>> ^Enzoblue:

>> ^Ornthoron:
A little cold water for everyone:
If these results turn out to be solid, it will not necessarily conflict with Einstein's theory of relativity. Relativity can accomodate these particles if they have negative mass.

Negative mass doesn't even make sense to me. You either have mass or you don't. You can't really really really not have mass all you want, but it doesn't make you negative. Please explain.


Sorry, I miswrote. I meant to say imaginary mass, just like tachyons. It's the mass squared that is negative.

To a physicist, mass is just a number describing a certain property of particles, namely their inertia and gravitational attraction. To date, all observed particles either have real positive mass or are massless, but that does not mean that some other value (negative or even complex) is theoretically impossible. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and there are extensions to it that include Lorentz symmetry breaking and thus can accomodate faster than light neutrinos.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^COriolanus:
Can any one provide a link for an opposing view?

The one I have been reading about is MOND
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOND
There is also the newer, or newer to me, QG unification theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity
I think there is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic rules of matter, energy, time and space. I don't have much evidence to support this idea. It might be the same problem Einstein had with QED that I have with dark matter, it's messy. It seems like we are creating something first because of the maths we have agreed are true instead of questioning the fundamental understanding. I compaire it to Quine's web of belief. I could be wrong, perhaps there is some wacky matter out there that behaves the exact opposite of real matter, is most of the stuff in the universe, and doesn't interact electromagnetically with our plane of existence...but it seems like reaching for straws.


It's wrong that Dark Matter is just some wacky thing created because of the maths. It is observed, through its gravitational interaction. Just because it doesn't interact electromagnetically doesn't mean it's invisible. It's also wrong that Dark Matter behaves the exact opposite of real matter. The Standard Model of particle physics is far from complete, and we already know of particles that interact through one force of nature and not through others. To posit a new fundamental particle that could fit the Dark Matter profile is not really that far fetched. There are even candidates obtained through Supersymmetry that may or may not provide the right answer. I don't find this messy at all, and frankly, Nature doesn't care if you think its rules are messy or not.

Also, if you don't like messiness, MOND is really not the right answer for you. Modified Newtonian Dynamics is an interesting concept with some interesting results for their own sake, and it may still ultimately prove correct. The idea that extrapolation from high gravitational fields to low ones might be unsound is something that should not be dismissed. But so far, the data are not in MOND's favour.

I wouldn't like to be so specific as to ask about cold fusion or lightning or even how do we solve the energy crisis, or how do we cure cancer (though these are all good questions and I would be hard pressed to come up with anything better in the spur of the moment).

It would seem to me that given the power of such a miraculous hypothetical situation, the key to getting the most out of it would be to strike deeper than the obvious and immediate problems. The kid had the spirit with the light question (impressively so). The answer to that question would fill volumes, and a complete answer would very likely supersede what we already know.

On further reflection, I think really deep physics questions would be the way to go...

What is the nature of gravity (in full)?

What is wrong with the general theory of relativity?

How is our current Standard Model of particle physics wrong?

Even if we didn't understand the answers, it would be immensely helpful to have some extra meat to chew on.

Of course, I'm just biased...some spiritual question might be worthy too. I'm just inclined to believe that there are no real answers there.

>> ^NobleOne:
Why are they using the CERN to find the God particle?


I'll move off-topic a bit in defense of CERN and the LHC. Sorry, I can't help myself.

In short: they're not. First of all, the "god particle" is a dumb hype name popularized by the media for the hypothesized Higgs boson, a scalar particle the existence of which is predicted by the standard model of particle physics. The misconception is that, if found, it would 'explain all of physics', which is, again, a major overstatement. Secondly, they're using the LHC for a variety of different purposes - you should read the wikipedia article, because it's a fascinating experiment and people are, for the most part, largely ignorant or misinformed about it.

>> ^EDD:
Might be just me, but last I heard all the quantum physicists had quite a bit of a problem with general relativity

Not so. It is true that physicists have not yet managed to unify gravity into the standard model of particle physics, but general relativity on its own works perfectly fine on large scales, which you can check for yourself every time you use a GPS unit.

Now, wether or not general relativity is still relevant has of course no bearing on the validity of the writings linked to here. To get back to topic:

>> ^imstellar28:
From a purely scientific standpoint, like physics, there is nothing human about economics.

Really? Unlike physics, economics is all about humans interacting with each other. The actions of the individuals in the economy are largely governed by human feelings, such as love, hope, happiness, sadness, optimism and (especially during crashes) panic. An indication of this is that all the major economic models work perfectly as long as the individuals behave according to plan, i.e. rational as defined by the economists. But as soon as the system comes out of equilibrium, people start acting much more emotional and the models become useless.

>> ^EDD:
^ Those collisions planned at LHC have no - that's ZERO, NIL, NONE, NOUGHT, NADA, ZIP - risk of creating micro black holes unless one supplements the standard model of particle physics with several extensions that factor in the possibility of extra spatial dimensions which these micro black holes might originate from. And even then those very same extensions lead one to conclude that the decay on those mbhs due to Hawking radiation would have them existing (and not in a manner in which they can do ANY harm) for a matter of seconds at the outside.
So whoever made this video - DIAF. That's right - you should die in a freaking fire for attempting to induce mass hysteria based on your complete fucking ignorance.


Wasn't there also a fear of that strange matter (quark matter) in the form of Strangelets being created as well?

"Clearly this potential risk is based on speculative theories. But
these theories were constructed to explore real possibilities. The probability
that they are correct is not negligible."

R. Plaga a
aFranzstr. 40, D-53111 Bonn, Germany

Quantum black holes are in principle unstable, i.e. they evaporate because
no conserved quantum number forbids them to do so. However, it is well
known that their Hawking luminosity is strongly suppressed with respect to
semiclassical expectations for black-hole masses below the Planck mass in
4 space-time dimensions.

^ Those collisions planned at LHC have no - that's ZERO, NIL, NONE, NOUGHT, NADA, ZIP - risk of creating micro black holes unless one supplements the standard model of particle physics with several extensions that factor in the possibility of extra spatial dimensions which these micro black holes might originate from. And even then those very same extensions lead one to conclude that the decay on those mbhs due to Hawking radiation would have them existing (and not in a manner in which they can do ANY harm) for a matter of seconds at the outside.

So whoever made this video - DIAF. That's right - you should die in a freaking fire for attempting to induce mass hysteria based on your complete fucking ignorance.