Time accelerator

[Howie]

Weird way to start an extended discussion. My employee was to show up at noon. I said, you are late it is 12:01. He said, "I have 11:59."
Then I thought, when the hell is AM to Pm. When does it exist? Just at that moment only.
I guess the briefest of moments, what nanoseconds?
Unless you are in the moment time, is does only exist but in the past or the future.

And if there are other dimensions than the three we can see, what would make time follow the same principles?

I have read that we may live in a three dimensional bubble in a universe with ten or more spatial dimensions.

Which reminds me!!
Sometime in 2007 they will be a particle accelerator in Switzerland.
7 TRILLION VOLTS :shock:
Until now they say that the string theory was all but an entirely abstract, mathematical construct.
With this machine it may show that particles might possibly travel in or through those extra dimensions.

[wombing]

[quote]Weird way to start an extended discussion. My employee was to show up at noon. I said, you are late it is 12:01. He said, "I have 11:59."
Then I thought, when the hell is AM to Pm. When does it exist? Just at that moment only.
I guess the briefest of moments, what nanoseconds?
Unless you are in the moment time, is does only exist but in the past or the future.

And if there are other dimensions than the three we can see, what would make time follow the same principles?

I have read that we may live in a three dimensional bubble in a universe with ten or more spatial dimensions.

Which reminds me!!
Sometime in 2007 they will be a particle accelerator in Switzerland.
7 TRILLION VOLTS :shock:
Until now they say that the string theory was all but an entirely abstract, mathematical construct.
With this machine it may show that particles might possibly travel in or through those extra dimensions.

yeah, its a wierd way to start a discussion, but then, i'm wierd...

whoa, that particle accelerator sounds far out. i've heard a little bit about string theory, but only enough to find it interesting. if there was some scientific 'evidence' for the theory i'd definitely look into it more.

[Howie]

Originally posted by Asher


yeah, its a wierd way to start a discussion, but then, i'm wierd...

whoa, that particle accelerator sounds far out. i've heard a little bit about string theory, but only enough to find it interesting. if there was some scientific 'evidence' for the theory i'd definitely look into it more.


The scientist (a female by the way) is a brilliant theoretical physicist who is one of the leaders in a team of researchers working on this particle accelerator I believe is called the a large hadron collider. >or something like that. :P

Oh ya...her name is Lisa Randall :)

[R.Carter]

GENEVA - Installation of the world’s largest particle physics collider began Monday with the lowering of a massive, superconducting magnet into the circular tunnel housing the new research facility that will draw scientists from all over the world, a spokeswoman said.

The 17-mile tunnel, housing the pipe-like accelerator, is big enough for a subway train and is located 150 to 500 feet under the Swiss-French border.

The aim of the project is to make the particles — in this case protons — travel at nearly the speed of light until they collide, emitting a shower of even smaller particles that will reveal mysteries about the makeup of matter.


article dated 3-7-05


I've been interested in this thing for awhile. It's the Large Hadron Collider at
CERN in Geneva.www.cern.ch/CERN/Microcosm

[Neruo]

Isn't this about time acceleration?

I just have to say that the atom-clock onboard spaceshuttles lags behind a few (mili)seconds. So those people allready made time go faster :)

Lightspeed = totally different effects of time.

But hey this makes me wonder. If time is slowed down, like when going with light speed... the movement of the atoms would objectively allso be different... yet temperatures do not really behave differnt when going with lightspeed? Or like... is it? :)

[Howie]

Originally posted by Neruo
Isn't this about time acceleration?

I just have to say that the atom-clock onboard spaceshuttles lags behind a few (mili)seconds. So those people allready made time go faster :)

Lightspeed = totally different effects of time.

But hey this makes me wonder. If time is slowed down, like when going with light speed... the movement of the atoms would objectively allso be different... yet temperatures do not really behave differnt when going with lightspeed? Or like... is it? :)

I believe that in an atmosphere that when particles of any kind are sped up that it creates heat. Without an atmosphere it would not.

[Darkmatic]

[quote]

I believe that in an atmosphere that when particles of any kind are sped up that it creates heat. Without an atmosphere it would not.

Also remember that when objects are sped up to nearing light speeds , their mass increases from whatever energy is exerted to increase the mass to light speed . So since the object is gaining energy , it would also get hotter , or would need to give off some of that energy in the form of radiation be it photons or infrared or UV or whatever . Thats would i would think anyway .

[Tsen]

But what is heat? The reason a particle separated from an atmosphere wouldn't generate heat is because heat is the vibration/kinetic energy of particles. A particle in an accelerator IS moving, but there's no other particles for it to collide with.

Anyway, I've been waiting for the LHC for a while now. I think I've got a blog on its progress bookmarked somewhere...

[Led]

Originally posted by Tsen
But what is heat? The reason a particle separated from an atmosphere wouldn't generate heat is because heat is the vibration/kinetic energy of particles. A particle in an accelerator IS moving, but there's no other particles for it to collide with.

Anyway, I've been waiting for the LHC for a while now. I think I've got a blog on its progress bookmarked somewhere...

link please, I've become interested :)

[Peregrinus]

Originally posted by Neruo
But hey this makes me wonder. If time is slowed down, like when going with light speed... the movement of the atoms would objectively allso be different... yet temperatures do not really behave differnt when going with lightspeed? Or like... is it? :)
When discussing observations made of an object with a velocity that is a significant fraction of the speed of light, it is the relative motion of the observer and the object that is important. For an observer in the proper time reference frame of the object (i.e. moving alongside the object), the object appears at rest and its temperature is measured as it would be in any other reference frame in which the observer and object are at rest - as they would be, for instance, on the surface of the earth (although proximity to the earth makes that technically a non-inertial reference frame, but we'll ignore that for now). If the observer and object are moving with a relative speed near that of light in a vacuum, temperature must be measured from thermal radiation emitted by the object. If the object is moving toward the observer, the emitted light will be blueshifted and the frequency detected by the observer will be higher than that emitted by the object. Thus, the object will be observed to be "hotter". If the object is moving away from the observer, its emitted radiation will be redshifted and it will appear cooler. If the object's motion is perpendicular to the observer, no frequency shift will occur.