Fundamental Forces in the early stages of the big bang?

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Physics was created to study things governed by physics not to show the physics of the funadamental forces themselves. Especially when the root cause of many forces is unknown <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />it is precisely because the basic physics has proved itself impenetrable to scientists (and interested amateurs who mostly repeat what scientists said or else challenge it on principle)) that we vitness the flight into the deepest inquiries while we are still in fog about the basic physics of inertia and gravitation<br /><br />on one hand I like your realistic approach but on the other you take it way too far, more than is waranteed, like when Descartes questioned his own existence<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Why is the phenomenom of gravity seen around mass? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />well, did you ever see it 'around' anything else?<br />are you not planning getting up tomorrow because sun might not be seen around the solar system then? what of it if it were around since ever, it doesn't prove anything does it<br /><br />mass is a measure of inertia and inertia had been found to be intimately connected to gravitation, more inertia means more gravitation (and vice versa) and it is extremely precise tested relationship which only can't be determined 100% due to practical experimental limits, what more evidence you want, is there something, some proof or some evidence that it ain't so, that we might have loosely connected the two phenomena (mass and gravitation) being fooled by nature? I don't know of an iota of such evidence<br /><br />if you took your approach consistently you couldn't do any science at all and might just as well go and burry yourself (if I put it so strongly)<br /><br />perhaps you don't question the connection between mass and gravitation (still what else could the term 'around' mean) but are only asking 'what is the mechanism', how does mass do it that i <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_coops]

Unity of the forces may be because of the extreme temps at the start of our universe. Extreme high temps tend to allow symmetry and less complexity and form. As the universe expanded and cooled, complexity was allowed to happen and i guess this is where the forces came about. But will we ever know why?<br /><br />

 

[chembuff1982]

I forgot to get my force meter during the big bang, throwing numbers out on a collective universe is hazardous to do. How do you make these mathmatical assumptions without knowing a collective value now? Anyone can type numbers. Tell me how much collective matter, energy, protons, quarks, etc are in the universe that you were able to calculate these forces and rate formation. Your numbers are invalid, regardless of any scientific theory. So many assumptions with no legitimate proof. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> You may be a genius, but google knows more than you! </div>

 

[why06]

Exactly!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I couldn't have said it better myself vanDivX. The reason I ask if mass causes gravity is because a lot of people that mass has gravity when in fact this has not ever been proved true or even truly understood.<br />The Phenomenom of gravity occurs around mass. Now here is the big question. WHY?<br /><br /><br />If we could figure this out than we would know a lot more of the creation of the universe and pretty much everything else. Any thought on why mass causes gravity anyone.<br /><br /><br />Ps if you go with a traditional method like GR you will have to explain why mass <i>bends</i> space-time.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

No one?<br />I at least thought I would hear a little string theory or something like that.<br /><br />Any Ideas: "How does mass cause Gravity?" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

Chembuff1982, I don't remember or even see a post in which I was throwing out #'s. Was your last post directed atsomeone else? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[docm]

The Higgs boson field is the mechanism used to explain how particles acquire the properties associated with mass. The Higgs boson is the exchange particle in this field, much like the photon is the exchange particle for the electromagnetic force. It's not been discovered yet, but clear indications of it have been. Recent experiments have defined the energies to be searched, and these are lower than expected. <br /><br />If the Higgs is discovered it's likely to be when the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) comes online at CERN.<br /><br />CERN's graphical representation of the Higgs Mechanism <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />The Phenomenom of gravity occurs around mass. Now here is the big question. WHY? </font><br /><br />Nothing (space) is around mass. Notice, I didn't say space-time, because space-time is a something, that shows HOW gravity acts.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[docm]

Space contains the vacuum energy responsible for the Casimir effect, Van Der Waals bonds, Lamb shift and even the spontaneous emission of light and gamma radiation, virtual particles, all experimentally demonstrated ad nauseum. It's also thought to be tied into cosmological expansion.<br /><br />Given E=MC^2 defines matter and energy as being the two faces of Janus space can never be "empty" when it has this constant companion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[space_coops]

When does the Large Hadron Collider come on line? I hope it doesnt spell the end for String Theory.<br /><br />If it does, does that mean i can get a refund for The Elegant Universe? ha ha

 

[docm]

It's due to be up to full power (7 TeV; TeV = trillion electron volts) sometime in 2008, though other modes will come online this year. <br /><br />If it rules out string theory then that's the way it goes. Same goes for the Standard Model. At those energies both may be ruled out and some new science can get done. <br /><br />LHC trivia;<br /><br />Circumference = 27 km.<br /><br />Magnets: 1,296 superconducting dipoles each delivering 8.36 Tesla. <br /><br />[A large medical MRI is usually <3 Tesla]<br /><br />Proton collisions: 14 TeV (7 TeV for each counter-rotating beam)<br /><br />Heavy ion collisions (lead, etc.): ~1,148 TeV.<br /><br />[Medical X-Rays have an energy of 1 KeV to 1,000 KeV (KeV = 1,000 electron volts)]<br /><br />The energy stored in the LHC's beam will be ~725 megajoules, the equivalent of ~347 lbs (157 kg) of TNT.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[why06]

I like the pictuures, but a little explanation of Higgs field would be nice.<br /><br />Also:<br />How is a collider going to test string theory. We already have colliders and they have never done anything to test strings in the slightest bit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[docm]

The Higgs field is a quantum mechanical field mediated by the Higgs boson which is thought to permeate the entire universe. Its presence would explain the large difference in mass between the particles that mediate weak interactions (the W and Z bosons) and those that mediate electromagnetic interactions (the photon).<br /><br />For initial tests of string theory it's a matter of power.<br /><br />If LHC manages to produce Planck scale black holes their decay characteristics could be plugged into string/M Theory calculations to see if they hold up. <br /><br />If not the next best candidate is loop quantum gravity (LQG) which posits that space itself is divided into tiny chunks that look like freeway cloverleaves (the loops) that can braid into complex structures; preons. <br /><br />The simplest braid possible looks like a deformed pretzel and corresponds to an electron neutrino. <br /><br />Mirror it and you have its antimatter equivalent; the electron anti-neutrino. <br /><br />Add three clockwise twists and you have something that behaves just like an electron.<br /><br />Three counter-clockwise twists and you have a positron.<br /><br />Other twists produce quarks.<br /><br />Graphic....<br /><br />and so on....but not all particles have been figured out yet.<br /><br />Elegant and if true it means that all matter is, at the most fundamental level, made of spacetime. Thr best way to test LQG may not be colliders though; it might be features of the cosmic background radiation.<br /><br />If loop quantum gravity is fact then space is <i>still</i> not empty. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Space contains the vacuum energy responsible for the Casimir effect, Van Der Waals bonds, Lamb shift and even the spontaneous emission of light and gamma radiation, virtual particles, all experimentally demonstrated ad nauseum. It's also thought to be tied into cosmological expansion. </font><br /><br />You speak of space as a container of energy. Space has energy fields running through it, as you stated. Why is this? Answer: Because there is nothing there. Everything that you listed, is independent of mass, and has nothing to do with mass. Therefore, I stand by my original statement that space, or nothing is around mass, which causes gravity with other masses.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[why06]

There is virtually no reason for mass to attract other mass without the introduction of some unknown medium or force.<br /><br />Mass Is ultra-compacted energy so much so that M=E times the speed of light. Why would a lesser concentration wish to move into an area of greater concentreation. <br /><br />With this in mind I would just like to say that this is getting oout of hand. There are so many explanations of mass. And these Quantum gravitational loops seem a lot like strings. They are a ttached to space-time. Strings are a ttached to the membrane of the universe. The difference.<br /><br />Not to mention I don't understad how smashing particles together will show strings to exist or not to exists. Haven't we collided particles together before. Where do learn about all this stuff docm? News Scientists. I mean its so much it is almost over-welhming. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Higgs boson reminds me of Bose,our Indian scientist,dear to us.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Mass Is ultra-compacted energy so much so that M=E times the speed of light."</font><br /><br />Just want to throw my $0.02 worth in here...<br /><br />Check your math, why06. That would be M=E <b><i>divided by</i></b> the speed of light <b><i>squared</i></b>.<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[docm]

And while he's at it he should inform himself of the particle & forces basics at Berkeley National Labs ParticleAdventure.org<br /><br />A few things in it might need updating, but not much. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[makuabob]

While his work is not widely known and is certainly not acceptable to 'established' science, how about Burkhard Heim's theory of how matter formed? The universe, he surmised, was many millions of years old before the fabric of space-time, created by three 'spheres' with harmonic interdependencies expanding outward, stretched to a point that it 'wrinkled' or 'buckled' in its 12 dimensional structure. Those 'wrinkles' imparted properties to space-time, some of which formed matter (and antimatter).<br /><br />There ARE problems with the Big Bang and with the CMB. The Big Bang REQUIRES the inflationary period to make 'sense' but can't explain how it occurred (meaning the mechanism driving it). Meanwhile, the CMB has at least one non-Gaussian area in it that could easily mean something was there BEFORE the Big Bang happened; it is a well-documented fact and it is not an artifact of the equipment or data-conditioning.<br /><br />As for the Higgs mechanism, it is fair to say that there were 'hints' that space was permeated by aether, until the Michelson-Moreley experiment shut down that line of thought. The experiments of Tajmar and DeMatos have produced gravity in the laboratory WITHOUT mass. A gravitational force was made to propogate in one direction and then in the opposite, depending on which way the superconducting niobium disc was spun up. This, of course, means that gravity today is not your grandpa's gravity. His was one-size-fits-all, Heim didn't buy that. Heim's theory was known in the 1950s and, while unacceptable to 'science' then as well, inspired shows like Star Trek, which galvanized a gereration's imagination.<br /><br />We don't know a LOT of things about our universe (and nothing about any others). Just because lots of 'experts' say it's so don't make it so. Keep an open mind and recall the words of Bob Dylan,... "Don't follow leaders and watch the parking meters."

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"And while he's at it he should inform himself of the particle & forces basics at Berkeley National Labs ParticleAdventure.org[.]"</font><br /><br />Good point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[why06]

My bad. <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[why06]

I know particles what I don't know is quantum gravitational loops.<br />Also that was simply a math mistake. If I was thinking during that time I would have corrected it. Nevertheless I will check out the site. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[docm]

Think of the loops as 'knots' in spacetime itself, not separate structures. The 'knots' configuration determines the properties of the particle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />There is virtually no reason for mass to attract other mass without the introduction of some unknown medium or force. </font><br /><br />What? the hypothetical Graviton? I'd put gravitons in the same category as unicorns. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br />Mass Is ultra-compacted energy </font><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><br /> Why would a lesser concentration wish to move into an area of greater concentreation. </font><br /><br />Because nothing is stopping it. Even Bonzelite would have agreed.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>What? the hypothetical Graviton? I'd put gravitons in the same category as unicorns.</i>"<br /><br />I sure hope we haven't spent hundreds of millions searching for unicorns <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>