Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, January 26, 2008 | Reason : Astronomy | print version Print | Comments

Document The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

by Labreporter

Featured Films: The Science behind the Large Hadron Collider

ttp://www.labreporter.com/index.html

Deep beneath the ground in Geneva, thousands of scientists from all over the world are working together to build the biggest, most complicated machine in the world. It's part of the most ambitious scientific experiment of all time: The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. These films reveal the scientific questions at the heart of the experiment and what scientists hope to achieve once the machine is switched on later this year.


Big Bang v2.0


Dr Brian Cox takes us on a tour of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva - the biggest, most complicated machine ever built. It's costing millions of pounds and has thousands of scientists from around the world waiting to use it as part of the biggest scientific experiment ever attempted. Once switched on, it will allow scientists to recreate the conditions that existed in the first moments after the Big Bang. The film also features Brian and other CERN scientists explaining what results they hope will emerge from the most exciting scientific experiment of our time.


Sizing things up


One of science's greatest achievements is to have accurately measured everything from the width of the universe to the diameter of a quark. This film features an animated zoom in from the universe to the heart of a hydrogen atom and reveals how things at both ends of the scale are connected by their common origin in the Big Bang. Dr Tara Shears explains that although there are scientists who study the very big things (cosmologists) and scientists who study the very small things (particle physicists), they are all waiting for the results of one experiment - The Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

The Mystery of the Missing Mass


Like antimatter, Dark Matter is a favourite with science fiction writers. But unlike antimatter, scientists believe that there are huge quantities of dark matter in our universe. In fact, they think that most of the mass in the universe is made up of something we can't see. In this film, Dr Tara Shears explains why scientists are convinced Dark Matter exists and how a new experiment called the Large Hadron Collider might finally tell us exactly what this mysterious missing mass is made of.


Hunting for Higgs


Over the last 100 years or so, physicists have developed a theory called "The Standard Model" which says that pretty much everything in the universe can be described in terms of just 12 fundamental particles. However, the theory also predicts the existence of one more particle, the Higgs Boson, which has never been seen. In this film. Dr Tara Shears enlists the help of students from the University of Liverpool to explain what the Higgs Boson is and why scientists are building the biggest, most complicated experiment in history to prove it exists.

The Matter with Antimatter


Thanks to Star Trek and other science fiction, most of us are familiar with the notion of antimatter – a "mirror-version" of the matter that makes up the world around us. Many science fiction writers have used the fact that matter and anti-matter explode when they come into contact to conjure up exotic-sounding ways of powering super-fast space ships or blowing things up. There's usually an abundant supply of anti-matter in these stories but, in the real world, only minute amounts of antimatter have been seen in cosmic rays or created in particle accelerators.

Equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created at the birth of the universe but our universe seems to be made almost entirely from matter. In this film, Dr Tara Shears explains why this is one of the greatest mysteries in science and how it might be solved by the biggest experiment in history.

B is for Beauty


Imagine how limited our knowledge of biology would be without the microscope or how little we would know about stars without telescopes. From humble electrical meters to biological imaging machines, scientific instruments are at the heart of scientific discovery. Most of the time, scientists take these instruments for granted, treating them as "black boxes" which simply measure, magnify, separate, isolate, capture or illuminate the thing they're really interested in. In the usual course of research, there's no need to remember that someone had to invent and build the first microscope, telescope, ammeter, brain scanner or DNA sequencing machine. But scientists who want to do an experiment which no-one has ever done before, look at things which no-one has ever seen before or measure things which no-one has ever quantified before, are often forced to turn instrument maker.

Dr Tara Shears is one of thousands of scientists around the world helping to build the biggest, most expensive, most complicated scientific instrument in history – The Large Hadron Collider or LHC, a machine that will smash protons together at near light speed and allow scientists to "look' at things that have not been "seen' since the Big Bang. Tara is a member Particle Physics Group at the University of Liverpool, which is constructing components that will detect "beauty" quarks created by the collision of protons in the LHC. These detectors will help the LHCb experiment to identify tiny differences between matter b-quarks and antimatter ones.

Thanks to Star Trek and Dan Brown's Angels & Demons, most of us are familiar with the notion of antimatter – a "mirror-version" of the matter that makes up the world around us. Many science fiction writers have used the fact that matter and anti-matter explode whe ways of powering super-fast space ships or blowing things up. There's usually an abundant supply of anti-matter in these stories but in the real world, it can only be created in particle accelerators and then only in absolutely minute amounts. Hopefully the LHC will provide enough of it to allow scientists like Tara a chance to try and better understand the differences between the two types of matter.

Tara explains "particle physics deals with what the universe is made of and how things behave to make the universe look the way it does. One of the great mysteries that remains is why the universe went from being made of equal quantities of matter and antimatter to being one made entirely of matter". The key to answering this question is to look at the tiny differences between matter and antimatter particles. The "beauty" quark is particularly good for probing this question because b-quarks and anti-b-quarks behave "more differently" than other particles and their antimatter counterparts.

Tara and the LHCb-Liverpool Group are responsible for providing the modules for the "vertex locator" or VELO. This is a silicon based detector that will let the scientists precisely track the movement of the b-quarks for the duration of their brief lives; within trillionths of a second the b-quarks will decay into other particles. The detectors being built at Liverpool will allow scientists to reconstruct the position of the b-quarks in 3D and pinpoint crucial differences between matter and antimatter. This, they hope, will reveal unknown truths about the nature of the universe.

Tara splits her time as an experimental physicist between helping to build the detectors and devising methods to understand the data they will produce. "I'm not an expert on detectors so I mainly help with testing components for the detectors". She talks passionately about her work; "it's such a seductive idea to me - to be able to look deep into the heart of matter and pick it apart like 'pass the parcel' just to see what it is made of". She credits her teachers for her love of Physics, "it's something that captivated me when I was about 15. I had a really good teacher at school, Mr Winders, who taught me how to think about problems, to solve them logically. I also had tutors all the way through university, and when doing my PhD, who really inspired me".

Tara continues the tradition of inspiring young people with her outreach work – she regularly gives public talks and devotes a lot of time to helping the public understand particle physics. One question can be guaranteed to turn up any time she talks about her work: "is it worth spending all this money on a science experiment?" Tara explains "one way to answer this is to tell people about the technological spin-offs that have come out of particle physics experiments like this one, for example, the web was developed at CERN and PET scanners are a direct spin-off from particle detectors. But for me personally, this experiment is about the extension of human knowledge. It's about pushing back our horizons and seeing as far as we can into the heart of matter. And for me, that's priceless".

Comments 1 - 50 of 103 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #116386 by mikes on January 26, 2008 at 11:27 am

 avatarI bet D'Souza has a Large Hardon Collider. Its what emits all that sound during his debates. His ass.

Other Comments by mikes

2. Comment #116389 by MPhil on January 26, 2008 at 11:39 am

 avatarI just recently found out that a cousin of one of my fellow students with whom I am rather friendly is responsible for antimatter-creation at CERN. I immediately asked if he would take me to visit his cousin at work :)

Other Comments by MPhil

3. Comment #116393 by wonder on January 26, 2008 at 11:47 am

What a great article! I'm really looking forward to soaking up all this great info. Fascinating stuff!
Thanks for posting these videos.

Other Comments by wonder

4. Comment #116396 by quill on January 26, 2008 at 11:49 am

 avatarBeautiful!

Someone should invite the educational authorities in Texas over to CERN so that they can see what real science looks like before deciding whether the "Institute for Creation Research" qualifies.

Other Comments by quill

5. Comment #116408 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 12:14 pm

 avatarI took one look at this and immediately sent it to a creationist friend of mine who criticizes my inability to explain the Big Bang. And then states that since a fourteen year old can't explain it then the whole theory is "bunk" and no one can explain it.

Does it say when the experiments wil start? And when will someone come on here and say that this will destroy the universe?

Other Comments by Deepthought

6. Comment #116409 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 12:18 pm

 avatar
And then states that since a fourteen year old can't explain it then the whole theory is "bunk" and no one can explain it.


You should point them at some of the trickier theological questions, and use the same argument back at them :)

And when will someone come on here and say that this will destroy the universe?


It won't, and there is a good reason why. Nothing we do in the laboratory comes anywhere close to the energies that occur when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere, or the moon. If such energies were dangerous, the Earth and Moon would have disappeared billions of years ago.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

7. Comment #116413 by Deepthought on January 26, 2008 at 12:27 pm

 avatar
You should point them at some of the trickier theological questions, and use the same argument back at them :)


I just point out phrases in the bible that say his mother's head should be shaved and those that say I should be put to death. He just says "those were taken out of context" I see no context that can counteract "Rebellious sons should be put to death".

I will sleep easier tonight because I know the universe won't be destroyed. But what would happen if we were to create antimatter in the collider? Would it just be in such small amounts that we wouldn't blow up too much of the surrounding countryside?

Other Comments by Deepthought

8. Comment #116414 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm

 avatar
I will sleep easier tonight because I know the universe won't be destroyed. But what would happen if we were to create antimatter in the collider? Whould it just be in such small amounts that we wouldn't blow up too much of the surrounding countryside?


Indeed. Nothing to worry about.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #116418 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:46 pm

 avatarGreat stuff. Thanks for the post!

Three cheers for The Enlightenment!!

Other Comments by Rational_G

10. Comment #116419 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm

 avatar"The only way to uncover the secrets of the universe is to go and look." - Dr. Brian Cox

Amen (if you'll pardon the expression).

Other Comments by Rational_G

11. Comment #116420 by quill on January 26, 2008 at 12:55 pm

 avatarHonestly, though, "Large Hadron Collider"... Scientists can be so unimaginative when it comes to naming things. Almost as bad as the military with their insidious acronymspeak.

Other Comments by quill

12. Comment #116427 by JFHalsey on January 26, 2008 at 1:12 pm

I'm so excited about this! This is, without a doubt, the most exciting scientific news of our time. We may be /this/ close to discovering the Theory of Everything! I'm extremely excited to see what we find.

Other Comments by JFHalsey

13. Comment #116432 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 1:22 pm

 avatar
I'm so excited about this! This is, without a doubt, the most exciting scientific news of our time. We may be /this/ close to discovering the Theory of Everything! I'm extremely excited to see what we find.


Don't get too excited. Some people have been making all sorts of claims about what these experiments are capable of, but even if they do find a Higgs Boson (there could be several), or a supersymmetric particle, that leaves many questions unanswered (such as the truth of String Theory). It may well be that to answer these questions by direct experiment would require experiments beyond anying we are likely to able to build in the forseeable future, so experimental particle physics could hit a serious rut.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

14. Comment #116438 by HarryHUK on January 26, 2008 at 1:37 pm

It seems strange to realise from our human perspective that we can look out to the vastness of the universe and at the same time to the minuteness of the matter that forms it,we seem to be located at some sort of half way point between the two,quite an exciting and privilidged position.

Other Comments by HarryHUK

15. Comment #116446 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 1:53 pm

 avatarWhat Steve Zara says is true (no surprise there). There's a lot of skepticism about string theory and supersymmetric particles - since these theories make no claim that be proven false. They can always "adjust" their theory to fit the evidence. Doesn't seem right. A good theory should make a definitive prediction -like Einstein's prediction on how much starlight is bent when passing near the sun.

Nevertheless, probing nature at new energy levels is exciting in and of itself. I look forward to the results.

Other Comments by Rational_G

16. Comment #116454 by LorienRyan on January 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm

 avatarThe width of the universe? Dark Matter, stuff we can't see or detect? This sounds familiar. I really doubt they spent six billion dollars just to answer ridiculous notions. I thought the big bang theory had already been disproven in favour of the more evidence based plasma and electromagnetic universe.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

17. Comment #116455 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm

 avatar
The width of the universe? Dark Matter, stuff we can't see or detect? This sounds familiar. I really doubt they spent six billion dollars just to answer ridiculous notions. I thought the big bang theory had already been disproven in favour of the more evidence based plasma and electromagnetic universe.


Is this ironic?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #116460 by D'Arcy on January 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm

 avatarGreat stuff! I'm always in favour of increasing humanity's knowledge. SteveZ says this may not give us the TOE (Theory of Everything) and he's probably right. But as sure as shit stinks (can't get more scientific than that), this LHC will come out with some scientific advances that hadn't been thought of. Higgs may be who they are looking for, but it could be D'Souza who turns up!

The whole subject reminds me of a cheesy joke for which I apologise in advance to our north American friends in particular, and to all others.

What do you call a female who likes to party and is in the crew of a nuclear submarine?

A subatomic party girl!

Higgs could have been the boson, but Heisenberg, the first mate was uncertain about it.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

19. Comment #116472 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm

 avatarHeisenburg is stopped by a cop for speeding.

The cop asks "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Heisenburg replies, "No, but I know exactly where I am!"

Other Comments by Rational_G

20. Comment #116482 by robotaholic on January 26, 2008 at 3:21 pm

 avatarI just love hearing the Dr. Terry Shears talk. I am just absolutely excited about the LHC- Excited excited excited- honestly I have a love for physics and sorry Steve but it's good to be excited about physics. So many people aren't-

Other Comments by robotaholic

21. Comment #116485 by Brungardt on January 26, 2008 at 3:28 pm

 avatarD'Arcy, Rational_G, you're both horribly unfunny but in a funny way. I firmly believe that if you go in the direction of a "cheesy" joke you eventually wrap right on around and end up back in the funny area. So cheesy it's funny in other words. :) Sorta like how the further left or right you go politically, you still end up with fascism.

Other Comments by Brungardt

22. Comment #116499 by darlets on January 26, 2008 at 4:14 pm

First and foremost I hope it gets off the ground. It's looking good thus far. There's been a lot of technology developed due to this undertaking. Not least of which is the WWW.

http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q2/0259.html

Also the development of share computer resources for research.
http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/GridatCERN/gridatcern.html

That in itself is going to benefit humanity if they can get it off the ground.

What will they find, nobody knows. But as long as they get it up and running and get data it will tell us something more about the universe. Another step forward.

As well as CERN (may 2008 start date) we have
the upgrade to hubble later this year,

The Planck Surveyor (Launch date July 31st 2008)
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/120398_index_0_m.html

James Watt Space Telescope going up in 2011

Fingers crossed they all get up and running.

Other Comments by darlets

23. Comment #116523 by quantum tuba on January 26, 2008 at 5:34 pm

"Dark matter, stuff we can't see or detect?"

LorienRyan is correct that we cannot see it, as it does not reflect or emit electromagnetic waves(and I don't think it absorbs them either, so I could just say doesn't interact with them).

However, LorienRyan is incorrect on the assertion that dark matter cannot be detected. In addition to being detectable through its gravitational influence, most hypothesized forms of dark matter can be detected in particle physics laboratories. In other words, dark matter is not analogous to doG or Russell's teapot by any means.

Other Comments by quantum tuba

24. Comment #116537 by RickM on January 26, 2008 at 5:47 pm

 avatarExciting! Can't wait to hear about the results coming out of this monster.

Other Comments by RickM

25. Comment #116538 by Rational_G on January 26, 2008 at 5:50 pm

 avatarLorienRyan - Big bang theory has not been "disproven". Best theory we have for describing the early universe. Cosmic background "electromagnetic " radiation discovered in 1965 reveals early universe "plasma" in thermodynamic equilibrium and adds weight to big bang theory. LHC will address legitimate questions on elementary particle physics, regardless of correctness of string theory.

Hope that helps.

Other Comments by Rational_G

26. Comment #116597 by Smith on January 26, 2008 at 7:32 pm

 avatarAccording to Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory," the USA was building an even more powerful collider in the early 90's. But eventually the project got canned by the short-sighted Congress. Let's hope that CERN produces some remarkable results to teach them a lesson.

Other Comments by Smith

27. Comment #116609 by Rettet181 on January 26, 2008 at 7:55 pm

"According to Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory," the USA was building an even more powerful collider in the early 90's. But eventually the project got canned by the short-sighted Congress."

*sigh* This is what happens when 90% of the population already "know" how the universe was created because, well, God did it. So instead we must rely on our much more reasonable European cousins. Meh, I'm sick of this country, do you guys happen to have room over there for a disillusioned American?

In any case, I can't wait to see where CERN leads us.

Other Comments by Rettet181

28. Comment #116617 by Lucas on January 26, 2008 at 8:20 pm

 avatarSteve Zara, or anyone with more particle physics knowledge than I -

I obviously give you the benefit of the doubt about this thing not destroying the universe, but can you explain further? I'm not sleeping yet.

Other Comments by Lucas

29. Comment #116619 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 8:32 pm

 avatar
I obviously give you the benefit of the doubt about this thing not destroying the universe, but can you explain further? I'm not sleeping yet.


This thing fires particles at each other with enormous energy. There are various "destroy the universe" scenarios. One is that empty space in the universe (the "vacuum") is not in its most stable state, so could be kicked into another state, in which it is most likely that matter as we know it would not exist. Another is that we could create a new form of matter called "strangelets" that would suck all other matter into it, forming a huge blob of quarks. Another is the formation of a black hole.

However, the LHC generates collisions at an energy of 7 x 10^12 eV, and we know that collisions of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere routinely occur at energies millions of times more energetic, indeed one collison of an energy 42 million times has been seen.

So, if anything nasty were going to happen, it would most likely have happened anyway due to the huge numbers of vastly more energetic collisions that occur naturally.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #116628 by ARomanticRationalist on January 26, 2008 at 9:29 pm

 avatarI am majoring in "Interdisciplinary Science" at university with an emphasis on science literacy for both the public and for policy makers and would like to see more of this young lady. She is articulate, animated, and yes, photogenic.

Other Comments by ARomanticRationalist

31. Comment #116631 by dragonfirematrix on January 26, 2008 at 9:34 pm

 avatarMy brain is a small "particle" amid this enormous reality of scientific evolutionary progress. The reality of evolution being who are we, what are we, where did we come from, and how did we get here will eventually be answered by science while religion has not a clue.

This was a very interesting video lesson. Over my head quite a bit, but I sure understand the gist of the message. It makes me think back to Dr. Carl Sagan, and I bet Dr. Sagan would be proud of the Large Hadron Collider project.

This is neat stuff! I cannot wait to hear the results of the test. Science does so much for humankind: Clean water, safe food, medicine, curing decease, comfort, mobility, healthy environment, entertainment, efficiency, and the list can go on. Who knows what extraordinary beneficial decedents will result from this LHC. Science will not blow up the planet with this project.

I cannot help but compare the quote "follow the money" to how science and religion so profoundly differ. Science spends millions or a few billion on learning more about how to better humankind's existence. Religion spends trillions on hate, oppression, and bombing humankind out of existence in their senseless endless wars. Science explains our differences. Religion kills differences. Science evolves by learning more and adapting. Religion is archaic, stalls, and stagnates. Science learns from freethinking. Religion burns freethinking. Science proves. Religion prays. And on, and on, and on, infinitum.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

32. Comment #116658 by rod-the-farmer on January 27, 2008 at 1:33 am

 avatarI chose to view those videos later. And now that I have time, of course, they all seem to be "unavailable". Anyone else have that problem ? Anyone know how to fix it ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

33. Comment #116664 by Scott McMeekin on January 27, 2008 at 2:17 am

 avatar@ rod-the-farmer

Hey Rod,

I just watched them all without issue. Maybe try em again now?

Scott

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

34. Comment #116684 by JammyB on January 27, 2008 at 5:34 am

Hi Rod, I had the same problem, try watching them from the site itself. This is working for me.

http://www.labreporter.com/index.html

Other Comments by JammyB

35. Comment #116685 by sven_der_sar on January 27, 2008 at 5:37 am

Re the last video:
Why 42 blue boxes/modules?
Theory A: They need to be X metres apart and fit into the 27km track with all the sensors etc, so 42 just happened to match the space available.
Theory B: It's an obscure Douglas Adams reference.
Any light sheddable?

Other Comments by sven_der_sar

36. Comment #116689 by gd_edi on January 27, 2008 at 6:00 am

Indeed. Nothing to worry about.
Famous last words :-P



Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that the value given in the second vid for the size of the universe, 156 billion light years across, is actually incorrect. Not sure though.

Other Comments by gd_edi

37. Comment #116696 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 6:57 am

 avatar
Famous last words :-P


Worries about the scale of the difference between what we can manage and the energy that cosmic rays get up to is like the concerns of some scientists before the first atomic bomb test. They wondered if the blast would set the entire atmosphere alight. Their fears were baseless. Not even the impact of the dinosaur-killer asteroid managed to burn up the atmosphere, and difference between the energy of that asteroid and the energy of the first bomb test is on the same order as the difference we are talking about with this accelerator experiments.

Hmm, I remember reading somewhere that the value given in the second vid for the size of the universe, 156 billion light years across, is actually incorrect. Not sure though.


It varies depending on how much we think space has expanded since the Big Bang.

For those who may be interested, it may seem odd that the visible universe can be more that about 26 light years across. After all, it is very roughly 13 light years old, so how can it be any greater than that in radius? Well, the universe is not static. It has been expanding as that light has been travelling, and space has been carrying light with it.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

38. Comment #116736 by MorituriMax on January 27, 2008 at 9:51 am

 avatar
Steve Zara wrote,
"It won't, and there is a good reason why. Nothing we do in the laboratory comes anywhere close to the energies that occur when cosmic rays hit the upper atmosphere, or the moon. If such energies were dangerous, the Earth and Moon would have disappeared billions of years ago."

Maybe that's why God has to keep re-creating the Universe every 6,000 to 7,000 years and supply a fake history that doesn't say how the collider works? Damn us persistent ape/human hybrids!

Other Comments by MorituriMax

39. Comment #116745 by RickM on January 27, 2008 at 10:22 am

 avatar
Rational_G;
… there's a lot of skepticism about string theory and supersymmetric particles - since these theories make no claim that be proven false. They can always "adjust" their theory to fit the evidence.
But Rational, you failed to mention the fact that there is a lot of skepticism regarding Inflation; clearly an "adjusted" model if there ever was one.

And how about infinite "pocked universes" that fall out of Inflation?

All in all, HEP has lots of problems. I suspect LHC will lead to a lot more head scratching; the kind that will lead to, "holy crap, now what?"

I wish they would get the darn thing running.

Other Comments by RickM

40. Comment #116749 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:35 am

 avatar
But Rational, you failed to mention the fact that there is a lot of skepticism regarding Inflation; clearly an "adjusted" model if there ever was one.


Unlike String Theory, inflationary models can be falsified using current or near-future experiments. There may be skepticism about particular mechanisms for inflation, but observations of the cosmic microwave background seem, for now, to back inflation generally.

By contrast, String Theory struggles to try get forms of testability into feasible scientific experiments, like by saying that if some of the extra dimensions required by String Theory are large enough then they may be detectable in the LHC. Well, yes, but that is a very big "if", and even then it does not provide evidence for String Theory, as there could be extra dimensions even if String Theory was false. I get worried when some supporters of String Theory suggest that science itself may need to be redefined in order to justify them continuing their work.

And how about infinite "pocked universes" that fall out of Inflation?


That is an entirely sensible prediction of some models of inflation.

Actually, the idea of multiple universes is nothing particularly weird. Surely it would be very strange if what happened to make our Universe nearly 14 billion years ago was unique.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

41. Comment #116751 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 am

 avatarRickM -

I agree - plenty of uncertainty to go around. At least inflation makes some claims that can be tested. I too hope they get the LHC running soon. Should be interesting!

Other Comments by Rational_G

42. Comment #116753 by RickM on January 27, 2008 at 10:36 am

 avatarBLACK HOLES

Any black holes created in LHC will decay in a few Planck increments. They ARE NOT the same black holes that gobble up material at the center of active galaxies.

Other Comments by RickM

43. Comment #116761 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 10:51 am

 avatar
Any black holes created in LHC will decay in a few Planck increments.


We hope :)

I have read some concerns that if Hawking Radiation (the way black holes are supposed to evaporate) is not true, then we may be in for trouble. However, I remember reading somewhere that that these small black holes will decay anyway - they are more like unstable massive particles than collapsed matter. And even if they don't, they almost certainly can't do any damage, as they simply aren't big enough to interact with anything... they will just "fall through the gaps" in atoms.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

44. Comment #116764 by RickM on January 27, 2008 at 11:00 am

 avatarSteve,

Agree. However, as you say, if "near-future" results (and other satellite experiments) reveal B-Mode polarity in the background radiation, Inflation is in big trouble and String Theory gets a major boost.

Going out on a limb here, it's my understanding that Inflation predicted Multiverses add to the problems of Inflation (aren't we back to the hated "something from nothing" and a "beginning" of time?).

Other Comments by RickM

45. Comment #116770 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 11:12 am

 avatar
Agree. However, as you say, if "near-future" results (and other satellite experiments) reveal B-Mode polarity in the background radiation, Inflation is in big trouble and String Theory gets a major boost.


You see - now I had to go and look up "B-mode"!

Current theories of inflation may be in trouble if no B-mode polarity was found, but this in no way backs String Theory. String Theory simply seems to be a "Theory of the Gaps" in these situations - any apparent problems with other theories are implied as supporting String Theory.

Going out on a limb here, it's my understanding that Inflation predicted Multiverses add to the problems of Inflation (aren't we back to the hated "something from nothing" and a "beginning" of time?).


Not my impression. Whatever possibly timeless origin of our universe could also have been a timeless origin of a multiverse. It is just that inflation was quite a bit bigger than our universe, resulting in spatially separated domains.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #116772 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 11:18 am

 avatarSteve and RickM,
Will either of you explain string theory and "B-mode". Posting a link to a good website would be sufficent.
I think the complexity of these theories is the real reason creationists say they are false. The relativly simple theory of evolution gives them headaches, so imagine what happens when they hear the words "string-theory".
Oh, now that I think of it, what does Inflation theory entail? Is that the basic Big Bang Theory?

Other Comments by Deepthought

47. Comment #116774 by Rational_G on January 27, 2008 at 11:20 am

 avatarInflation makes predictions that can be tested. String theory doesn't. Until string theory can make falsifiable predictions it is just a mathematical model, albeit a very interesting one.

Other Comments by Rational_G

48. Comment #116777 by Radesq on January 27, 2008 at 11:26 am

 avatarGentlemen, while you're at it could you explain an even simpler concept which is also beyond my grasp? People often state the the universe might be finite and they compare it to traveling around the Earth in one direction and returning to the spot you started. Of course we know that in that example we are constrained by the surface of the Earth rather than just going up out of the atmosphere or down through the Earth and out the other side. My question is what direction would we have to go to get outside of our universe if it is finite?
~~
I'm asking seriously, in case that sounded flippant.

Other Comments by Radesq

49. Comment #116809 by Steve Zara on January 27, 2008 at 1:43 pm

 avatar
Will either of you explain string theory and "B-mode". Posting a link to a good website would be sufficent.


For a long time, physics dealt with particles as if they were infinitesimal points. The problem is that this raises all kinds of mathematical problems, and also does not allow gravity to be brought into the picture. String Theory is one way to sort out some of these problems. It says that instead of points, particles are vibrating loops of some kind of energy. In principle it simplifies things considerably, as it suggests there is only one kind of thing in the Universe - a vibrating loop, and all properties and forces (mass, charge, etc.) are just patterns of vibration. The problem is that the mathematics to deal with this only seems to work if the loops vibrate in 10 (or 11) spatial dimensions. These dimensions can exist without us noticing them by being very, very small indeed.

"B-mode" is simply a kind of pattern in the cosmic microwave background radiation. It would indicate that a certain theory of why everything looks smooth and even in the Universe - inflation - may be true. Inflation says that the universe expanded very fast indeed (exponentially) for a short time after it started, which smoothed out all the bumps.

The above explanations are hugely simplified, but should give an idea of what is going on.

Inflation can be thought of as between any origin of the Universe and before the Big Bang, as the Big Bang model starts up when space is filled with energy and expanding at a reasonably slow rate.

I think the complexity of these theories is the real reason creationists say they are false. The relativly simple theory of evolution gives them headaches, so imagine what happens when they hear the words "string-theory".


These theories are in principle very, very simple. Its the maths to deal with them that is fiddly.

My question is what direction would we have to go to get outside of our universe if it is finite?


Steve puts on his multi-dimensional glove and points off in an invisible direction. Actually, this may, or may not, make sense, depending on how many dimensions of space there are. If there are only 3 (and 1 of time), the universe can expand, but without actually expanding into anything, so there is no outside.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #116821 by Deepthought on January 27, 2008 at 2:31 pm

 avatarSteve,

That makes sense. I asked a similar question about the Big Bang in a different thread and was given a link on the cyclic universe model. Would that be completely different or would it be a form of inflation theory?

Other Comments by Deepthought
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: