling into another vacuum in the landscape.
These things may create a growing volume whose interior is incompatible with life and they may eat and destroy our planet: the LHC is therefore irresponsible.
Read on
http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst...O7Nz1de1q356s6e

***Thoughts
Dont little Black Holes evaporate?
Anyway we are not God (yet), and we can no more 'destroy' a Planet with energy, than make one. Guess we are safe? sick




.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Well, scientists do appear to have total confidence in the theory that predicts Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. Does anyone know of any experimental or observational evidence to support it? If blackholes produced at LHC do evaporate, Stephen Hawking will probably get a Nobel Prize. On the otherhand... frown

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Well, scientists do appear to have total confidence in the theory that predicts Bekenstein-Hawking radiation. Does anyone know of any experimental or observational evidence to support it? If blackholes produced at LHC do evaporate, Stephen Hawking will probably get a Nobel Prize. On the otherhand... frown


Even more importantly than mini Black Hole detection, is the detection of new particles of matter...... the reason the LHC was built. Matter that is thought to exist at higher energies....which would either prove, or disprove, the existense of Dark energy or invisible matter, thought to be the driving force for the speeding up of the expansion of the Universe.
With so many theory's out there, I am sure the Cern Collider will find something that will keep the Astrophycists busy developing ever newer theorys upon the life of our Universe.

I have often wondered why a rotating Black Hole has never been shown to slow its rotation as it collects more matter, in the classical sense, as a skater extending their arms.

Or if the Universe is indeed expanding ever faster, then all the
Galaxies expanding outwards into the edges of the Cosmic Shell
would be further away from each other. Which should mean that relativistic time should tick slower, since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker (Classicaly time runs faster when subjected to a higher (denser) Gravity.
If time does indeed run slower at the edge of the Universe, it might account for some objects out there that Scientists say should not have had the time to develop in the 13+ Billion year age of our Universe?
I cant wait until the Data comes rolling out.
NASA is already asking for home computers to help out with the maths. Ill post their url when I find it, tomorrow.
***
Its LHC@Home (BOINC first)

Last edited by Mike Kremer; 03/07/08 03:18 AM. Reason: url added

.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Mike: "...since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker..."

- Galaxies don't become 'stretched out' because they are gravitationally bound, i.e., the gravitational attraction overcomes the Hubble expansion. The same applies to the Solar System.

Mike: "Galaxies expanding outwards into the edges of the Cosmic Shell would be further away from each other"

- There is no Cosmic Shell. Our Milky Way is no more at the 'centre' than a galaxy 10 billion light years away - because there is no centre, and there is no edge.

On the largest scales the universe is uniform and homogenous. There are strings of galaxy clusters, with vast gulfs of space between, but these features are observed to be the same in all directions, and to all observable distances. This foam-like structure is expanding (or, I should say, the space in which it exists is expanding) - but it doesn't have an edge.

That's the current theory, anyway smile

Mike: "Which should mean that relativistic time should tick slower, since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker"

- Events in a galaxy that's receding at relativistic velocity would appear to be occurring at a slower than normal rate, since not only would the light be stretched, but also the time. This, however, is the result of the relative velocity between the observer and the observed galaxy, and has nothing to do with the gravity within that galaxy, which would remain normal.

Mike: "Which should mean that relativistic time should tick slower, since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker (Classicaly time runs faster when subjected to a higher (denser) Gravity."

- Actually, it's the other way around. Gravity slows local time. An observer subjected to a strong gravitational field would see events outside that field as running faster than normal. But it's entirely relative to the observer and there's no change in the local physics (including the gravity), nor to the physics of the apparently accelerated events outside the field.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Mike: "...since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker..."

- Galaxies don't become 'stretched out' because they are gravitationally bound, i.e., the gravitational attraction overcomes the Hubble expansion. The same applies to the Solar System.

Mike: "Galaxies expanding outwards into the edges of the Cosmic Shell would be further away from each other"

- There is no Cosmic Shell. Our Milky Way is no more at the 'centre' than a galaxy 10 billion light years away - because there is no centre, and there is no edge.

On the largest scales the universe is uniform and homogenous. There are strings of galaxy clusters, with vast gulfs of space between, but these features are observed to be the same in all directions, and to all observable distances. This foam-like structure is expanding (or, I should say, the space in which it exists is expanding) - but it doesn't have an edge.

That's the current theory, anyway smile

Mike: "Which should mean that relativistic time should tick slower, since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker"

- Events in a galaxy that's receding at relativistic velocity would appear to be occurring at a slower than normal rate, since not only would the light be stretched, but also the time. This, however, is the result of the relative velocity between the observer and the observed galaxy, and has nothing to do with the gravity within that galaxy, which would remain normal.

Mike: "Which should mean that relativistic time should tick slower, since in those stretched out Galaxies that are further away from us, gravity would be weaker (Classicaly time runs faster when subjected to a higher (denser) Gravity."


- Actually, it's the other way around. Gravity slows local time. An observer subjected to a strong gravitational field would see events outside that field as running faster than normal. But it's entirely relative to the observer and there's no change in the local physics (including the gravity), nor to the physics of the apparently accelerated events outside the field.


Apologies redewenur, my word mistake, I meant to write:-
"(Classicaly time runs slower when subjected to a higher (denser) Gravity."
An example being when an object spirals into a Black Hole, it might take months, even years.
***
I used the term 'Cosmic Shell' thinking it might best explain my idea.
A better explanation might have been:-
As our universe is continuing to expand, that
not only are Galaxies receeding from us, but they are also receeding from each other, which makes me believe that the average gravity around these distant Galaxies could be getting less. (Since they are occupying a larger volume of Space than before)
A lesser average Gravity amongst those most distant Galaxies, might mean that time runs faster for them, which might account
for some distant objects out there, which some Scientists have said they find it hard to believe that they have had the time to evolve. Given that our Universe is estimated to be 14.0 Billion years old.
If time does indeed run faster for those distant Galaxies, then it would allow those objects to develop faster.
Note that this idea is based only upon a lesser gravity producing a faster clock.
This idea has nothing to do with the Red Shift of light, which we see, when observing these same distant Galaxies.



.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Mike: "not only are Galaxies receeding from us, but they are also receeding from each other, which makes me believe that the average gravity around these distant Galaxies could be getting less...A lesser average Gravity amongst those most distant Galaxies, might mean that time runs faster for them..."

It's an interesting idea, Mike, and I know what you're driving at, but it assumes that the far reaches of the universe are different from these parts in that they contain less mass. There's no reason to suppose that's true, and astronomers tell us that it's not. It's pretty much the same throughout.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Mike: "not only are Galaxies receeding from us, but they are also receeding from each other, which makes me believe that the average gravity around these distant Galaxies could be getting less...A lesser average Gravity amongst those most distant Galaxies, might mean that time runs faster for them..."

It's an interesting idea, Mike, and I know what you're driving at, but it assumes that the far reaches of the universe are different from these parts in that they contain less mass. There's no reason to suppose that's true, and astronomers tell us that it's not. It's pretty much the same throughout.


Originally Posted By: Mike Kremer


Thats true redewenur, Astronomers do tell us that- "The universe looks the same in every direction. That it's pretty much the same throughout."
And yet its agreed that the most distant parts of the universe are accelerating ever faster away from us, and from each other.

That being true, I am simply reasoning that there is less Mass per cubic parsec, in those distant regions, than here in ours.

Less Mass, equals less average Gravity, than ours.
Less Gravity equals a faster clock, in those distant regions than ours.
Meaning that Time should run a little faster for 'them' than us.
Since Time is related to Speed, in this context.
Their Galaxy's speed though the Universe, is faster, than our own.
But since their 'time' ticks faster.......Their results would read the same as every-one-elses . Hurrah ! A basic Constant of the universe has been saved.....'their' maths still conform to Einsteins equations!

My point in the above paragraph is that there are real differences within our Universe that we will never be able to have knowledge of.
Our problem being that we cannot measure Time.
We dont even know what 'basic' time is.
Or even if there is such a 'universal' thing? I doubt it.

I believe that, Time depends upon where you are in the Universe
We cannot measure basic time. Nor will we ever be able to measure it.

Transporting our best Cesium or Mercury Atom clocks to different parts of our local Universe only confirm Einsteins equations.
Is it the transporting (movement) of the clock that has altered the Cesium ticks or is it the slight difference of gravity in its new position? Or both?
I'm suggesting that whatever different position we travel to, and occupy, in our Universe.
Einsteins equations will still hold true, with the Universe still looking the same to us, where-ever we are.
Yet there are subtle problems out in Space which are worrying the scientists.
Notably, the Pioneer 10 &11 anomaly, and other spacecraft.
NASA lost contact with Pioneer 10 in 2003, but not before it was realized that Pioneer10 was off course by 400,000 kilometers. Nobody has yet figured out why.
Pioneer11 was also pushed off course, and an analysis of the Galileo spacecraft to Jupiter, and the Ulysses Solar probe, hints that they to, are affected by a similar anomaly.
A real mystery that is all to do with either Time, or Gravity. Which is why I am looking forward to the time the Collider at Cern starts spewing out its Data later this year.
Then I shall close my book on Seti, and re-open LHC@home.


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Mike: "And yet its agreed that the most distant parts of the universe are accelerating ever faster away from us, and from each other. That being true, I am simply reasoning that there is less Mass per cubic parsec, in those distant regions, than here in ours."

- Remember the analogy of the points on the surface of an expanding balloon? They all separate at the same rate. Whichever point you choose, all the others move away - and the relative rate of movement increases with distance. It's a limited analogy, of course, as the galaxies are 'points' in three dimensions not two, but the principle is the same. So the distribution of matter would be the same, whether it be there or here. We don't have a special location on the surface of that balloon.

Mike: "Transporting our best Cesium or Mercury Atom clocks to different parts of our local Universe only confirm Einsteins equations. Is it the transporting (movement) of the clock that has altered the Cesium ticks or is it the slight difference of gravity in its new position? Or both?"

- Both; (relative) movement slows time, but something else to ponder: remember that (relative) velocity also causes an increase in mass, and therefore an increase in gravity! smile

Mike: "...I am looking forward to the time the Collider at Cern starts spewing out its Data later this year."

- Ditto. We live in exciting times, don't we!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
More food for thought. Excuse the digression!

I said "So the distribution of matter would be the same, whether it be there or here."

That needs to be qualified. It refers, of course, to the visible universe. But what do we mean by 'visible'? Sure, we are able to see light from as far as 13.7 billion lt yrs away, because that's all the time that light has had to reach us. Yet whilst that light has been on its journey, the universe has been expanding at an increasing rate. It's now generally agreed that the objects we see at the 'edge' - i.e. which were 13.7 billion lt yrs away when the light began its journey - are now 78 billion lt yrs away. Furthermore, there are Inflation theories saying that even that is only a tiny fraction of the whole.

What would that greater part is like? How would its matter be distributed? We can never know for sure, whatever the theoretical evidence.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696


.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
temperature is in proportion to pressure.

if pressure increases then temperature increases.

if the atoms hit head on then the splatter would be diffused in a circle extending to its containment area or field.
the disbursement of the temperatures might allow containment.

if the atoms glance off each other then the splatter would follow the two paths of the two atoms.
since the atoms will be converted into energy at the moment of collision , this energy and its associated temperature will travel into the containment field and through it , and through anything in its path , until its heat has been absorbed by its surroundings , its heat being its energy.
if both atoms are traveling at close to the speed of light then the splatter will maintain this speed.

the most dangerous scenario would be that the two atoms traveling at close to the speed of light would simultaneously impact a seperate offset atom inside the accelerator , in this scenario the two atoms could transfer each of their momentums to the seperate atom sending it away at a speed beyond the speed of light and with a temperature equivalent to the energy lost by the two atoms durring the collision.
this atom would be converted into energy at the moment of collision and since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light the temperature of this energy will increase proportionately due to the excess energy in the energies momentum above the speed of light.

but what if there is no speed of light?

and what if I am brain dead and dog tired?

this stuff is spooky and amazing.












3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5