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.

 

MASSIVELY upgraded LHC Ready to hunt down MYSTERY Dark Matter Particles

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
What it should give you is a very narrow range of mass and also some properties along with it.
Thanks for the clarification, that makes sense.


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
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.

I suppose if there are a lot of particles in our particle zoo that we know about, and dark matter has perhaps 5 times the mass of known matter, then perhaps there could be a whole zoo of dark matter particles, too. This is something that hadn't really occurred to me until I read that paper. Here is the link to it if anybody is interested:

Supermassive Black Holes from Ultra-Strongly Self-Interacting Dark Matter


It seems speculative, but inflation theory started out that way too so who knows?


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...
This seems to be as good an answer as any, and it even mentions anti-gravity!:

www.quora.com...

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....
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.


edit on 27-2-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification




posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So basically we're spending tons of money to give scientists nerdgasms?



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

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?


I assume that the "field" being bent you are referring to is spacetime?

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.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So basically we're spending tons of money to give scientists nerdgasms?
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:

Largest mobile (cell) phone



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I can use my head to dial!



I'm just impatient. In my mind, nothing is impossible if you throw enough money at it. We could have anti-gravity and transporters if we wanted to sink trillions of dollars and have thousands of scientists working 24/7 on it.

Ah...if only I was lord of the universe....

Everyone gets a free hamburger once a year, or hot dog if preferred.



posted on Feb, 27 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   
knowledgetransfer.web.cern.ch...

The LHC isn't that well funded really in terms of big science projects...

So lets see, best two numbers iv heard when the thing turned on was that it cost 20billion, over 15 years...

OK so thats 1.33 billion per year,

Funding is by about 100 nations... so the split isn't equal but just for this lets say it is actually about 10million per year per country.

For the UK as an example, something like 60 million people.... yep you guessed it, less than 20 cents per person, per year. Cost of lost tax revinue because of tax deals and big companies refusing to pay their tax bills... 50-ish billion in the uk - per year -... SOOOOooooooo yeah science is MEGA cheap


edit on 27-2-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

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.


The earth follows the sun. There is a physical reason this occurs. The theory of Einstein of why and how this occurs, is that there is a substance that exists all around the universe, and when Mass moves through this substance, the substance adapts. A mass alters the geometry of this substance as a baseball alters the geometry of a pool of water it is thrown through. This substance cannot exist everywhere, have its geometry altered by mass, while itself at all points, and therefore collectively, being massless.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   

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.


Wow man, you are so wrong. I know you know a lot, but you let some absolute logic and reason just slip by sometimes.

1. Whats being altered is the metric, the geodesics of space itself.
2. Theres nothing tangible there, its a vacuum, void of anything, yet existing.

Void of anything
Yet existing

Void of anything
Yet existing
Void of anything
Yet existing
Void of anything
Yet existing
Void of anything
Yet existing
Void of anything
Yet existing
Void of anything
Yet existing

HOW CAN SOMETHING THAT DOESNT EXIST (nothing, the only way in which nothing exists, is in word form, as a word, designated to mean the absence of anything that needs words to define or describe, the absence of non absence) BE ALTERED!!!!

NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ALTERED, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ANYTHING, NOTHINGNESS CANNOT BE ALTERED, WRITE IT OUT BART!!!!!!



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

In our reality, the sun is being moved and the earth is following it.

Imagine just the sun and earth existed.

They exist in a certain proximity so that if you move the sun with your god like hand in your mind that you are imagining this scenario in, the earth will follow it.

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.

You think the earth is following the sun, because the sun is bending nothing

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHBABHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHBABHAHBAHAH

FAIL.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

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.


Oh yeah, the reason diddling around with math is good proof for you is this;


Space = 0

Mass = 65

Space = 223049234

4 + space = 32423498294

0 = 293473284782

Space bends = 24823948932

mass + space = a bending 23483294829


There is only something and nothing.

Only something exists.

nothing only 'exists' as non something distance between somethings.

If the vacuum is something, it is somtihng.

if the vacuum is nothing, it is nothing.

If the vacuum has components it is something.

if the vacuum has intrinsic energy it is something.

if the vacuum is something you cannot call it nothing

if the vacuum has intrinsic energy you cannot call it nothing



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

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.


The bending of empty space.

TROLL!

HATER OF TRUTH!

ENEMY OF INTELLIGENCE!!!!

Stop being a dufus.

Why do you need to lie to yourself?

You are ruining science.

You are propagating misunderstanding, misinterpretation and non truths.

Einstein would despise you. Newton would despise you. Newton would read what you just said and be disgusted.

Newton was pissed off he couldnt comprehend what was causing mass to be attracted to mass at a distance. He knew it couldnt be nothing.

A child monkey knows it cannot be nothing, you despicable troll fart.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

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.


When you say;

Empty space can be bent.

You are saying, there is an aether.

Empty space can be bent = empty space is a medium with an intrinsic material/energetic value greater than 0



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You are saying, there is an aether.
Einstein referred to a "new aether" which we now call "space-time", to distinguish it from the luminiferous aether, which doesn't exist.

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.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
You are saying, there is an aether.
Einstein referred to a "new aether" which we now call "space-time", to distinguish it from the luminiferous aether, which doesn't exist.

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.


Spacetime is not referring to anything that exists in reality. Reality exists, spacetime is a tool, a chart, a ruler, to organize the data of reality we perceive. Einstein invented a coordinate system with which to plot the data of our observations unto.

There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.

There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.

There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.

There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There must be a substance that exists, which warps in the presence of mass.

You cannot deny this.
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"?

There's a theory about particles called gravitons, but they are only a hypothesis at this point. Even if they exist, they are thought to be likely massless, so would you call something that's "massless" a "substance"?



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

The bending of empty space.



I think he's got it.

And where's that bendy place?

In space! In space!

The bendy place is in the empty space!

(I think he's got it)



posted on Feb, 28 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

When you say;

Empty space can be bent.

You are saying, there is an aether.


Nope. If there were a luminiferous aether, you'd have longitudinal propagating EM. The LCD screen before you is proof that it is not.

Tada!



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join