Higgs...

[CommanderJameson]

Guvernator said:

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.

[your_mum]
In this forum, we differentiate correctly between "theory" and "hypothesis".
[/your_mum]

[MiseryStreak]

Guvernator said:

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)

Ahh tachyons. They don't have mass though (and are purely hypothetical). I think the point Gene is making is that we do have mass, therefore cannot, as we would have more mass than the Universe before we were even close to c. Wormholes mean that you are taking a shortcut through spacetime so are not in fact travelling superluminally, at least not locally.

Of course you could transmit our consciousness and exact physical make up via some hypothetical superluminal massless particle transmitter to a machine that would recreate it. But then you would have to get that machine there first, which may take some time. Which then leads to the strange situation where you could be sent back via the same mechanism and arrive before you left. Not only would you be cloning yourself, your clones would arrive before you were born, possibly convincing your mother that you weren't such a good idea after all...

Edited by MiseryStreak on Thursday 12th July 15:57

[Gene Vincent]

MiseryStreak said:

Guvernator said:

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)

Ahh tachyons. They don't have mass though (and are purely hypothetical). I think the point Gene is making is that we do have mass, therefore cannot, as we would have more mass than the Universe before we were even close to c. Wormholes mean that you are taking a shortcut through spacetime so are not in fact travelling superluminally, at least not locally.

Of course you could transmit our consciousness and exact physical make up via some hypothetical superluminal massless particle transmitter to a machine that would recreate it. But then you would have to get that machine there first, which may take some time. Which then leads to the strange situation where you could be sent back via the same mechanism and arrive before you left. Not only would you be cloning yourself, your clones would arrive before you were born, possibly convincing your mother that you weren't such a good idea after all...

I am very busy but have a few minutes so will just try to explain this quickly...

It is generally not realised that the speed of light limit is actually only for external observers, in the sense that as the traveller you can travel as quickly as you like, right up to infinite speed!

The contraction of time means that this is so, but only for you, the traveller.

How so? Well let's define speed... distance to destination divided by the time it takes you to reach that destination.

So... example... as you accelerate towards Alpha Proxima (4.1 ly), you start to notice that you are getting closer to Alpha P far more quickly than expected, so much so that soon you are far exceeding the speed of light.

How does this happen?.. we are used to talking about time-dilation on such a trip but often fail to realise what this means in respect of our perceived velocity, additionally there is the effect of Lorentz Contraction (lengths/distances shrink at relativistic speeds)... the most important length/distance is that between you and your destination, right! At the speed of light itself, your perceived distance to Alpha Prox becomes '0', and obviously the time to reach Alpha C is also '0'.

So you have actually travelled 4.1 light years in 0 time... this equals an infinite velocity, but at no time have you exceeded the speed of light.

Relativity... just when you think you understand it, it farts in your face.

Back later.

Gene.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Thursday 12th July 15:51

[MiseryStreak]

Very well put.

Tachyons of course do exceed c to an observer. They cannot in fact slow down to c, as their energy approaches infinity.

[Guvernator]

See, I told you nothing is impossible. We've gone from FTL is impossible to Infinite speed in a matter of a few posts. PH is full of genuises, there is hope for humanity yet.


Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.
Dark Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.
Colonel Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.

[Gene Vincent]

Guvernator said:

See, I told you nothing is impossible. We've gone from FTL is impossible to Infinite speed in a matter of a few posts. PH is full of genuises, there is hope for humanity yet.


Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.
Dark Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.
Colonel Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.

Infinite velocity and still we didn't go faster than light and Einstein saw this a century ago... but still we have many that can't see it, where you see hope I see... an uphill struggle.

[hornet]

Gene Vincent said:

I am very busy but have a few minutes so will just try to explain this quickly...

It is generally not realised that the speed of light limit is actually only for external observers, in the sense that as the traveller you can travel as quickly as you like, right up to infinite speed!

The contraction of time means that this is so, but only for you, the traveller.

How so? Well let's define speed... distance to destination divided by the time it takes you to reach that destination.

So... example... as you accelerate towards Alpha Proxima (4.1 ly), you start to notice that you are getting closer to Alpha P far more quickly than expected, so much so that soon you are far exceeding the speed of light.

How does this happen?.. we are used to talking about time-dilation on such a trip but often fail to realise what this means in respect of our perceived velocity, additionally there is the effect of Lorentz Contraction (lengths/distances shrink at relativistic speeds)... the most important length/distance is that between you and your destination, right! At the speed of light itself, your perceived distance to Alpha Prox becomes '0', and obviously the time to reach Alpha C is also '0'.

So you have actually travelled 4.1 light years in 0 time... this equals an infinite velocity, but at no time have you exceeded the speed of light.

Relativity... just when you think you understand it, it farts in your face.

Back later.

Gene.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Thursday 12th July 15:51

I've always struggled to get my head round photons not experiencing time, but reading the above has given me a (probably incorrect) "aha!" moment. Presumably as the photon travels at c, the above contraction occurs, so it is in both (all?) places at once. Johnny Photon therefore has no concept of distance, therefore D/S=T makes no sense? If it doesn't experience distance, it can't experience time. Correct(ish) or just babbling?

[Gene Vincent]

hornet said:

Gene Vincent said:

I am very busy but have a few minutes so will just try to explain this quickly...

It is generally not realised that the speed of light limit is actually only for external observers, in the sense that as the traveller you can travel as quickly as you like, right up to infinite speed!

The contraction of time means that this is so, but only for you, the traveller.

How so? Well let's define speed... distance to destination divided by the time it takes you to reach that destination.

So... example... as you accelerate towards Alpha Proxima (4.1 ly), you start to notice that you are getting closer to Alpha P far more quickly than expected, so much so that soon you are far exceeding the speed of light.

How does this happen?.. we are used to talking about time-dilation on such a trip but often fail to realise what this means in respect of our perceived velocity, additionally there is the effect of Lorentz Contraction (lengths/distances shrink at relativistic speeds)... the most important length/distance is that between you and your destination, right! At the speed of light itself, your perceived distance to Alpha Prox becomes '0', and obviously the time to reach Alpha C is also '0'.

So you have actually travelled 4.1 light years in 0 time... this equals an infinite velocity, but at no time have you exceeded the speed of light.

Relativity... just when you think you understand it, it farts in your face.

Back later.

Gene.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Thursday 12th July 15:51

I've always struggled to get my head round photons not experiencing time, but reading the above has given me a (probably incorrect) "aha!" moment. Presumably as the photon travels at c, the above contraction occurs, so it is in both (all?) places at once. Johnny Photon therefore has no concept of distance, therefore D/S=T makes no sense? If it doesn't experience distance, it can't experience time. Correct(ish) or just babbling?

You have grasped it.

That is probably the finest accolade I could ever wish to get and I thank you for it.

[MiseryStreak]

All of your writing so far has been brilliant and insightful Gene. Any clever person can explain complex concepts, it's a far rarer and greater talent to explain them in a way that anyone can understand. An Architecture tutor once told me that if you couldn't explain the concept of your design to your grandmother, then you had failed (in my third year another tutor told me that if your concept needed explaining then you had failed, but never mind).

I came across this article "Why the Higgs Boson Matters" on the NY Times website. I thought 'this is good stuff' then noticed it was written by Steven Weinberg!

[Guvernator]

That is an interesting article to be sure but I'm afraid I have to call him out on the point he is trying to make. Yes while I absolutely agree that this is quite an interesting discovery I have to call into question how important it is in the grand scheme of things.

The advancement of knowledge is always a worthy pursuit but couldn't the billions of pounds poured into this project have been better used elsewhere, For instance wouldn't it have been better if this money and scientific effort had been used to investigate something like a new renewable and clean source of energy instead. This would have had a far wider reaching and practical impact on us as a human race then proving that a particle which we already thought existed, really does.

Yes he argues that many other side technoligies had to be developed too to get to this point but you could say that would have happened anyway with any other scientific project of this scale. I'd also have to strongly question his objectivity in this argument, he is after all one of the inventors of the Standard Model so has a very heavily vested interest.

This isn't just a criticism of this particular experiment by the way. I believe that as a human race we have limted time and resources and it sometimes seems that we seem to lack focus on the things that really matter in favour of some very esoteric and sometimes completely barmy research.

[ewenm]

How much funding does the ITER project get?

Edited by ewenm on Friday 13th July 15:21

[Gene Vincent]

Thankyou MS.

Knowing something and showing others is what it's all about. To point at something and say 'Look at that!' and for them to see it is like Xmas day for me, just the best.

So pleased am I about it, that tonight I'm treating myself to Chicken Madras and a beer!

A good day, I'd say.

[andy_s]

Guvernator said:

That is an interesting article to be sure but I'm afraid I have to call him out on the point he is trying to make. Yes while I absolutely agree that this is quite an interesting discovery I have to call into question how important it is in the grand scheme of things.

The advancement of knowledge is always a worthy pursuit but couldn't the billions of pounds poured into this project have been better used elsewhere, For instance wouldn't it have been better if this money and scientific effort had been used to investigate something like a new renewable and clean source of energy instead. This would have had a far wider reaching and practical impact on us as a human race then proving that a particle which we already thought existed, really does.

Yes he argues that many other side technoligies had to be developed too to get to this point but you could say that would have happened anyway with any other scientific project of this scale. I'd also have to strongly question his objectivity in this argument, he is after all one of the inventors of the Standard Model so has a very heavily vested interest.

This isn't just a criticism of this particular experiment by the way. I believe that as a human race we have limted time and resources and it sometimes seems that we seem to lack focus on the things that really matter in favour of some very esoteric and sometimes completely barmy research.

I know what you're saying, but there's a couple of counter-points; solving the worlds energy/resources problem is already solveable; one couple has one child until we get to a global optimum population - enough to support specialisation but not so much as to drain resources at such a rate. Furthermore, to ramp up renewable energy to a level where it replaces conventional fuel is mind-boggling - one of the only ways to do it is via nuclear - probably fusion, which is being advanced and studied as well as funded.
LHC may form part of a clue as to better ways, or 'freer' ways to provide energy - we don't know. Just as Colombus sailed over the edge of the world, we don't know what benefits we'll gain from insights and techniques and technology that we use to push understanding.
Also, in the big scheme of things, it's not really that much money, and I'd venture that far more is wasted (war?) on far less productive projects; in fact, far more has been lost through inept global financial management than has ever been spent on LHC...

[Guvernator]

andy_s said:

I know what you're saying, but there's a couple of counter-points; solving the worlds energy/resources problem is already solveable; one couple has one child until we get to a global optimum population - enough to support specialisation but not so much as to drain resources at such a rate. Furthermore, to ramp up renewable energy to a level where it replaces conventional fuel is mind-boggling - one of the only ways to do it is via nuclear - probably fusion, which is being advanced and studied as well as funded.
LHC may form part of a clue as to better ways, or 'freer' ways to provide energy - we don't know. Just as Colombus sailed over the edge of the world, we don't know what benefits we'll gain from insights and techniques and technology that we use to push understanding.
Also, in the big scheme of things, it's not really that much money, and I'd venture that far more is wasted (war?) on far less productive projects; in fact, far more has been lost through inept global financial management than has ever been spent on LHC...

Good points. I realise their may be some very practical applications that come out of the whole Higgs\LHC studies in the future so I can sort of see the point of them but some of the scientific experiments or studies you hear about sometimes are very esoteric, and that's being kind.

I'm not sure how popular forcing people to have less kids would be, I expect anyone trying to push that agenda wouldn't get too much support. I think the situation would have to get pretty drastic before that kind of measure could even be considered. What I am advocating is that perhaps the scientific community could concentrate a bit more on fixing some of the problems that ail us so that we wouldn't have to tell people to stop having kids in the first place.

Also while war is certainly wasteful in terms of human life, it's a sad fact that a huge amount of often very important technological progress occurs as a direct result of conflict. Without human conflict we wouldn't have been able to fly to the moon or have nuclear power for instance.

[andy_s]

Guvernator said:

Also while war is certainly wasteful in terms of human life, it's a sad fact that a huge amount of often very important technological progress occurs as a direct result of conflict. Without human conflict we wouldn't have been able to fly to the moon or have nuclear power for instance.

I realised that as I posted...but didn't want to get embroiled in that! It's certainly a great motivator...

[MiseryStreak]

Don't worry, commercial fusion is on its way. Many people don't realise (that included me until I happened upon a research article) that controlled nuclear fusion has taken place, the problem at the moment is that the net energy is negative, it takes more energy to heat up and kick start the reaction than they could harness from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

We will probably have fusion power stations in all developed countries by 2030. Then we can take down and recycle all the stupid wind turbines and PV cells littering our countryside and roofs (possibly donate the PVs to developing countries).

Nobody knows what useful, practical technology will come from experimental research done by the LHC and other colliders. In my opinion, even we knew now that no further usefulness will come from it, it is still worth the investment. To understand our world is the drive, it is unthinkable to me that we should get to fermions and bosons and then just give up. 'Right, that's it, it's all getting a bit silly now, we've found some particles that appear to be indivisible that make most of the stuff around us, that'll do'.

[CommanderJameson]

MiseryStreak said:

To understand our world is the drive, it is unthinkable to me that we should get to fermions and bosons and then just give up. 'Right, that's it, it's all getting a bit silly now, we've found some particles that appear to be indivisible that make most of the stuff around us, that'll do'.

Exactly right.

The next thing to do is to say, "we've found some particles that appear to be indivisible that make most of the stuff around us, now what happens when we blow the little bds up?"

Disclaimer: I may have been watching too much Brainiac.

[Terminator X]

MiseryStreak said:

Don't worry, commercial fusion is on its way.

Look forward to it:



TX.

[annodomini2]

MiseryStreak said:

Don't worry, commercial fusion is on its way. Many people don't realise (that included me until I happened upon a research article) that controlled nuclear fusion has taken place, the problem at the moment is that the net energy is negative, it takes more energy to heat up and kick start the reaction than they could harness from it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

We will probably have fusion power stations in all developed countries by 2030. Then we can take down and recycle all the stupid wind turbines and PV cells littering our countryside and roofs (possibly donate the PVs to developing countries).

Nobody knows what useful, practical technology will come from experimental research done by the LHC and other colliders. In my opinion, even we knew now that no further usefulness will come from it, it is still worth the investment. To understand our world is the drive, it is unthinkable to me that we should get to fermions and bosons and then just give up. 'Right, that's it, it's all getting a bit silly now, we've found some particles that appear to be indivisible that make most of the stuff around us, that'll do'.

ITER is a waste of money, IMHO.

They've been throwing money at Tokamak for the last 66 years and they're still not even close to break even, let alone the net energy generation requirements for a Tokamak.

Due to the nature of how a Tokamak works, it will need to generate 3x out to produce any power and probably 5x to make it commercially viable.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just doesn't appear to be cost effective.

You still have radiation problems and the resultant decommissioning issues, as with existing fission plant.

The plants need to be enormous to make any power.

There is still a nuclear weapon proliferation issue.

[mattnunn]

Volume for volume your compost pile puts out 50 times more energy than the Sun.

Fact.

Nuclear fission is not all that.