It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense.
originally posted by: ErosA433
What it should give you is a very narrow range of mass and also some properties along with it.
I just read a paper about that idea, using various types of dark matter particles to try to explain why we can find such large black holes in quasars.
So it is more evidence like you say, though it opens up a great deal of possibilities. There might be a whole range of dark matter particles, not just one. Such a measurement MIGHT give us a glimpse into that
This seems to be as good an answer as any, and it even mentions anti-gravity!:
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
I'm pretty dense, but has any of the LHC research translated into practical applications in our daily lives?
I want my anti-gravity car...
So in short, I haven't heard of any direct applications yet that will give you your anti-gravity car, but give it some time...you might eventually get some kind of new medical technology, for example.
I would love to tell you that research at the LHC will lead to anti-gravity drives or the ability to fold space, but that is simply too speculative, even for a site which encourages speculation. The practical benefits from the core science are as yet unknown and we must point to historical examples instead. We know that understanding fundamental theories like quantum field theory have generated tremendous practical benefits in the past. For example:
...Quantum mechanics was developed about a century ago. At the time, it was full of interesting scientific puzzles which had no known practical application. About fifty years ago, the transistor was constructed, which was only possible via an understanding of quantum mechanics. The transistor is the core component of all computer chips....
originally posted by: ImaFungi
The field which is warped in the presence of mass, must be composed of somethingness. It exists when mass is not in the vicinity and it exists when mass is in the vicinity, in short, it exists. How can this universally traversing, existing field, be fundamentally massless?
This is probably how big cell phones would be if they were powered by vacuum tubes instead of transistors and still had the same capabilities. Without advancements in quantum mechanics science, we might still be using vacuum tubes. So nerdgasms might translate into progress eventually, but yes that's about it for now:
originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Arbitrageur
So basically we're spending tons of money to give scientists nerdgasms?
originally posted by: swanne
Spacetime needs not to have any mass to be bent. In fact, the less mass a substance has, the less inertia it has to oppose acceleration such as bends.
It's easier to pick up and bend a chalk line than to pick up and bend a train rail.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
This substance cannot exist everywhere, have its geometry altered by mass, while itself at all points, and therefore collectively, being massless.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: ImaFungi
This substance cannot exist everywhere, have its geometry altered by mass, while itself at all points, and therefore collectively, being massless.
Sure it can. Because what's being altered is the metric, the geodesics of space itself. There's nothing tangible there, it's a vacuum, void of anything, yet existing.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ALTERED, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ANYTHING, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ALTERED, WRITE IT OUT BART!!!!!!
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: ImaFungi
NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ALTERED, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ANYTHING, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ALTERED, WRITE IT OUT BART!!!!!!
Sure it can. This is another area where diddling around with English for 'proof' in physics isn't going to help you much.
Most of the universe is vacuum. And yet, it exists.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Now with your hand you give the sun a nice push so it starts traveling on its own, and looky there the earth is following it.
Sure. The bending of empty space guarantees it will.
BTW, there is no aether, either.
originally posted by: Bedlam
originally posted by: ImaFungi
Now with your hand you give the sun a nice push so it starts traveling on its own, and looky there the earth is following it.
Sure. The bending of empty space guarantees it will.
BTW, there is no aether, either.
Einstein referred to a "new aether" which we now call "space-time", to distinguish it from the luminiferous aether, which doesn't exist.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
You are saying, there is an aether.
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930)...
So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Einstein referred to a "new aether" which we now call "space-time", to distinguish it from the luminiferous aether, which doesn't exist.
originally posted by: ImaFungi
You are saying, there is an aether.
With no other qualifications, "aether" is now usually implied to mean "luminiferous aether", but if you want to communicate on the same level with everybody else, just call it "space-time" instead of "new aether". Actually there were about 5 or 6 different types of aether discussed over the years so the term can get so ambiguous as to not be very useful if not qualified by a reference to the type of aether being discussed.
Aether
In 1916, after Einstein completed his foundational work on general relativity, Lorentz wrote a letter to him in which he speculated that within general relativity the aether was re-introduced. In his response Einstein wrote that one can actually speak about a "new aether", but one may not speak of motion in relation to that aether. This was further elaborated by Einstein in some semi-popular articles (1918, 1920, 1924, 1930)...
So the only similarity of this relativistic aether concept with the classical aether models lies in the presence of physical properties in space. Therefore, as historians such as John Stachel argue, Einstein's views on the "new aether" are not in conflict with his abandonment of the aether in 1905. For, as Einstein himself pointed out, no "substance" and no state of motion can be attributed to that new aether. In addition, Einstein's use of the word "aether" found little support in the scientific community, and played no role in the continuing development of modern physics.
Einstein said the "new aether" of relativity has "no substance", and I haven't found any reason to disagree with him, so far. What evidence do you have as proof of a "substance"?
originally posted by: ImaFungi
There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.
You cannot deny this.