Is CERN a waste of money ?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Lostinspace, Jul 5, 2018.

  1. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Interesting you mentioned radar, do radars detect everything ?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,523
    They detect anything that reflects RF.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    Sorry. My statement could be read two ways. I meant what you said just there. I'm not sure about the word "primary" there, but the rest is okay.

    No, I don't think so. That gives the impression that there are two kinds of space. Only one is needed.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,192
    I believe that most theories try to show being background independent in order to avoid conflict with QM or GR
     
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,639
    That's right. GR has no absolute standard of rest. That's why it's called Relativity.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,192
    Moreover, as I understand it, GR deals with a continuous field (a wave function), whereas QM deals with quanta which are not be suitable in describing a smooth field.
    Can't have a quantum field..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ?

    This is where the LHC at Cern comes into play. It actually is able to generate quantum packets from the underlying smooth fields. Pretty neat trick.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  10. Hayden Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Thoughts could get into speculations so let us wait for a decade or so to see if aLIGO revolutionize the related science.
     
  11. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    I disagree , it gives the impression of a spatial whole that can have ''resident occupant'' fields. I do not think Einstein was considering space at all when he was considering space-time. I interpret space-time is a spatial field that can curve comparative to the background space. If we consider the Dirac sea, Maxwell, the Higg's field , Tesla's electrical Universe and space-time, these theories are seemingly trying to interpret the same thing, the ''stuff'' between masses that has no visual representation in respect to colour. Transparent fields leaving an amount of guess work to do about these 'invisible' fields . Could we maybe consider that space-time is the occupying field content of a BH ?

    This then would fit together nice to explain space-time is expanding and the BH volume is increasing over time by maybe enphalpic inflation. Could we also consider that different BH's ''inherit'' the same physics as our own observable BH ''interior''?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  12. sweetpea Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,056
    Robert Watson Watt got the idea for radar when asked by the British Air Ministry about the possibility of making a '' Death Ray'' .
    www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41188464
    Late edit: It was Skip Wilkins and Robert Watson Watt.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2018
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,523
    That's like saying Maxwell was not considering magnetism when he came up with the basic theories of electromagnetism. (Of course, he was considering it.)
    It can curve, and it is not separate from background space.
    Right - but almost nothing has color. So none of them are unique in that respect. Indeed, the only place we can perceive color is a very narrow section of the EM band.
    The fact that all fields are not visible to human eyes (outside of EM 400 to 800 nanometers) does not make them more likely to be "guesswork."
     
  14. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Nonsense, that is suggestive to saying space itself is a ''solid'' with a ''rubber'' like structure. You are mistaken, space by definition is just a vast expanse.



    Again nonsense, spatial fields are not observable so it is guesswork.
     
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,523
    No it's not. Space is not a solid, nor does it have a rubber-like structure. The rubber sheet model is just a way of visualizing spacetime.
    I can observe them with simple tools. You can find these tools in any high school science lab, so it's not hard for anyone to do so.
     
  16. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Firstly you claimed :

    After talking nonsense you now decide to contradict yourself, which answer is it?
     
  17. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    It sounds like you are trying to equate a gravitational field to a field like an electric field, in that an electric field is 'in' space, it is not space curving. Is my interpretation correct?
     
  18. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Field curvature would be the correct interpretation as ''simulated'' in the rubber sheet example, you have the correct understanding of what I meant.
     
  19. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    That is not really telling if my interpretation of your idea is what you are trying to say. In the rubber sheet analogy that was developed, the rubber sheet IS space-time, there is no 'background' space.
     
  20. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35

    I said ''you have the correct understanding''in the other prior post.

    I agree the rubber sheet represents space-time and shows space-time curvature, but if you remove the sheet , that does not remove the space that ''underlays'' the ''overlay'' sheet, the sheet curves comparable to the ''background'' space.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,523
    Are you really having this much trouble with a relatively simple concept? Space can curve. It is not a solid. It is not like rubber. It is like space. It's the dimensional framework upon which we locate objects. That framework can be warped by gravitational fields. Fields (like the four fields we know about) can propagage through it. There is no one "zero reference frame" - all frames in spacetime are relative.
     
  22. Lostinspace Registered Member

    Messages:
    35
    Nonsense, you seem to be struggling to comprehend the difference between space and a spatial field that occupies the space. Again contradicting yourself, again claiming space can curve but is not made of anything to curve. Please explain your nonsense I have put in bold.
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,523
    Space is not "made of anything." There is such a thing as empty space, which is the absence of anything in that space. Space, of course, has characteristics, like the Planck constant, a permittivity, a permeability etc. This does not mean that there's "something there."

    If you cannot understand that, we are done here.
     

Share This Page