We all had a lovely chat about this in another thread, anyway I was reading in the paper the other day when the large Hadron Collider is turned up we may see other dimensions. I am a biologist and not a physicist can anybody explain to me how? I read Flatland years ago and this idea we will see other dimensions, seems to go contrary to common sense and my understanding of dimensions.
When you smash two things together they break into pieces. Smash them harder and you get smaller pieces (throwing your phone at the wall vs dropping a bowling ball on it). Theories make a prediction about what will happen when you smash the particles with a particular amount of force. Before the LHC colliders couldn't smash things hard enough to get effects where String Theory disagrees with anyone else.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
from what I've seen, its eliminating different string theories. Because string theory is all over the place, different interpretations predict radically different things. For instance, the hypothesis that miniature black holes might form from the LHC was based on one interpretation of string theory, which had evidence shown against it, whereas other interpretations predicted no black holes, which was supported.
Its not a direct test of the idea that there are smaller dimensions within things, but rather, sort of indirectly testing the predictions from different camps about how those strings affect larger bodies, like sub atomic particles, or how they form matter.
One site I saw even suggested that the "string theories" they are disproving were set up just so there was something to test in the first place.
Supposedly, as I understand it, if the measured level of energy from these collisions is less than what's predicted, the missing energy is hypothesized to have "disappeared" into another, normally "unseen" dimension(s).
What I'd like to know is: how do strings, energy and spacetime all relate.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on May 9th, 2011 at 09:43 PM
Nice article, thanks. But it doesn't really address what I'm wondering about.
For example, to be specific: the article says, "String theory does this by throwing away the idea that subatomic particles are point-like; instead replacing that notion with tiny vibrating bits of energy..."
Well, what kind of energy? Is it one of the four fundamental forces; is it 'quintessence' (a candidate for dark energy, itself a complete mystery); or is it some other form of new/unknown energy? I had read once that elementary particles may be thought of as "knots" of spacetime: would strings then be made of "spatial energy"? If so, would string energy then = spacetime (and if so, how would dark energy fit into this, if not 'quintessence'?).
Note that "spatial energy" is not the same as vacuum or zero-point energy, which is basically (as I understand it) the frothing of virtual particles.
On and on and on. You get the picture. I just dinna ken, lass. I just dinna ken.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
This question might be linked to this theory in a way. It is a fact that the faster you travel the more you dilate time, ie time slows down.
Well I was wondering. We are all moving pretty fast , the earth rotates at about 1,038 Mph (near the equator), it also orbits at about 67,062 Mph arround the sun, and the sun with the earth in tow, rotates arround the center of the galaxy at about 490,000 Mph (looked the speeds up online so not sure of the accuracy) and the milky way is probably hurtling through space pretty fast as well.
So we are constantly in a time dilation situation. I donīt know if the speed is enough to cause a major slowing of time, but what would happen if someone were to leave the earth and somehow stop from moving, if that is possible at all. Would that person suddenly age real fast an die?
Time only slows down for a observer in a alternate inertial system, it doesn't slow down for you. Speed is relative, not absolute like you're indicating.
Once again, speed is relative. If I'm standing in front of you, we're in the same inertial reference frame.
It shouldn't be that hard to wrap your head around.
Think of it like this. If I throw a ball at 99% light-speed to the right and another ball at the same velocity in the opposite direction, they will not separate with 198% light-speed relative each other but 99.7%.
In other words, relative to me, who's in the middle, both balls will separate at 99% light-speed, but relative each other they will separate at 99.7% of light-speed.
No, if you were moving away from me I'd slow down to you and you'd slow down to me, because in your inertial reference frame I'm moving away from you. The continuity of the times lies in the acceleration.
Im not exactly sure of the mechanism, but there are circuits of neurons we have that are responsible for our perception of time. it is possible that if those messed up in some way, you could get that effect. probably wouldn't take much more than fatigue
KMC Community Forums
May 9th, 2011 06:36 PM
