I expect this thread to die quickly. Who is into quantum physics

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I consider time to be a human term to help us understand the order of when things occur or have occurred.

Which is why you really can't go back (or forward) in time. You can only change places or dimensions if you will to another where things happened in a different order. With that concept, there may indeed be a dimension out there where people use dinosaurs as excavators at a rock quarry.

You can go forward in "time". The astronauts do it all the time. Time (and by that I mean spacetime) moves differently depending on how far you are from a strong gravitational mass or at what speed you're moving (as they are related). An atomic clock in a high altitude plane will pick up time from another atomic clock it's synched to on Earth. It moves forward in time.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Hey what are polar bears doing here?

Lost

Einstein couldn't predict everything.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I think you're talking about the events that led up to the Big Bang but afterwards I don't think spacetime as a concept is much in dispute right now.

Spacetime as an emergent or apparent construct is on very firm grounds, that is true. But looked at outside the context of Einstein's general relativity theory, or any theory that treats spacetime as a manifold, and it's no longer the best assumption that it is fundamental. The conventional wisdom is quantum gravity will give us a better idea what space and time are, if anything.

 

[spacekowboy]

Okay so I know this is a bit like Sesame Street, but I have recently been watching the Discovery series How The Universe Works. Specifically watched the episodes on black holes and The Big Bang.

Black holes I find to be the most intriguing phenomena in the great beyond. Mostly because there are so many different theories about them and what they are or could be. The big bang, there is pretty much a consensus view on, but so much is still so unknown about the black hole. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I always think about this. If Marty McFly guns his Delorean up to 88 mph and the flux capacitor send him back to 1955 then he shouldn't end up on a pine tree farm in Hill Valley he should appear somewhere in the emptiness of space where the surface of Earth was before 30 years of orbiting, revolving and moving through the universe with the rest of the solar system.

You think that scene is in the DVD extras?

Good point.

Or, even if he did hit the Earth (which would have been on hell of a bullseye), he would have most likely wound up in the Pacific or Indian Ocean.

 

[runsilent]

No, but spacetime is.

No it is not. Spacetime is relevant to a particular object. Which speed of travel can effect relative time to individual ageing. The travelers family is aging at a faster rate. Which I say that shows time is happening all at once.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Spacetime as an emergent or apparent construct is on very firm grounds, that is true. But looked at outside the context of Einstein's general relativity theory, or any theory that treats spacetime as a manifold, and it's no longer the best assumption that it is fundamental. The conventional wisdom is quantum gravity will give us a better idea what space and time are, if anything.

That's an extrapolation that isn't part of the model yet. But, yeah...

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

No it is not. Spacetime is relevant to a particular object. Which speed of travel can effect relative time to individual ageing. The travelers family is aging at a faster rate. Which I say that shows time is happening all at once.

Spacetime is relevant to the fabric of the Universe. Really we need a better word because people keep getting caught up on the word "time".

The reason we think of it as how it applies to an object is because that's how we describe how spacetime works, by understanding that you can't say where a fixed point in space is without also asking when it is. But that doesn't mean the concept only relates to finding an object.

 

[von_Bismarck]

That's an extrapolation that isn't part of the model yet. But, yeah...

Most, if not all, facts are model dependent. We can't talk about absolute simultaneity in Einstein, but we can in Newton.

 

[Libsam]

Anyone happen to know how much it cost to build the CERN? And how much it costs to operate?

Also, how much energy is required to cool particles so we can observe them?

 

[spacekowboy]

Okay so I know this is a bit like Sesame Street, but I have recently been watching the Discovery series How The Universe Works. Specifically watched the episodes on black holes and The Big Bang.

Black holes I find to be the most intriguing phenomena in the great beyond. Mostly because there are so many different theories about them and what they are or could be. The big bang, there is pretty much a consensus view on, but so much is still so unknown about the black hole. Fascinating stuff.

I was right. Sesame street!

 

[von_Bismarck]

Also, how much energy is required to cool particles so we can observe them?

What?

 

[Libsam]

What?

If I understand correctly.
The only way to observe a boson is to super-cool it with the CERN. The CERN cools to like -200 (gross rounding- don't feel like googling). Cooling things costs a lot of energy.

I want to know how much energy is required to operate the CERN.

 

[von_Bismarck]

If I understand correctly.
The only way to observe a boson is to super-cool it with the CERN. The CERN cools to like -200 (gross rounding- don't feel like googling). Cooling things costs a lot of energy.

I want to know how much energy is required to operate the CERN.

Are you referring to the LHC particle accelerator? Cooling things does cost energy, but particle accelerators are intended to make observations at very high energies.

Bosons are another matter. It takes a very great deal of energy to even indirectly observe the Higgs boson. But you can observe photons, which are also bosons, fairly easily. Composite bosons like deuterium nuclei are also relatively easy to observe.

 

[runsilent]

Okay so I know this is a bit like Sesame Street, but I have recently been watching the Discovery series How The Universe Works. Specifically watched the episodes on black holes and The Big Bang.

Black holes I find to be the most intriguing phenomena in the great beyond. Mostly because there are so many different theories about them and what they are or could be. The big bang, there is pretty much a consensus view on, but so much is still so unknown about the black hole. Fascinating stuff.

The idea that gravity and light can't escape it is mind boggling.

 

[runsilent]

Shall we discuss Higgins/ bosin?

 

[Libsam]

Are you referring to the LHC particle accelerator? Cooling things does cost energy, but particle accelerators are intended to make observations at very high energies.

The CERN is the building that contains the LHC, and that's where the boson was observed, right? And doesn't the boson "crumble" into another state when it is "stopped" for observation?

 

[Laura_Junius]

Am I into quantum physics?

I kind of am.

At the same time, I'm kind of not.

 

[von_Bismarck]

The CERN is the building that contains the LHC, and that's where the boson was observed, right? And doesn't the boson "crumble" into another state when it is "stopped" for observation?

Typically in a particle accelerator, you'll collide two or more particles at high energy. The collision will generate a spray of product particles. By observing what particles are ejected from the collision at what energies and angles, physicists can make deductions about what other intermediate particles were involved in the process. LHC did observe the Higgs boson in this way.

 

[Libsam]

Am I into quantum physics?

I kind of am.

At the same time, I'm kind of not.

I like that it is the materialization of metaphysics.
I do my best to understand it in symbolic logic, a sort of ferryman between the two realms.

 

[jaF0]

Bosons are another matter. It takes a very great deal of energy to even indirectly observe the Higgs boson.

https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/56623119dd089529048b45a3-960-720/while-they-may-look-like-lumbering-giants-the-bison-has-an-unpredictable-personality.jpg












Oh .... wait.

 

[Libsam]

Typically in a particle accelerator, you'll collide two or more particles at high energy. The collision will generate a spray of product particles. By observing what particles are ejected from the collision at what energies and angles, physicists can make deductions about what other intermediate particles were involved in the process. LHC did observe the Higgs boson in this way.

Why is it called super-cooled?

 

[von_Bismarck]

Why is it called super-cooled?

In general, supercooling refers to cooling a fluid (liquid) below its freezing temperature without solidification. Can you tell me what the context is for super-cooled?

 

[PrincepsCyberius]

If a man and woman are quantumly entangled, will they have simultaneous orgasms despite any amount of distance between them?

That would be spooky!

 

[Libsam]

In general, supercooling refers to cooling a fluid (liquid) below its freezing temperature without solidification. Can you tell me what the context is for super-cooled?

Let me try asking this way.
How is super-cooling used in the process of smashing particles?

Does it work like when someone uses a water cooling system in an overclocked computer?

Or is super-cooling a reference to the fact that when particles are taken to negative kelvin their energy actually increases exponentially? I've heard it called Dark Energy.