Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: jccc on 21/03/2015 03:58:34
-
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/565315/Scientists-at-Large-Hadron-Collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-PARALLEL-UNIVERSE-in-days
“This is not what we mean by parallel universes. What we mean is real universes in extra dimensions."
“As gravity can flow out of our universe into the extra dimensions, such a model can be tested by the detection of mini black holes at the LHC.
“We have calculated the energy at which we expect to detect these mini black holes in ‘gravity's rainbow’ [a new scientific theory].
“If we do detect mini black holes at this energy, then we will know that both gravity's rainbow and extra dimensions are correct."
From the article.
how do you think?
-
they deleted my comment.
gravity is attraction force between separate masses. gravity can not flow out. there is no extra dimension, no mini black holes.
are those scientists thinking people are sheep?
science is so wrong after 1900.
-
Interesting idea Jccc.
Take a look at this.
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-black-holes-space-theory.html
Fits my ideas perfectly. Scaling as the way to go, and Planck scale as a 'natural limit' for a 'discrete universe'. Passing that physics as we know it cease to exist. Which takes us to the idea of a 'field'. You usually have three alternatives. One being the 'wave universe' in where 'photons' becomes 'excitations'. The other is a discrete universe, with a complementary wave duality macroscopically observed. Or you have a field? The 'field' can be attributed to both former descriptions, although it also can stand alone. Then there are a fourth, possibly, if you now take scaling seriously as I do. Then everything becomes 'properties' at some scale (preferably Planck scale), and all of those ideas described before should then become 'emergences'.
=
Saying that 'physics as we know it cease to exist' is not perfectly true. It 'co-exist' even then, as through quantum logics. But it loses its connection to cause and effect, for example described through 'forces', acting and being acted on. In one way a very probabilistic universe at that microscopic scale, if you look at it my way. Also a universe in where the arrow cease to exist, 'all paths taken', in a rather weird way a 'whole universe'. What differs it from the one we observe normally is its lack of a arrow, or causality if one prefer that. Or 'change', or 'outcomes' if that hits closer to the goal. Those later descriptions all happen on a scale above Planck scale in my thoughts. You might want to say that the arrow gets two 'dimensions' looking at it this way, one locally and macroscopically, having one direction, the other its emergence through scaling into existence. But, it needs something similar to Mach principle to make sense macroscopically, to me, if now that would be correct.
-
science is so wrong after 1900.
Why 1900?
Surely it all went wrong with Galileo. The simple idea that the sun goes around the earth, obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense. Easy to understand and explain. Then the mathematicians take over, Newton, Keppler etc and the simple becomes mathematical sorcery. Bring back the old days, make jccc happy.
-
gravity is attraction force between separate masses.
That is not quite correct. A massive body generates a gravitational field. When an object is placed in the field, the field causes the body to accelerate at a rate that is independent of the body's mass.
gravity can not flow out.
Also incorrect. In the same way that an electromagnetic field can generate an electromagnetic wave when a charged body accelerates, so too will a massive body generate a gravitational wave when it accelerates.
If you ever chose to pick up a book and learn physics you'd know these things.
-
gravitational wave
I don't think the original post was worried about gravitational waves, which are fairly well demonstrated in astronomy.
gravity can not flow out.
I think the original post was querying the string theory hypothesis.
String theory assumes that the universe has more dimensions that the 4 we directly experience (3 space + 1 time).
String theory is interesting from a theoretical viewpoint, but lacks any observational evidence that can't already be explained by the Standard Model.
According to the Standard Model, the LHC should not have enough energy to create a micro black hole.
However, if the LHC does manage to produce micro black holes (and the experimenters are actively looking for them!), that would be a hint of something that is beyond the Standard Model.
If so, String Theory has an explanation at the ready: if space has more dimensions (but the others are "rolled up" very small), then on very small scales, gravity could be divided up across additional dimensions. Conservation of energy would imply a deviation from the inverse square law (on very small scales), possibly allowing the LHC to create micro black holes.
-
jccc: that's a dreadful article, it reads like some kind of spoof. No way is that anything to do with CERN. Uhnn, here's another report, in the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3001664/Will-Large-Hadron-Collider-parallel-universe-Particle-smasher-gateway-alternate-realities-say-scientists.html), and as I suspected, it refers back to a PhysOrg article (http://phys.org/news/2015-03-mini-black-holes-lhc-parallel.html). PhysOrg have a bit of a reputation for bad science.
I'm sorry but this is woo, and it will mightily irritate an awful lot of serious scientists. The idea that the LHC could create black holes is the sort of thing that could shut down particle physics altogether. And it's a rubbish idea, the sort of thing that gets peddled by wannabee celebrities who don't understand relativity.
-
This seems to be a poorly written pop-sci article about a possible test for a 'brane' version of M-theory (the basis for String Theory) that suggests our spacetime is a brane (analogous to membrane) in a higher dimensional space occupied by many other branes. The idea is that gravity is not restricted to our brane, but also acts across the higher dimensional space, which would explain its extraordinary weakness compared with the other forces we know, and would potentially be testable through the effects of interaction with other branes.
Having said that, I don't know how producing mini black holes will test it, and the article doesn't help...
E.T.A. - Ah, I see evan_au has already answered about the black holes.
-
science is so wrong after 1900.
If post 1900 science was wrong, your computer wouldn't work.
It does (I can tell because you use it to post stuff).
So the evidence proves that you are wrong.
Why did you use something that proves that science is right to say that science is wrong?
-
The idea that the LHC could create black holes is the sort of thing that could shut down particle physics altogether.
Before the LHC opened, some people did express concerns that it could produce micro black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_high-energy_particle_collision_experiments), or other exotic particles that could gobble up the Earth. There was an official investigation and report in 2003.
The thing that convinced me is that the Moon has been bombarded by cosmic rays for eons - and many of these cosmic rays have far higher energy than the LHC could possibly generate.
The Moon has not been gobbled up, so the Earth should not be gobbled up, either...
-
Having said that, I don't know how producing mini black holes will test it, and the article doesn't help...
You might want to check Absence of black holes at LHC due to gravity’s rainbow. (https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0370269315001562&ei=EdYOVfnwL6a7ygPFyoFw&usg=AFQjCNEMVUdeRjH09s0hAUej9nJ47XifCw&bvm=bv.88528373,d.bGQ)
They mention just such a proposal for the LHC, connected to the idea of string theory and gravity. But the real interest in the article, to me then, is this idea of 'gravity's rainbow'.
-
Sadly, JohnDuffield is correct about this particular article. (You all know what they say about broken clocks.)
The article, especially the headline, has been criticized as almost nonsense by serious scholars. This is not the first almost-nonsense article by this author.
-
I presume you're referring to Paul Baldwins article there PhysBang? And not to Ahmed Farag Ali, Mir Faizal and Mohammed M. Khalil? The guys I linked too above? Haven't heard of them myself, but they seem to have some interesting ideas.
"In this paper, we investigate the effect of Planckian deformation of quantum gravity on the production of black holes at colliders using the framework of gravity’s rainbow. We demonstrate that a black hole remnant exists for Schwarzschild black holes in higher dimensions using gravity’s rainbow. The mass of this remnant is found to be greater than the energy scale at which experiments were performed at the LHC. We propose this as a possible explanation for the absence of black holes at the LHC. Furthermore, we demonstrate that it is possible for black holes in six (and higher) dimensions to be produced at energy scales that will be accessible in the near future."
-
Before the LHC opened, some people did express concerns that it could produce micro black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_of_high-energy_particle_collision_experiments), or other exotic particles that could gobble up the Earth. There was an official investigation and report in 2003.
Yep, it was specious nonsense then, and it still is.
The thing that convinced me is that the Moon has been bombarded by cosmic rays for eons - and many of these cosmic rays have far higher energy than the LHC could possibly generate.
I like to think that I have extra confidence because I know how gravity actually works. See this thread (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=52410.msg440965#msg440965). There are no extra dimensions or any other exotica.
-
good answers? like what? your answers?
Of course. I'm a very good physicist so my responses are very good. Especially since I only respond to questions and comments in which I have a solid knowledge and experience with.
-
Ouch, not sure what I think of the way DSR and ''gravity's rainbow' treat Planck scale, reading up a little on it. This is where they lose me " But then it follows that the speed of massless particles would be dependent on the energy they carry" from 'Doubly Special Relativity and quantum gravity phenomenology' by J. Kowalski-Glikman. Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw.
Can't make that work without destroying the equivalence of ones local clock with 'c' aka 'photons'. That as it then would build on 'particles' of different energies reaching the observer at different times. In my own view it should break down at Planck scale, and the reasons for that is a multitude, in the end hinging on if you define Planck scale as a fundamental principle, or not? If you don't instead searching for it on a string, or loop, level you just move the definition further away though, the principle should still be there, I think? Although I'm not sure, as anything at Planck scale, and under, will become impossible to measure on anyway. And what will stop you isn't solely the 'microscopicality' of it, but the fact that there will be no way to prove a 'stopped clock' for a macroscopic observer that I can see.
=
I go out from a equivalence between a local clock and 'c'. That makes all 'photons', no matter their 'energy' equivalent macroscopically measured, as a 'speed'. And I use scaling as a way to break it down into a discrete 'quanta' ('stopping time locally defined'), but that is not testable macroscopically as it always involve a 'ideal clock' ticking for our macroscopic observer. It's a very stringent definition of what a locality must mean. Each 'quanta' should represent any and all measurements we find macroscopically, which I then refer to as properties. The three 'dimensions' defined to a vacuum then becomes one of them (or three:). In some ways a vacuum give us a simpler way of defining what properties seem needed than matter, what Einstein named as SR.
I don't need to use 'energies' for this reasoning, I use our local clocks, or 'arrow' instead. And I treat it as 'real', gluing together the universe we exist in. I also define it as able to 'stop', but not as defined by a observer. To get a observer at that scale would be a equivalence to imagine a 'photon' studying itself, and I don't think that is possible.