Discussion
Guvernator said:
On a slightly more serious note, I keep hearing mention that these experiments are creating conditions which were last seen a few milliseconds after the big bang. My questions are
1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?
2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?
3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?
4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?
I'll have a go at these (but GV will no doubt correct me 1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?
2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?
3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?
4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?
):1) The experiments are smashing particles together at very high energies. The last time that was done in nature (rather than CERN/LHC/etc) was just after the big bang. The difference is that the LHC is only smashing together a few very energetic particles rather than all particles having very high energies and colliding in the very small universe.
2) No, see above, very few particles involved (compared to big bang).
3) The theory is that spacetime started with the big bang so "before" has no meaning in that scenario.
4) Lots of hypotheses no doubt, but no way of verifying them.
ewenm said:
Guvernator said:
On a slightly more serious note, I keep hearing mention that these experiments are creating conditions which were last seen a few milliseconds after the big bang. My questions are
1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?
2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?
3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?
4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?
I'll have a go at these (but GV will no doubt correct me 1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?
2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?
3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?
4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?
):1) The experiments are smashing particles together at very high energies. The last time that was done in nature (rather than CERN/LHC/etc) was just after the big bang. The difference is that the LHC is only smashing together a few very energetic particles rather than all particles having very high energies and colliding in the very small universe.
2) No, see above, very few particles involved (compared to big bang).
3) The theory is that spacetime started with the big bang so "before" has no meaning in that scenario.
4) Lots of hypotheses no doubt, but no way of verifying them.
But will add only a little for additional clarity.
CERN bangs things together, the Big Bang (which was neither big or a bang) tears things apart, the process is reversed so no real risk.
The maths says that before our present Cosmos formed it is quite likely that the Universe (note the Cosmos is not the Universe) had a few goes at it before getting it right, if we could measure time in that scenario (we can't) it is equally likely that it had been trying for an infinite amount of time in the past, but it is outside of our time, it is literally time out of mind, and that fact means Ewenm should be congratulated on posting the most perfect nugget of knowledge in his answer No.3, he couldn't be more correct if he tried.
I believe there are cosmic rays passing through the atmosphere all the time at higher energies than the LHC can achieve - so these particle collisions are happening constantly anyway. It's just we can use the LHC to make such collisions artificially in a controlled environment and investigate the resulting shower of decaying particles in the detectors, ATLAS and CMS.
Thinking abaout what may come of this discovery and it's impact on us, I think (please tell me if and why I'm definitely wrong);
1: This could lead to faster than light travel, or the bending of teh Higgs field enabling almost instant travel to far flung places, inter-stellar, or indeed, inter-galactic.
2: is it possible that someone could figure out how to split the Higgs to give mor energy than is currently available though Nuclear reaction, if so would this be dangerous enough to cause a new Universe to be created?
It's probably complete rubbish, but a couple of thoughts I had.
1: This could lead to faster than light travel, or the bending of teh Higgs field enabling almost instant travel to far flung places, inter-stellar, or indeed, inter-galactic.
2: is it possible that someone could figure out how to split the Higgs to give mor energy than is currently available though Nuclear reaction, if so would this be dangerous enough to cause a new Universe to be created?
It's probably complete rubbish, but a couple of thoughts I had.
AshVX220 said:
1: This could lead to faster than light travel, or the bending of teh Higgs field enabling almost instant travel to far flung places, inter-stellar, or indeed, inter-galactic.
No, nothing at all in the Higgs particle or mechanism even vaguely leads to any of that, remove such ideas from your head.AshVX220 said:
2: is it possible that someone could figure out how to split the Higgs to give mor energy than is currently available though Nuclear reaction, if so would this be dangerous enough to cause a new Universe to be created?
The Higgs splits as part of its of its mechanism and imbues a rest-mass as a result, the nuclear reaction we have is all that can be obtained, enhancement of that is from perhaps refinement of the cocktail of reactants, but the fundamental physics is set, immutable and the most extreme it can be, it is an upper limit just as much as the speed of light is for anything that has mass. Higgs in all its guises can't and won't create a new Cosmos, it only exists because this Cosmos makes full use of its properties. AshVX220 said:
Thanks for the replies Gene, shame about the FTL travel. 
You're welcome.FTL travel is never going to happen, we have mass, we simply cannot go there.
This does not preclude the principle of an FTL Cosmos, the maths tells me that an FTL Cosmos is possible.
But it will be a domain into which we will never be able to venture or harness, we will just able to observe what it causes to happen in this, our speed of light limited, Cosmos.
Gene Vincent said:
mattnunn said:
"The maths tells me"
Again?
Maths is very informative.Again?
The positive solution described the electron - a real particle that forms part of every atom that we know of.
The negative solution described a new particle or anti-electron. This should be equal in mass to the electron but would have positive rather than negative charge.
At the time this was somewhat dismissed as being just an artifact of "The Maths".
A few years later Anderson formally discovered the positron and thus proved the existence of Anti-Matter.
Dirac's equations were shown to be good in every sense.
Just because we can't see it, detect it or interact with it doesn't mean it 'aint there.
Guvernator said:
On a slightly more serious note, I keep hearing mention that these experiments are creating conditions which were last seen a few milliseconds after the big bang. My questions are
1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?
2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?
3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?
4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?
I will try and answer these questions, I am not a Physicist so my responses are not an expert opinion!1) What stops these experiments from causing another big bang (and wiping as all out in the process)?
2) By carrying out these experiments have Higgs and co actually created another universe?
3) If this is a few milliseconds after the big bang, is the possibility there for them to rewind a bit more and actually find out what caused the big bang in the first place?
4) Following on from 3, do these clever scientists have any theories on what existed before the big bang?
1) These experiments are accelerating two counter rotating beams of Protons at energies of around 4TeV per nucleon (4 trillion electron volts), the total energy of the two beams reaches 724MJ. This sounds like a lot (and in some ways, it is) but it is utterly insignificant when compared with the energies involved in creating a singularity. Even if there was a catastrophic failure of the LHC and all of the energy involved was suddenly released from the vacuum tubes, the absolute worst case scenario would be an explosion damaging the accelerator and possibly killing some of the operators. This is extremely unlikely to happen and is far less of a risk than a gas fired power station. Energy cannot be created from nothing, you are not suddenly going to release Megatons of explosive power from colliding what is an extremely small amount of matter. It doesn't matter what exotic forms of fermions or bosons you manage to create, they will not suddenly release a huge amount of energy, unlike say a few pounds of Uranium-238 might.
I would say, for example, North Korea and Iran enriching yellow cake uranium poses a slightly bigger risk to humanity!
2) Firstly, Peter Higgs has had nothing to do with the experimental discovery of the Higgs Boson, other than being one of 6 physicists to have developed the idea of the Higgs Mechanism, Field and Boson in the 60's and 70's leading to the creation of the LHC for the purpose of finding it. In answer to the question, No. They have transformed some up and down quarks into, amongst many other things, some bosons with a mass of 126GeV/c2 (equivalent to the mass of an iron nucleus and only the second heaviest fundamental particle yet discovered after the Top Quark) that correspond to the theoretical model of a Higgs Boson. These Bosons existed for 1 x 10-25 of a second before decaying into other particles. In no way could you say that the region of space at the collision or the particles momentarily created construe a 'new universe', even philosophically. Unless you are mad, of course.
3) 'This' is not a few milliseconds after the Big Bang. They have created a boson that requires a lot of energy to manifest itself as such. In 'nature', Higgs Bosons are being created in extreme environments, such as within Neutron Stars or Quark Stars (Neutron Stars so dense that Gravity replaces the Strong force and allows Quark Matter to exist) or Cosmic Rays from SuperNovae. It is a valid question though, as we create these fundamental particles that require huge energies to exist as matter, we are observing interactions that happened in the first fraction of a second after the big bang. There can be no cause, as such, for the Big Bang as that would imply prior events and in the context of our Universe, there are none. It is the cause.
4) As others have said, there is no before but there are many theories on the conditions of the Universe at the time of the Big Bang, that is at the very start of space and time and what fields of potential or other such constructs existed. Physicists are very much divided still on which model of the Universe is the correct one. Will it go on expanding forever until it becomes a homogenous soup with no energy exchanges, or will it reach a certain size and stay there, or will it begin to contract and end in a Big Crunch, possibly preceding (in a multiverse temporal sense) another Big Bang? Has this happened already? Nobody knows, it's a case of take your pick here, or abandon all scientific endeavour and run home to a sentient creator.
over_the_hill said:
Gene Vincent said:
mattnunn said:
"The maths tells me"
Again?
Maths is very informative.Again?
The positive solution described the electron - a real particle that forms part of every atom that we know of.
The negative solution described a new particle or anti-electron. This should be equal in mass to the electron but would have positive rather than negative charge.
At the time this was somewhat dismissed as being just an artifact of "The Maths".
A few years later Anderson formally discovered the positron and thus proved the existence of Anti-Matter.
Dirac's equations were shown to be good in every sense.
Just because we can't see it, detect it or interact with it doesn't mean it 'aint there.
mattnunn said:
Jolly convenient. Square roots have 2 solutions, this is a maths lie, not an artifact, if 3 people all loose £3 the total of their loss is £9, the resultant representation of this arithmetically would be £-9 not £9 so I'd say -3x-3 = -9. I realise the rest of the world would consider me wrong, and I have a post graduate level education in engineering so know how to give the expected answers, but I still don't think it's correct.
By your argument you have three people - three real people - who are down £3 each so you have3 x -3 = -9.
-3 x -3 = -9 implies negative people
over_the_hill said:
mattnunn said:
Jolly convenient. Square roots have 2 solutions, this is a maths lie, not an artifact, if 3 people all loose £3 the total of their loss is £9, the resultant representation of this arithmetically would be £-9 not £9 so I'd say -3x-3 = -9. I realise the rest of the world would consider me wrong, and I have a post graduate level education in engineering so know how to give the expected answers, but I still don't think it's correct.
By your argument you have three people - three real people - who are down £3 each so you have3 x -3 = -9.
-3 x -3 = -9 implies negative people
mattnunn said:
over_the_hill said:
mattnunn said:
Jolly convenient. Square roots have 2 solutions, this is a maths lie, not an artifact, if 3 people all loose £3 the total of their loss is £9, the resultant representation of this arithmetically would be £-9 not £9 so I'd say -3x-3 = -9. I realise the rest of the world would consider me wrong, and I have a post graduate level education in engineering so know how to give the expected answers, but I still don't think it's correct.
By your argument you have three people - three real people - who are down £3 each so you have3 x -3 = -9.
-3 x -3 = -9 implies negative people
mattnunn said:
over_the_hill said:
mattnunn said:
Jolly convenient. Square roots have 2 solutions, this is a maths lie, not an artifact, if 3 people all loose £3 the total of their loss is £9, the resultant representation of this arithmetically would be £-9 not £9 so I'd say -3x-3 = -9. I realise the rest of the world would consider me wrong, and I have a post graduate level education in engineering so know how to give the expected answers, but I still don't think it's correct.
By your argument you have three people - three real people - who are down £3 each so you have3 x -3 = -9.
-3 x -3 = -9 implies negative people
Sallying-forth as you do with the grand pontification, I'd suggest you should zip it for a while, and see if you learn anything.
MiseryStreak said:
mattnunn said:
over_the_hill said:
mattnunn said:
Jolly convenient. Square roots have 2 solutions, this is a maths lie, not an artifact, if 3 people all loose £3 the total of their loss is £9, the resultant representation of this arithmetically would be £-9 not £9 so I'd say -3x-3 = -9. I realise the rest of the world would consider me wrong, and I have a post graduate level education in engineering so know how to give the expected answers, but I still don't think it's correct.
By your argument you have three people - three real people - who are down £3 each so you have3 x -3 = -9.
-3 x -3 = -9 implies negative people
What that makes it correct does it?
My example was bad as it allowed the inferance that I had 3 negative people.
mattnunn said:
I'm very aware of my AC theory and can roll up a J (i) as good as the next man.
What that makes it correct does it?
My example was bad as it allowed the inferance that I had 3 negative people.
I don't understand you at all, you might be quite a nice person in real life, but on here you're an insufferable maniac.What that makes it correct does it?
My example was bad as it allowed the inferance that I had 3 negative people.
If you use imaginary numbers (in your engineering job?) then why are they not 'correct'? Why do you use them if you cannot see the use for them?
Why do you like arguing so much when you're not very good at it?
Gene Vincent said:
FTL travel is never going to happen, we have mass, we simply cannot go there.
Not sure if you should use words like never to be honest. I realise you are quite knowledgeble in this field and current thinking states that FTL travel is theoretically impossible but they are just that, theories. I bet even a hundred years ago, people would have thought it would be impossible for man to walk on the moon so what you consider immutable fact today might well prove not to be true at all or at least parts of it muteable in the future as new discoveries come to light. Who knows, we may be able to find a way to negate mass even if again that is thought to be impossible today.I am forever astonished at the ingenuity of man in pushing beyond what was previously thought possible and if the need arises for us to ever achieve fast travel over long distances in space, then I believe we will find a way given sufficient time and motivation. This might not necessarily be in the form of what we would traditionally consider to be FTL travel but I believe there are already many ideas such as sting theory and wormholes for instance which might enable us to travel huge distance in a relatively short time between the stars (if we don't destroy ourselves first of course)
mattnunn said:
I'm very aware of my AC theory and can roll up a J (i) as good as the next man.
What that makes it correct does it?
My example was bad as it allowed the inferance that I had 3 negative people.
Maybe you should give a better example then as I'm struggling to grasp what your point is. At the moment it just appears to be 'maths is wrong'.What that makes it correct does it?
My example was bad as it allowed the inferance that I had 3 negative people.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff