Exactly, bet my last pound this is an experimental error.
Exactly, bet my last pound this is an experimental error.
Sponsored Links
M
Mickymoody
Monkey said:
Quite right. The theory of relativity has stood for a long time. It'll take some very good experimental evidence to knock it down. Might I suggest that one way to improve the accuracy of this experiment is to increase the distance. It shouldn't be too difficult to set up a source and detector on opposite sides of the planet.
Meanwhile, what's all this time travel business. I keep hearing it on the news and I get the distinct impression that a lot of people are jumping to a lot of highly dubious conclusions.
What could you do with faster than light travel? Well, one thing you could do, in theory, is look back and see yourself leave.
Maybe you've seen one of those diagrams in a physics book that shows a cone standing point downwards on top of another. The point where the two meet represents your present position in a 2D space (3D is too difficult to draw). The upper cone contains all the points that you can reach without exceeding the speed of light while the lower cone contains all the points that you could have come from.
So far so good but all the books I've read jump to a rather nebulous conclusion, namely that faster than light travel will allow you to escape from the upper cone (which it will) and re-enter the lower one.
The scientists that have come out is that energy can be created from nothing, which sounds good.
regarding the time travel thing. This was explained on Sky at Night, regarding black holes. Which may or may not be what the LHC is doing on a smaller scale; hence - IF it were possible to send a spaceship upto a blackhole, and orbit it, time for the spacemen would be normal. But on their return to Earth, time would have passed as normal, so you would return (that is only theory, as not currently possible), but 10,000 years would have passed. And people would say, WTF! Cavemen aliens! Thus negating the paradox theory. Like Planet of the Apes.
I think Stephen Hawking had the right idea about the big picture the universe, but I think that the universe seems to reflect the behaviour of the minute word, atoms and electrons and stuff flying about, split an atom, creates a big bang. Where did everything come from? A big bang.
I think, if this find is true, then the world of anti matter, gravity, and ghosts will finally be revealed. Took a long time for people to understand that the world is not flat (even though most Americans still believe this to be the case), many Scientists arses are twitching.
It also raises the question; why do the other LHC's in the world haven't raised this question? Please don't get Brian Cox to answer, that works there, classic view of Einstein, Stephen Hawking, with his American voicebox, even though he is British...the grinning teeth of Cox...urgh!
If this find is true, a rare chance to say Einstein eh? What an Idiot!
What other LHCs? There is only one LHC, and it had wasn't used in the actual experiment being discussed.
The LHC is the Large Hadron Collider. It is a single installation, the only one of its scale in the world. There are other particle accelerators and colliders, there is only one LHC.
The accelerator used in the OPERA experiment is the SPS, which is located in the same complex as the LHC, and is used as a component of the LHC for certain operations. However, it predates the LHC by decades.
Sponsored Links
The difference between different particle accelerators and colliders. The LHC is a single installation which makes use of a number of existing devices, the SPS among them, some of the other installations around the world are called, for example, Tevatron, at Fermilab in Illinois (they're going to try and confirm the results of OPERA), the RHIC in New York, the BEPC II in China.. Note that none of these are called 'LHC'.
Mickymoody said:
Time travel into the future is not a problem. You can do it yourself by running around the block.
Sadly, the best clocks we can make won't show up the tiny advance you've made. To travel any appreciable time into the future you would have to move a whole lot faster. If you could move at near light speed, your own clock would appear to run slow compared to one back here on Earth. For example, it might tell you that you'd been away for a year but our own clocks would show that you'd been away longer.
This idea is supported by the fact that fast moving, unstable particles entering our atmosphere live a lot longer than they should. Also, GPS satellites would give woefully inaccurate results if the slowing of their on-board clocks wasn't taken into account. There is no time paradox here because the future hasn't happened yet. It just appears to happen quicker for you than it does for us. You could travel a week into the future and get next week's lottery numbers.
But that wouldn't help you because there would be no way to get back and put your bet on.
C
cantaloup63
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 33
- Country
Erm energy can't be created out of nothing - not in a usable form anyway. Fundamental particles are known to pop out of the quantum vacuum but they only exist long enough to redress the balance and return the energy gained. No net energy gain.
Time travel? You'd need a lot of very strange matter to hold any worthwhile wormhole open and the energy budget would forbid this anyway - you'd need more energy that was available in the universe.
The big bang cannot be compared with the energy released by either fission or fusion. It wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense of the word.
We know about anti-matter and have been producing it in tiny quantities for experimental purposes for a long time. The universe produces it all the time - we see anti-particles produced by cosmic ray interaction with matter. No mysteries here. Gravity? Depends on what it actually is. Ghosts? They're produced by either overactive imagination, defective brain circuits or out and out BS
There is only ONE LHC in the world and it was not involved in the experiment that produced the anomalous data.
I reckon that close examination will prove that the results were produced by artifact or error. Most of this sort of stuff is and gets knocked down pretty quickly. Scientists have a horrible habit of releasing results far to early in the experimental process these days.
M
Mickymoody
I think people are missing the point slightly, and concentrating incorrectly on a typo stle mistake. When I said 'other LHC', I meant to say, similar installations doing the same type of work, as a reference.
Space cat - what you say, is echoing what I said. In fact I recall an experiment being done, I think on the BBC programme Big Bang Theory? Where they took two atomic clocks, that were completely syncronised, one they hooked up to an external PSU, and took on a plane around the world, then returned, checked, and the times were different. Thus proving tall people are older than shorter people, or people that work in tall buildings are older than people who work at ground level, or vica versa..
Tonka - As I understand it, as currently e=mc2 isn't viable, the scientists that I have seen on TV seem to suggest to me, as my interpretation of what they are saying, is that energy CAN be created out of nothing. You are basing your statement on current understanding of the known. At the moment, there is an unknown.
If energy is available for free...and as Uri Gellar says, and Einstein says, you can't create or remove energy, what happens when you die, where does the energy go? Is that your soul? Electrical signals in your brain...go where? You cannot delete energy. Electrical signals in your heart. It is possible to create a heart, by using stem cells. So where is the energy created from, to create electricity, to form a working heart? And when you die, where does it go to? Remember e=mc2 - it doesn't quite add up.
It might also answer the strange question of why gravity is so weak, as opposed to the other forces, and dark matter might explain why people 'see' ghosts. Digital photography and cctv seems to have stopped a trend?
I'm not arguing or disagreeing, I'm no scientist, I suspect there is one on here, and someone famous, just adding to the debate, please don't get detracted by a misnomer..LHC was used as an advisor, not factually.
Space cat - what you say, is echoing what I said. In fact I recall an experiment being done, I think on the BBC programme Big Bang Theory? Where they took two atomic clocks, that were completely syncronised, one they hooked up to an external PSU, and took on a plane around the world, then returned, checked, and the times were different. Thus proving tall people are older than shorter people, or people that work in tall buildings are older than people who work at ground level, or vica versa..
Tonka - As I understand it, as currently e=mc2 isn't viable, the scientists that I have seen on TV seem to suggest to me, as my interpretation of what they are saying, is that energy CAN be created out of nothing. You are basing your statement on current understanding of the known. At the moment, there is an unknown.
If energy is available for free...and as Uri Gellar says, and Einstein says, you can't create or remove energy, what happens when you die, where does the energy go? Is that your soul? Electrical signals in your brain...go where? You cannot delete energy. Electrical signals in your heart. It is possible to create a heart, by using stem cells. So where is the energy created from, to create electricity, to form a working heart? And when you die, where does it go to? Remember e=mc2 - it doesn't quite add up.
It might also answer the strange question of why gravity is so weak, as opposed to the other forces, and dark matter might explain why people 'see' ghosts. Digital photography and cctv seems to have stopped a trend?
I'm not arguing or disagreeing, I'm no scientist, I suspect there is one on here, and someone famous, just adding to the debate, please don't get detracted by a misnomer..LHC was used as an advisor, not factually.
M
Mickymoody
Then take the mic - you explain...go for it! Knock yourself out!
Mickymoody said:
I remember that experiment. It was supposed to demonstrate how the moving clock would be slow when it got back but the opposite was the case.
That's because gravity also makes clocks run slow so the one on the ground, being closer to the centre of the Earth, slowed even more than the moving one. The two effects worked in opposite directions and gravity won. and also said:
That's predicted by quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be written in terms of time and energy such that you can't know exactly how much energy you have at a precise moment in time. A particle (quantum physicists just love particles) and its anti-particle can pop up out of nowhere for a very short period but must then vanish again. You can't keep them.
M
Mickymoody
So you just disproved your own post? Well done. Not try to explain what is written.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 294
- Reaction score
- 33
- Country
As both myself and Space Cat explained, particles pop in and out of the quantum vacuum all the time. I suppose you could describe that as energy but it isn't harvestable by any means. Each particle that appears stays long enough to redress the balance of its anti-particle that's also appeared by annihilating it . The net energy balance is zero.
Your body is one massive chemical factory. It runs by converting one type of energy into another with no net gain or loss. What you eat is partially converted into energy and that is dissipated through work - again converting into another form of energy (heat). What isn't converted is excreted as waste. Mass in = mass out + energy used + energy stored as fat etc. Net energy balance = 0.
When you die, parts of the body shut down a bit at a time - the high energy consumers first (brain, muscle). The chemical processes shut down over time and you're left with a mass of organic matter that slowly rots and returns to the general pool of compounds and elements. Energy in the body is lost as heat through shutdown and radiative loss and finally through breakdown and decay as heat and energy gain for the agents of decay themselves. No net loss. no net gain.
Growth is achieved by consumption of fuels and by anabolic processes. No magic here, just one thing turned into another chemically with no net gain or loss from the overall system.
E=mc2 works out every time it's been tested and it's been tested many many times indeed. It simply states that mass and energy are equivalent and they are. Ever since Lise Meitner realised that mass loss was due to energy release and both were due to fission, Einstein has been vindicated over and over. Einsteins theories are probably the most tested of all scientific theories and nobody has managed to prove them wrong as yet.
We still don't know what gravity is yet. It may be mass distortions in the space-time continuum but that won't be decided one way or the other until gravity waves are finally proved to exist or not. Einsteins predictions lean towards him being right in this though as the atomic clock experiments and observations of Mercury show.
TheOriginalTonkaToy said:
Do you happen to know whether or not it's been tested on a chemical reaction?
I know it ought to work but it would require extremely accurate measurement.Sponsored Links
