String Theory
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.
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.
Originally posted by Daemon SeedSupposedly, 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).
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.
What I'd like to know is: how do strings, energy and spacetime all relate.
Originally posted by Mindship
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.
This makes excellent sense to me.
Thank you mindship, you are as ever stimulating.
Originally posted by JoyleNice article, thanks. But it doesn't really address what I'm wondering about.
This kinda gets into that:
zidbits.com/2011/03/a-laymans-explanation-for-string-theory/
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.
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 don´t 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?
Originally posted by Bicnarok
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.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
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 don´t 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?
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.
Originally posted by Astner
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.
so someone watching me stop would see my time slowing down, and I would see theirs going faster, in that case why would my watch go slower then their?
I wonder if someone can actually stop at all, after all you would need something else which has stopped to compare your speed with.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
so someone watching me stop would see my time slowing down, and I would see theirs going faster, in that case why would my watch go slower then their?
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I wonder if someone can actually stop at all, after all you would need something else which has stopped to compare your speed with.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
so someone watching me stop would see my time slowing down, and I would see theirs going faster, in that case why would my watch go slower then their?
You both see each other as slower.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
I wonder if someone can actually stop at all, after all you would need something else which has stopped to compare your speed with.
As I understand it being stopped is not a meaningful concept in Relativity. You can always calculate things as though you were stationary.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
I've experienced time slowing down, but I'm not going to explain it.Everything around me including sounds were slowed down. It was really cool. And no I wasn't on anything...lol
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