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

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Thanks for clearing that up. Makes more sense in that context.

It still sounds like we just now realized the flatland matrix will not solve 3D...

Sounds very complicated, i think I once knew how to solve 3x3 matrices, it was at that moment I knew math is not going to be my passion

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

That is an interesting question.

No laws would be broken as I can imagine light particles constantly do this in space, but the combined speed must have a greater effect on the particles upon impact than 'merely' the speed of light where a particle crashes into a 'stationary' object at 180,000 mph, but is there even such a thing as a stationary object in our universe?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I might stand corrected.

I still can't quite wrap my head around it.

So if we take that "football" the zone where the energy exchange happens and put it in a "gymnastic ball" the sensors around. What they are saying is up until the barrier of the football they behave as expected, but when measured further out at the gymnastic ball they seem to have all traveled the same distance?

Does it mean they all come from one single point in space?
Does it mean different physical laws apply inside the football?

I seem to have heard that theme before, that inside big explosion, time and space gets distorted.
Do we create big bangs for other universes?
Are we also just an explosion happening?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

relative to each other, one of the particles would be traveling at 360,000 miles per second. Isn't that exceding the speed of light? Relatively speaking?

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.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Spacespider
I wonder how it would look if we could put a camera into the accelerator and live stream the collision.

That is done in every single collision experiment

I mean the camera doing the spinning.

a reply to: network dude

I once worked a Ringling Brothers Circus. The sounds that came out of the Clown Dressing area were downright disturbing.

Nice OP maxmars! S&F

a reply to: Terpene

Ever hear this one?

3 guys rent a room for $30.00. Each man pays $10.00
A bit later the clerk realizes he over charged them.
He gives $5.00 to the bell hop to bring to the 3 men.
On the way there the bell hop thinks, I can’t divide $5.00 evenly between the 3 men so he puts $2.00 in his pocket.
At the room he hands each of the men $1.00. (they’ll never know).
With $1.00 returned it now means each man has paid $9.00 for the room, right. Correct?
$9.00 x $3.00 = $27.00
The bell hop kept $2.00
$27.00 + $2.00 = $29.00
What happened to the missing dollar???

I know, I know.
The point here is, no matter how you put this together
as in the clerk now has $25. Each of the three men $1. and the bellhop $2. which now adds up to the original $30.00, the answer should not change.

Billions disappear yearly with math like this.
Remember Richard Prior keeping all the partial cents tossed out in that Superman movie? He got filthy rich doing so.

Somewhere this whole thing shows us our math, as we understand is broken. Having two results with the same numbers should not be possible.

I don’t know the answer but my gut tells me we’ll never reach light speed of figure out time etc until we fix our basic math first.

Wether it’s the base 10 system or our concept of zero or whatever, if I hand you $10.00 and you give me back $1.00, I’ve given you $9.00 at the end of the transaction. Period.
Move the initial numbers around to get a different result?

Yeah…….NO! But then again, I’m no Einstein, that’s for sure.


Everything traces back to it’s roots, everything.
Something is broke…….chew on that a bit.

Stuff like this makes my brain hurt…..

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️🤷‍♂️😵‍💫😵‍💫. 😎











.

originally posted by: Maxmars
The answer is "baby steps" and "time."

We've been conditioned to reject that step.

Science hasn't... although some scientists have.

that just isn't true, science has always been about incremental progress based on many different discoveries by scientists and engineers, its just accelerated because modern people are more educated and there's much more money dedicated to research and experimentation, plus there's a lot more scientists working on problems since there's a lot more people in general and computers have helped speed things up greatly. there's plenty of baby steps being taken and sometimes big leaps just happen, there's no specific speed progress has to obey, why are some people so afraid of progress? being conservative and hesitating over things will only bring doom upon those guided by such fearful thinking, progress wont be stopped by fear of the unknown, people guided by fear might try and even succeed for a time to block progress and even has in the past but eventually progress always wins out and the fearful are pushed aside.

a reply to: PiratesCut
The point of that puzzle is not to point out that math is flawed but for the listener to figure out that the wrong amounts are being used in the calculation.

The $27 includes the $2 "tip" the bellhop kept so it shouldn't be added again.

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.

a reply to: Terpene

Something doesn't add up with the colider experiment explanation.

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268

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.

Relative to each other, not to us (the observers.)

Now imagine we have no idea what makes a car. Observing the debris flying out from the impact could at least give us some idea of what they were made of.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Kinetic force is not speed, speed is always relativ.

You can have a car hit a wall with 120, which is the same force as two cars hitting each other with 60. But from the frame of reference you can measure their speed relative to each other they don't go 120...

Now i still can't wrap my head around the special part if it...

a reply to: Direne

What makes it so special?

Is it just that you say every object is not actually moving relative to itself?

a reply to: 19Bones79

And anothet thing, if the sun emits photons in all directions we have photons at 186,00 miles per hours traveling west, and the same traveling east.

186,000 + 186,000 = 372,000.

Direne's explanation, without the collision keeps everything in the universe below the theoretical light speed maximum. If we translate that into a petri dish of tadpoles swimming about, sure, we can keep a speed limit and the theoretical light speed limit is safe.

The theoretical light speed limit only works if we stand outside the tadpole petri dish observing. Meanwhile inside the dish collisions are taking place.

Like driving on the road. Everyone is doing 60 miles per hour in both directions. We pass a car going in our direction and the relative speed is 3 miles per hour. Nice and slow.

Drift into the oncomming lane into the path of a truck and something really bad happens.

It seems to me that the theoretical maximum speed of light only works if we take the position of the observer watching the tadpoles.

Meanwhile, inside the petri dish twice the speed of light, 372,000 miles per second is happening all the time.

Maybe 186,000 miles per second is an arbitary value so the mathematitions' theories work on the blackboard. Seems so to me.

a reply to: Terpene

Exactly.

a reply to: Maxmars

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

-----------------------------------

ETA:

The theoretical light speed works if one takes the position of the observer and stands outside the tadpole dish. Meanwhile inside the tadpole dish the speed of light is relatively exceeded all the time.

That is theory vs real life.

Now if a tadpole could exceed twice the speed of light, something interesting might happen. Like the tadpoles might break a boundary.

so,

are these particles losing or gaining mass?

i thought i read that to achieve light speed one would need 0 mass
or .. idk.

neutrinos have zero mass or it was thought and hit us every day at the speed of light.

wtf?

google is not my friend.

vanishing nutrinos

Italian physicist Ettore Majorana notoriously disappeared in 1938 without leaving a trace. His favourite elementary particles, neutrinos, might be capable of a similar vanishing act. Several new or upgraded experiments around the world are racing to show that an extremely rare kind of nuclear decay that normally produces two neutrinos might occasionally yield none.

sorry,
i have no idea what it all means.

the collisions make big things into smaller things.

like splitting the atom.

and plasma.

ow does plasma energy work?
The free negative electrons and positive ions in a plasma allow electric current to flow through it. In a plasma, some electrons are freed from their atoms, allowing current and electricity to flow and can react to, both, electric and magnetic fields.

that's it.

doggie time.

a reply to: sarahvital

The particles do not lose mass… while they are accelerated. The definitely do after they collide!

The “heavy ions” (usually lead, sometimes gold, and radioactive elements like uranium would work but would leave such a mess that it is not worth the effort to use). The energy is transferred into the accelerated materials (called “trains” with a series of groups, one after the other, rotating in opposite directions… at least for the LHC, so it maximizes the number of collisions (which generates tons of data. And the idea of rotating cameras would overly complicate things), and the collisions, the amount of collisions generates the data to try to validate theory.

Or in this case, raise more questions!

And after years of math class, I have learned to trust the math, no matter where that leads.

a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

And after years of math class, I have learned to trust the math, no matter where that leads.

In biology, mathematics is not a universal constant. 1+1 does not always equal 2.

If we lock two teenagers in a dark room for a weekend, one of them may or may not be pregnant on monday.

Sometimes 1+1=3.

Have you ever thought of mathematics as a prison? A five dimensional box that traps us inside.