Unexpected Findings in “Little” Big Bang Experiment Leaves Physicists Baffled

a reply to: sarahvital

Sorry, got distracted at the bar!

So when the heavy ions collide the electrons are blown off which creates a plasma. Since this is normally a high energy event, this not explored as much as other physics. So special machines makes these collisions possible. And the math is so complicated that there is one programmer who maintains the main program most institutions use to solve Feynman diagram math problems!

High energy plasma is another problematic area. The fusion reaction creates a magnetic current which can confine the plasma (if the flow field is correct) that can be additive to the reaction (why they are used, externally applied in magnetic confinement fusion). That is one more variable that may have to be accounted for (so you don’t end up with “over unity” reactions…)

Anyway, theory, math, data, it will take some time to account for each “butterfly” in the chaotic fusion reaction!

originally posted by: didntasktobeborned

Nope . Each particle is still moving at the speed of light .

Thats what I thought too..You have to break it down better..Is the space around both particles moving at faster than light speed? Just with no direction? A vibration?

Nope.
Speed does not "stack" .
The "speed" you are speaking of is speed relative to an observer .
Only thing is , that would not work either due to "time dilation"

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I wouldn't know anything really, science's explanation just doesn't add up.

But from my very uneducated understanding, you be right. Special relativity does not prohibit observers viewing closing speeds of 2c (bigger boom). Yet because of time dilation, from the viewpoint of each particle, the speed of approaching particle will not be faster than 1c.

The speed of light might make better sense if we view it moreso as a time rather than a speed limit. Anything trying to exceed the speed of light experiences zero time so movement beyond that speed is impossible. The ether of space-time governing relative time to ensure the speed of light is not exceeded in one time frame. Perhaps that's the maximum refresh rate of the illusion.

a reply to: Terpene

What makes it so special?

It is special because it applies to those situations in which the effects on gravity can be neglected, which is the case in a collider. The sacred principle is this: "The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or the observer."

Read that sentence carefully, slowly, and memorize it. Read that principle with reverence, for it describes your immediate surroundings with godlike precision. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all obervers (for you, for the guy next to you, for the photons themselves, for the detectors inside the collider, and for God: the same). And it is the same "regardless of the motion of the light source", that is, even if the light source moves at six, seven, 100, or 1,000 times the speed of light, the speed you will measure is just c. And it is the same no matter how fast or slow any observer moves.

This is counter-intuitive for humans, but that's because humans are extremely slow objects.

If you were a photon, the only photon in an otherwise totally empty universe, there is no means for you to know you are moving, and no way for you to know at what speed you are moving. You need another object in order to be able to know you are moving. And if that other object moves exactly at the same speed you do, then there is no way for any of you to know you both are moving.

The second sacred principle is this one: any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics. This means the speed of light in vacuum is always measured to be c, even when measured by multiple systems that are moving at different, but constant, velocities.

Does this mean you cannot move at a speed faster than that of light? No, it means that even at that speed, the speed of light you measure will always be the same: c. Which means you will never know whether you are moving faster than light. Weird, I know, disturbing maybe, but it is your world.

And what does all of this say about simultaneity? It says that's just a human illusion because two events happening in two different locations that occur simultaneously in the reference frame of one inertial observer (you, or you and me), may occur non-simultaneously in the reference frame of another inertial observer... Worse: any event that is simultaneous with another event in one frame of reference may be in the past or future of that event in a different frame of reference.

So, the scientists measuring speeds in the collider experiment at hand are making no mistakes when they report what they report. Their surprise, as I understand, comes when they find the speed of both jets are the same there where they are expecting them to be different, something that happens because, as special relativity states, the speed of light you measure will always be the same: c.

In short: one thing is what it looks like to you, another thing is what it looks like to someone else, and both things only resemble reality in nothing.

a reply to: glend

closing speeds of 2c

That I can understand glend, thanks.

a reply to: Direne

And if one takes away the particles from physics, what is left?

a reply to: Direne

This ^^^^ is exactly what the “transform math” is saying!

When you move from one frame (static) to another frame of reference, accelerated, you have to “conserve energy”, and the Einstein equations are not an exception. then one has to wonder if Einstein was correct if the math doesn’t match the theory.

So the question becomes, “now what”?

Which was my point that, we need to ‘improve Einstein’ so our math doesn’t fall anymore!

And that is my personal take away from this study: we need to figure some things out first that arenot fully understood.

But, I am drunk, so what do I know??!!

Well, this is way over my head. Here I was thinking that if they would ever get two particles to move towards each other at the speed of light, the collision could never actually be observed because of time dilation. Yeah, makes my head spin.....

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Space-time. It can live very happily without matter at all. Actually, matter is just a newcomer to the party.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

Einstein's maths are correct for what concerns the experiment under discussion. The experiment needs be replicated, something that has not being done. To all accounts, the experiment reported is asking for further verification by independent teams with the same arrangement of instrumentation, and under the exact same conditions. This experiment is just at the same level than the former experiment about FTL neutrinos, which proved to be wrong due to instrumental errors.

Yet, Einstein's maths are totally wrong for what concerns quantum gravity, something which is accepted. SRT, GR, and QM are all okay if you apply them in the realm for which they were devised. Outside those realms new theories are required. But for what concerns the experiment under discussion here, SRT is enough to account for the results.

a reply to: Rich Z

the collision could never actually be observed because of time dilation

Time dilation only affects to the ones travelling at near the speed of light, not to those observing those who travel at near the speed of light. Yes, I know it sounds like a tongue twister, but that's just because natural languages are deficient in describing reality at this level.

If you were riding on the particle you would notice absolutely no collision. And if you were in Alpha Centauri you would notice the collision within 5 years. If you were drinking tea sitting on a closed-time curve, you would remember seeing exactly that collision and those researchers 100 years ago. Everything is relative, including time.

If time dilation would affect you, you would see darkness, as no photons could ever reach to your eyes because of time dilation. Does that mean time dilation does not exist? No, it means it is not your business because you move... sooo sloooowww...

a reply to: Direne

I never said “wrong” but “incomplete”.

There might be some term that describes part of special relativity that have been elided over.

I know that for nearly the whole, Einstein’s equations are correct.

But if the math says otherwise at this juncture, then, to be an honest scientist, you need to let go of long held beliefs, like (eta the important part of this sentence) let go of the “completeness” of special relativity.

And dare to be stupid. As the ancient seer, Al Yanchovic said!!

What is worse, being wrong or being an enfocer of an incomplete idea??

As I said earlier, don’t discount the math because it can’t lie to you; only you can lie to yourself!

a reply to: Direne

Thought so.

Space-time. It can live very happily without matter at all. Actually, matter is just a newcomer to the party.

a reply to: Direne

Weird, I know, disturbing maybe, but it is your world.

It's a world, I claim no ownership....

it sais light moves at speed c no matter what... So when that photon is getting reflected off of an object with light speed,what happens with that photon for the observer? In my mind the approaching object should be invisible if light never exceeded c.

And what happens with that photon if the object is faster than light?

a reply to: Direne

matter is just a newcomer to the party.

Does that make us pioneers?

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: Direne

No. They travel at almost the speed of light, relative to an external observer: you. Both particles are stationary, traveling at zero velocity, relative to themselves. Each sees the other passing by at nearly the speed of light. And both see you standing still, stationary. Welcome to the world of special relativity.

Ahh, but the two particles have a head on crash into each other, KABOOM!

In a head on collision between two cars, we add the speed of the two vehicles. So two vehicles traveling towards each other at 60 miles per hour impact at 120 miles per hour.

As someone pointed out, you're forgetting about time dilation. This effect is negligible for an auto collision, but super important at relativistic velocities.

As a particle approaches the speed of light, time slows within the particle's frame of reference. Since velocity is a function of distance over time, as time slows, the velocity within that frame of reference also changes. This effect gets larger the closer you get to the speed of light and the effect always keeps a particle from achieving (or surpassing) that velocity.

For two particles traveling in opposite directions near the speed of light, the same effect keeps them from ever reaching light speed in relation to each other--in their common frame of reference.

This has been tested and tested and tested and tested and ALWAYS confirmed. There's been a few claims of violation of this principle over the years, but it always turns out there was just a mistake in the experiment or in the measurement.

Note: The particle I'm speaking of here has mass, as do the particles in these experiments. Massless particles, such as a photon of light, can reach the speed of light, but still can't surpass it.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
a reply to: Maxmars

I wouldn't know anything really

That's fine, there are subjects I don't know much about too. But when someone who knows more than me answers a question I have about said subject, I don't keep insisting that my complete lack of understanding of the subject is better than theirs.

Your question has been answered by several people. We're all trying to explain it in different ways, hoping one clicks for you and makes sense. It's not that you can't understand it, it just hasn't clicked for you yet. You're not doing yourself any favors by clinging to your "no, they're approaching each other at 2x the speed of light!" misunderstanding regardless of what more knowledgeable people tell you.

Science does get plenty of things wrong, but one person failing to understand a concept does not prove the concept wrong. This principle may one day be proven wrong, but in this case you're just not getting it. And again, that's not me calling you dumb. There's plenty of stuff I don't get. But you have not discovered a problem with relativity. It makes perfect sense once you understand the concepts.

originally posted by: Terpene

it sais light moves at speed c no matter what...

Not really. Light moves at speed c in a vacuum where there is no gravity. Light traveling through a medium (such as air, or water) or through a gravitational field can be slowed down. There's been experiments where they made light practically stop by passing it through an extremely dense gas.

So when that photon is getting reflected off of an object with light speed,what happens with that photon for the observer?

And what happens with that photon if the object is faster than light?

Since no object can move at light speed, or faster than light, both questions are meaningless. A theoretical physicist might be able to give you some kind of explanation, but there would be no way to test and confirm his explanation since the experiment would be physically impossible to perform.

a reply to: face23785

In other words we don't know...
to me those questions always seem the most meaningful...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: face23785

In other words we don't know...
to me those questions always seem the most meaningful...

It's about as meaningful as asking what would happen if you could reach through the screen and shake my hand. Would it feel like a normal handshake, or would it be unusual in some way?

No way to find out, rather pointless.

I think things we don't know but are actually possible to find out are much more meaningful. But to each their own.

a reply to: face23785

Did they though? I'm thinking they created something akin to a tesla valve, for light.
if they can change one vector of acceleration why not the other?
could the effect of gravity on light be because space is bent and it simply takes light longer around?

a reply to: face23785

Don't blame it on me that the thaught experiment is out of your realm of imagination...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: face23785

Don't blame it on me that the thaught experiment is out of your realm of imagination...

I have the humility to say when something is beyond me. I've said it several times in this thread.

I'd rather do that than insist that just because I can't understand something means science has it wrong. That's the height of human arrogance and ultimately closed-minded.

Thought experiments can be quite useful. They're most useful when they lead to a testable theory. If you come up with a way to test how light interacts with an object moving faster than light, let me know.