The Hadron collider

[NL]

Wah..!! this quantum stuff is but it isnt, it will but it wont, it can but it can't......... !!!!

I knew this guy once who'd rant on and on bout all this wierd strings and things, slits and slots,

jeez he'd have me convinced he was building a time machine but everytime i'd want to see it he'd always

say i know how to make it work just the mechanical means havent been invented...!!!

[PersianPaladin]

In 40 days the Hadron Collider will be up and running and soon hopefully be operational giving its first results in a matter of months.

One thing thats bothered me though is this..

The universe came from a singularity point (wether this had infinite mass is still debateable) and there was basically nothing else outside of this singularity, no time, no space, nothing.

The scientists hope to re-create the moments of the big bang on a minute scale, but the way there doing this is irrelevant because the big bang wasnt created by 2 particles fired at each other because there was only 1 singularity point.

Plus theres already time and space outside around the explosion so the mechanics of how the universe was created will be innacurate.

Just something Ive been wondering about to myself all day.

Basically all the scientists are doing (to me it seems) is firing 2 particles at each other and seeing how the explosion looks like, but the whole point is to re-enact the big bang scientifically when infact there doing the experiment by methods that didnt happen at the beginning of time and space.

Pure conjecture really...no evidence.

I think you should say "one particular theory" as not all scientists agree with this even. However, I DO agree with your view that this will not replicate the big bang on a microcosmic level. In fact; I'm not even sure thats the main aim of the experiment?

Edited May 28, 2008 by PersianPaladin

[J07]

Pure conjecture really...no evidence.

For God's sake man, everytime you say something is "pure conjecture" we can be sure you're spouting from the wrong orifice. Do some proper research before making such claims!

[J07]

String theory does not contradict Occam's Razor. If the simplest theory to explain everything turns out to be 100 times more complex than what we know today, and yet is the correct theory, it cannot and never will contradict the Razor, it will be truth which is far more important than some medieval ramblings of Mr Razor.

Einstein himself spoke on the Razor and said, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

To bring together the laws of nature, (Einstein's equations, Newtons, Maxwell's etc and so on) and to combine the laws of Gravity, Electro-magnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear, laws of light, etc, it has been seen that they all fit into a theory of everything equation without crazy infinity values if extra dimensions are added, to probably 10-13 dimensions + 1 of time. The Razor in reverse, if the simplest (the 3 dimensions we see, time and the laws of gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces) do not explain all then we must assume there is more to the theory than first thought. If 4 dimensions does not explain, does 5 and so on.

We are now finding hundreds of new types of particles, sub-atomic particles, forces and waves than before, and they all need to be explained and brought into the equation somehow.

I agree with J07, Occam's Razor is now a lot of the time out of date and maybe even dangerous to use in today's complex science and theories.

J07, string theory is the one for me, at the moment, which is the leader in the Theory of Everything. No other theory explains or combines all the particles, forces and laws so well. The problem we have, being earth bound beings and stuck in 3 dimensions + 1 of time is that it is so hard to imagine a new dimension, yet by no means does it say it does not exist. There could be thousands of other dimensions. I personally think this universe is far more complex than we know today even.

String theory and its probabilities are crazy and hard to imagine, but only by our simple 3 dimensional minds (+1 of time). How can light be both a particle and a wave, but only one or the other depending on how we observe it. How come if we observe its motion, we cannot see its location and visa versa. It can be explained partly if we take from string theory and M-theory the notion that light, and indeed all the forces of the universe are the effects of other dimensions on our space-time. Take gravity, lets say that is the effect of dimension 9, the dimension is wound up so small that we cannot observe it, yet all matter feels the effects of gravity because dimension 9 is everywhere (as is the normal spacial dimensions we know of, 1,2,3). We feel the effect of dimension 9, but we cannot see it. Light could be an effect of say dimension 5, as a ripple in our dimensions that we can see with our 3 dimensional bodies, brains and sight, and the fact that it is so hard to measure both speed and location is because to do that we need instruments in the 5th dimension to do so.

Now, if the above turns out to be truth, that is all that matters and Mr Occam can stay where he should be, firmly in the history books and the past.

You're making a lot of claims which are not backed up by the reality, and I think your enthusiasm is carrying you away slightly! We're certainly not discovereing hundreds of anything, especially not forces- of which there are only 4.

You claim that string theory is better than any other. Why is this? On what evidence? The problem is that String Theory has big issues. It has never made verifiable predictions, it has never been tested and come out trumps. Apparently, it is mathematically elegant. How can I argue with this...other people know better than me. I personally could not penetrate QFT to any extent when at university so I don't see the beauty in it.

Compare this with the unification of the electro-weak force, which came out trumps. Only when String Theory has done something like this can it be lorded over all others.

Until then, it may well just be a beautiful, mathematical theory which is little more than a toy, and which has no relevance to the real world.

I don't like the way that popular science has jumped on it so quickly. It seems the buzzwords like "extra dimensions" are such good money makers that why wait until the theory has been verified before flogging the book?

The sad result is that the theory has a much stronger reputation amongst the general public than it does in science. That is a bit worrying.

There are many hurdles which need to be overcome before we start worrying about heaps of dimensions that may not be needed.

Example, the fundamental forces:

We haven't unified the strong force with any other yet. We haven't even found the strong force boson yet. The issue with unifying the strong force is that it behaves so oddly compared to the others; like an elastic band it is stronger with increasing separation. That's an issue.

Furthermore, we don't yet even have a quantum field theory for gravity.

The Standard Model, expanded with one of the less exotic theories out there becomes a variant Supersymmetry, or mSUGRA (minimal supergravity). Like all other SUSY theories this creates lots more particles to discover to begin with (thank God for the LHC ).

However, SUSY models themselves create something in the region of 100 additional parameters. mSUGRA cuts this down to about 5 additional (various superparticle coupling constants and the like) and that's the *minimal* one!

And, again, SUSY is not loved by all....

The point is there are far too many theories out there for anyone other than a particle physics researcher to decide what is best and what is not. String Theory is a huge, huge leap when there are other problems to solve beforehand. Frankly, it could still take us decades to unify the bloody strong force with anything.

Sadly, popular science book publishers don't see it this way at all.

[SnowBear]

J07, Please read my first sentence in context, taking note of the IF.

If the simplest theory to explain everything turns out to be 100 times more complex than what we know today, and yet is the correct theory, it cannot and never will contradict the Razor, it will be truth which is far more important than some medieval ramblings of Mr Razor.

Yup, my mistake on the number of particles being found, it should read "being found within string theory". I do though expect the LHC to find new particles, and more than some think, if its powerful enough.

I will also correct that I was not strictly commenting on "string theory", but more correctly "string field theory".

String theories may have issues, but far less than any other leading contender.

String field theory unifies the strong force, and gravity too, but its a work in progress, it now needs certain particles to be detected at the LHC. If you combine Einstein's equations (gravity), with Maxwell's (electromagnetic) and Yang-Mills (weak and strong nuclear), you can unify almost all forces, particles, sub-atomic particles, quantum particles etc etc in a Riemann tensor. Expand it further with supergravity and you have a Riemann tensor that explains gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces, and matter itself. (Book:Michio Kaku - Hyperspace). It is but a theory, but can you find any other theory that does anything close?

Edited May 29, 2008 by SnowBear

[stewfox]

For the record, I think string theory is not very good at all.

However, we really are just paddling in the pool here- there's only so far that popular science can take people in understanding this stuff. There comes a point where you *have* to get stuck into the mathematics because we can no longer explain things to the "layman" since there are no physical analogues that you can link the theories to.

eg, simple example is electrons orbiting a nucleus. How do you explain this to the man on the street? The old model of the planets going around the earth? Well, we can't do that because it simply isn't right, it's not the same thing and it distracts from the truth. The problem is that we can't explain electrons orbiting a nucleus because it isn't anything like what we see in our day-to-day lives. The theory is only of any use once you understand the maths. Sad, but true. I mean, the idea of electrons floating around in a "cloud of probability", or something along those lines....it's useless on an intuitive sense. Quantum physics has the fortunate situation of being very "sexy" but the unfortunate situation of being so out of this world, so alien to our standard existence that it descends very rapidly into abstract mathematics contained in a theory which (to quote Feynmann) "no one understands".

Frankly, in this wierd world I think Mr Occam has long outlived his use.

Ive never come across anything that cant be explained to a laymen without needing the maths

The attached is the first one from google , im sure there are better re electrons

Depends on what you mean by 'understand' I know what there hoping to find at the Hadron Collider but ask me to understand a 'concept' of their being 'nothing 'outside of the universe is different.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?

id=iwDce1svZQwC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=electons+floating+in+cloud+of+probability&source=web&ots=3jbw1Buqaj&sig=uEABOGimateMgN6twPXxoH1vuKBUU&hl=en://http://books.google.co.uk/books?

id...uKBUU&hl=en

[J07]

J07, Please read my first sentence in context, taking note of the IF.

Yup, my mistake on the number of particles being found, it should read "being found within string theory". I do though expect the LHC to find new particles, and more than some think, if its powerful enough.

I will also correct that I was not strictly commenting on "string theory", but more correctly "string field theory".

String theories may have issues, but far less than any other leading contender.

String field theory unifies the strong force, and gravity too, but its a work in progress, it now needs certain particles to be detected at the LHC. If you combine Einstein's equations (gravity), with Maxwell's (electromagnetic) and Yang-Mills (weak and strong nuclear), you can unify almost all forces, particles, sub-atomic particles, quantum particles etc etc in a Riemann tensor. Expand it further with supergravity and you have a Riemann tensor that explains gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear forces, and matter itself. (Book:Michio Kaku - Hyperspace). It is but a theory, but can you find any other theory that does anything close?

With regard to "if" early on, it seems that's only relevant to your initial paragraph.

If hundreds of particles are being found in string theory that's not especially important either. You can superimpose particles on top of each other in many different proportions. No one knows what ones exist and what don't. For example, there is a postulated particle called the Neutralino, the most stable superparticle. There are hundreds of papers around which give varying compositions of it; it's built on 4 different particles, I can't remember what in total but two of them are Winos and Binos. Every assumption that the particle has a certain make-up is built upon many, many other assumptions. People don't even know the exact values of the parameters in mSugra. String Theory is just a typical example of barging through exotic physics, and getting away with it for so long because the theory is often untestable and the mathematics so tenuous in places.

"If you combine Einstein's equations (gravity), with Maxwell's (electromagnetic) and Yang-Mills (weak and strong nuclear), you can unify almost all forces, particles, sub-atomic particles, quantum particles etc etc in a Riemann tensor."

And exactly how do you "combine" them? You cannot go about "combining" general relativistic equations with any nuclear force without making some pretty enormous assumptions and assertions.

Tensors are a mathematical entity, and do not necessarily bare resemblance to reality. In fact they have the potential to be quite esoteric and divorced from the real world in the hands of pure mathematicians (not that they care).

Michio Kaku's book is another that is not taken as gospel truth.

Honestly, scientific books that are held above all others and seldom argued with are not common. In this field, the "phone book" by Kip Thorne, John Wheeler and someone else is one of those. Hyperspace and the Elegant Universe would be considered science fiction by many (though I admit very entertaining bedtime reading).

Can I find a theory that comes close to string theory? No, to research adequately on this topic is pushing impossible. Without a PhD in physics I would just be subjecting myself to little more than propaganda. I know what little I know about particle physics by dragging my I have a problem through the groundwork for years without ever getting into the true depth of the mathematics. I then read Quantum Field Theory in a Nutshell, despaired and basically gave up. It's too hard. We really are at the mercy of scientists, and there's a lot to be said for the Science of Self-Promotion. And certain people involved in String Theory have mastered it.

Go to Arxiv.org and search for some exotic physics, have a look at a paper and then you will see the depth of theories that are around, the variations within the theories, the problems and so on. It's just not as simple as we've been told, and we'll never really understand the nuances and complexities.

[SnowBear]

I wouldnt say Kaku is just anybody, he has been the holder of the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York for 25 years, has a Ph.D, produces Ph.D level textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory.

I recommend his books, Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds. They are excellent. Time will tell though how much will turn out to be truth. I suspect more than less.

[Bobby]

I highly doubt anyone has a more informed opinion than the scientists doing this thing. They are the experts and there's no way I could gather enough knowledge in order to make my own mind up, so if they say there is essentially zero risk then that's good enough for me.

[J07]

I wouldnt say Kaku is just anybody, he has been the holder of the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York for 25 years, has a Ph.D, produces Ph.D level textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory.

I recommend his books, Hyperspace and Parallel Worlds. They are excellent. Time will tell though how much will turn out to be truth. I suspect more than less.

I'm not saying he's just about anybody, I'm saying his views may not reflect the consensus of opinion. This does not necessaily make him wrong, but it does have the effect of the public believing that these ideas are quite generally accepted and further along the road than they really are.

I think I read Hyperspace when it came out. I don't tend to read popular science anymore, it's expensive and lacking depth. A textbook will last for years and years, a popular science book maybe only a week. I did find the Elegant Universe great fun to read though, it was pretty gripping and intriuging.

Added an attachment quickly to show an external mention of string theory. I do not know if Zee is a follower of String Theory, but given what he says here I suspect not ("thought by some to be the theory of everything"). It is interesting though, it's a 500 page book on QFT and string theory gets a mention. That in itself does say that it has gained some sort of acceptance. However, it only takes up about 5 pages of the book, in other words about 1%. This I would take as a reflection of its relative *in-importance* compared with QFT, but also that it is a very large and advanced subject (the text is meant to be a graduate level book on QFT).

The footnote says to refer to E. Witten's "Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime" for a brief but authorative introduction to string theory. If you could dig it up, might be worth reading.

Finally, here's a book that might be worth picking up.

Roger Penrose's Road to Reality. 1000 pages! It seems that it's not a standard text book and not a standard pop sci book. I remember flicking through a copy once, it is bloody big! It would be nice if he's got a good balance between depth and readability. If you ever get the chance, best check it out. Amazon hopefully do a "look inside". It's one of those that I suspect will last a long time- value for money! And cover a lot of interesting topics without being utterly inaccessible (I think it is meant for the general public).

Edited June 1, 2008 by J07

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi all!

I have to say that I rather enjoyed Michio Kaku's book "Hyperspace", although it did come across as rather more set in stone than String Theory actually is - Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe", by comparison, does a grand job of laying out the framework of String Theory while all the time reiterating that it is not set in stone (numerous times he uses the phrase, "if String Theory turns out to be true..." or words to that effect). He is obviously passionate about his subject while retaining enough objectivity to be aware that it is still only theoretical.

Ed Witten is the Head String Theorist, if you like, and an incredibly smart man (regarded by many, in fact, to be the smartest man on the planet, and by a few to be the smartest man ever to have lived, which may or may not be an overstatement!). If anyone is interested in reading "Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime" then it can be found here in Witten's own section within the website of the School of Natural Sciences, Princeton. It's only 7 pages long (though pretty technical), so give it a go!

CB

Edited June 1, 2008 by Captain_Bobski

[J07]

Ed Witten is the Head String Theorist, if you like, and an incredibly smart man (regarded by many, in fact, to be the smartest man on the planet, and by a few to be the smartest man ever to have lived, which may or may not be an overstatement!). If anyone is interested in reading "Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime" then it can be found here in Witten's own section within the website of the School of Natural Sciences, Princeton. It's only 7 pages long (though pretty technical), so give it a go!

Having read that, it's quite an achievement. I like how it doesn't shy away from technicalities to a great extent, yet also remaining readable. Brought back a lot of stuff from university- I found his "second term" to the uncertainty equation very interesting.

It's obviously not meant for the general public but I still think most people with an interest in the subject could follow pretty well. The exception being when he introduces equations! Most people are not going to know what a Lagrangian is and even if they try to eyeball the algebra it won't make any sense due to unfamiliarities - primarily tensor notation (though it seems to me that he does not actually use Einstein notation). However, I don't think the article suffers for it, and I agree with Zee- brief but authorative!

In fact, that's the most illuminating string theory text I can remember reading.

He briefly mentions renormalisation, this is a very interesting subject in itself, even more so considering it's collapse in the face of gravity.

[Gray-Wolf]

I hate it when I start to blur the boundaries between science and science fiction! I'm with Magpie on this ,lets leave it to the folk who know what they are doing and see if the research pushes our understanding of "life ,the universe and everything" a little further.

[PersianPaladin]

It would be funny if all this turned out to be *bleep*.

Edited June 25, 2008 by Wibs
Naughty, hairy word lol

[davehsug]

Great fun all of this. I really wish I could begin to understand the quantum world, but like many others I suspect, it does the old head in! I like this stuff especially as it, sort of goes towards philosophy, when you get down to the big bang. My favourite theory personally is potentiallity, mainly 'cos I can understand it I also like the theory that we are only here 'cos the universe "wanted" somebody to understand it & that's is ultimately our only purpose. Keep up the good work guys, my mind can always be a little more boggled!

Dave

[crimsone]

I highly doubt anyone has a more informed opinion than the scientists doing this thing. They are the experts and there's no way I could gather enough knowledge in order to make my own mind up, so if they say there is essentially zero risk then that's good enough for me.

The thing is, not even the scientists know quite what to expect... Both of the following quotes are from http://www.lhc.ac.uk/

The Universe started with a Big Bang – but we don’t fully understand how or why it developed the way it did. The LHC will let us see how matter behaved a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Researchers have some ideas of what to expect - but also expect the unexpected!

What kind of Universe do we live in?

Many physicists think the Universe has more dimensions than the four (space and time) we are aware of. Will the LHC bring us evidence of new dimensions?

Gravity does not fit comfortably into the current descriptions of forces used by physicists. It is also very much weaker than the other forces. One explanation for this may be that our Universe is part of a larger multi dimensional reality and that gravity can leak into other dimensions, making it appear weaker. The LHC may allow us to see evidence of these extra dimensions - for example, the production of mini-black holes which blink into and out of existence in a tiny fraction of a second.

Suppose those microsinglularities were sustained ones? Doesn't bear thinking about. Before putting too much trust in scientists beacuse "they know more that we do".... well, consider that nobody quite knew what was going to happen on the first A-bomb test - and it was a subject of much debate and concern as to whether it might start a reaction that would burn away the whole of Earths breathable atmosphere.

Edited July 3, 2008 by crimsone

[davehsug]

The thing is, not even the scientists know quite what to expect... Both of the following quotes are from http://www.lhc.ac.uk/

Suppose those microsinglularities were sustained ones? Doesn't bear thinking about. Before putting too much trust in scientists beacuse "they know more that we do".... well, consider that nobody quite knew what was going to happen on the first A-bomb test - and it was a subject of much debate and concern as to whether it might start a reaction that would burn away the whole of Earths breathable atmosphere.

The thing is though Crimsone, lots of civilisations around the universe must have done this many times & the universe is still here, so I don't think there's any danger.

Dave

[Red Raven]

The thing is, not even the scientists know quite what to expect... Both of the following quotes are from http://www.lhc.ac.uk/

Suppose those microsinglularities were sustained ones? Doesn't bear thinking about. Before putting too much trust in scientists beacuse "they know more that we do".... well, consider that nobody quite knew what was going to happen on the first A-bomb test - and it was a subject of much debate and concern as to whether it might start a reaction that would burn away the whole of Earths breathable atmosphere.

It's common sense to avoid certain risk. But taking risks is what being human is all about - it's what drives our development as a species. The experiment at the LHC is all part of that development. There is a very very small risk that something bad will happen but the insights that may be gained of the complexities of the universe are so great the risk is well worth taking.

http://www.lhcountdown.com/ Is this count down correct? Various other sites seem to suggest that collision doesn't take place until August.

[crimsone]

Of course the universe is still here... if the LHC created a singularity into which the earth itself was torn, then it would just mean there'd be another black hole in the universe... It's the earth that woudn't be here...

As to it being common sense to avoid certain risks, I'd say the potential to burn off the whole of the earths breathable atmosphere would be such a risk, but they still went ahead with it. I'd say the potential for the unstoppable and complete annihilation of the earth would be such a case as to be worth avoiding too - and it's a theoretical possibility, however remote. Even so, the LHC intrigues me, but to say it's mostly safe because "the scientists must know what they're doing" is completely wrong. Hell, could somebody remind me of how far underground did they build it?

Risk management includes evaluation of the risk severity too you know... if you stand a 50% chance of breaking your leg in order to gain a million pounds it might be worth doing. If there was a 50% chance it would kill you, it would be pretty stupid to chase after it.

Edited July 4, 2008 by crimsone

[davehsug]

Of course the universe is still here... if the LHC created a singularity into which the earth itself was torn, then it would just mean there'd be another black hole in the universe... It's the earth that woudn't be here...

As to it being common sense to avoid certain risks, I'd say the potential to burn off the whole of the earths breathable atmosphere would be such a risk, but they still went ahead with it. I'd say the potential for the unstoppable and complete annihilation of the earth would be such a case as to be worth avoiding too - and it's a theoretical possibility, however remote. Even so, the LHC intrigues me, but to say it's mostly safe because "the scientists must know what they're doing" is completely wrong. Hell, could somebody remind me of how far underground did they build it?

Risk management includes evaluation of the risk severity too you know... if you stand a 50% chance of breaking your leg in order to gain a million pounds it might be worth doing. If there was a 50% chance it would kill you, it would be pretty stupid to chase after it.

I thought it was built so far underground to try to exclude as many "outside" particles as possible?

Dave

[Red Raven]

I thought it was built so far underground to try to exclude as many "outside" particles as possible?

Dave

It is - nothing to do with any safety concerns. And if quantum theory/M theory is right some of these 'new' particles are not containable in the realms of our perceived reality.

[crimsone]

Fair enough if the case, which I personall can't be bothered to look up and so can only consider it so for the purposes of this post. However, one off the cuff sentence does not invalidate the rest of the post. That particular sentence can easily be removed from the post without changing anything it says otherwise.

[J07]

Suppose those microsinglularities were sustained ones? Doesn't bear thinking about. Before putting too much trust in scientists beacuse "they know more that we do".... well, consider that nobody quite knew what was going to happen on the first A-bomb test - and it was a subject of much debate and concern as to whether it might start a reaction that would burn away the whole of Earths breathable atmosphere.

Yes, *suppose*. There are likely solid predictions that they cannot be sustained. Again, we have to trust the scientists on this since it's not possible for us to investigate ourselves (unless you're willing to devote several years of study to QFT and beyond).

What they are doing is based upon sound science, the most accurate theories in history (look up quantum electrodynamics). We are in a much more knowledgeable position than the A-bomb times.

The thing is though Crimsone, lots of civilisations around the universe must have done this many times & the universe is still here, so I don't think there's any danger.

Dave

Bit of a wild assumption there.

It is - nothing to do with any safety concerns. And if quantum theory/M theory is right some of these 'new' particles are not containable in the realms of our perceived reality.

Can you go into more detail? Quantum theory is right, M Theory is different.

[pottyprof]

Dr Whooooooooo oooooooooo

Dr Who

Dr Whooooooooo oooooooooo

The TARDIS

Ya know what.. that Davinci Code film really opened some wormholes.. Nostradamus said that France will have a pay back..

LOLOLOL

*spooky music* time will tell ey??

But while this is all happening, I shall continue to avoid tesco and shop at asda as they have less french goods.. i would hate to spend my money on something only to have it vanish.. the washing machine is good enough at doing that.. I wonder if they'll find the missing laundry that has already gone??

[phil47uk]

Not that I believe in this stuff, as he got a load of other things wrong, but one of Nostradamus's predictions reads..

Nostradamus C9 Q44

Migrés, migrés de Geneue trestous.

Saturne d'or en fer se changera,

Le contre RAYPOZ exterminera tous,

Auant l'aduent le ciel signes fera.

Leave, leave Geneva every last one of you,

Saturn will be converted from gold to iron,

"Raypoz" will exterminate all who oppose him,

Before the coming the sky will show signs.

Also the the Mayan calendar stops at the end of the year 2012, churning up all sorts of religious, scientific, astrological and historic reasons why this calendar foretells the end of life as we know it.... 4 years in the future.. Ironically Just about the right time for a micro black hole to grow large enough to gobble up the planet.

Oh what happened to the simple days eh?.....LOL

Edited July 14, 2008 by phil47uk