RE: First collisions at the LHC with unprecedented Energy! (Ask a particle physisicist)
May 29, 2015 at 7:13 pm
(This post was last modified: May 29, 2015 at 7:26 pm by nihilistcat.)
I have a question. My understanding is researchers at CERN will be looking for (among many other things) mini-black holes (of the type that was created during the big bang i.e. primordial black holes). Apparently, if these mini-black holes are discovered, it would lend support to string theory, and so if they're not discovered, presumably it creates problems for string theory.
My question is ... if these primordial mini-black holes cannot be found at this high energy level, then would it debunk string theory altogether, only rule out some aspects of string theory, or would it not do much to impact the validity of string theory one way or the other?
I have another question, or maybe this can be considered a grievance with the theoretical physics community. We always hear that its nonsensical to describe anything that might lie beyond the boundaries of our universe as comprising time or space. So the maxim "universe from nothing" has become popularized.
I understand space-time (as we know it) came into existence at the big bang. However, to say that the idea of "space" necessarily relies on the existence of our universe, is I think using the term in way that's inconsistent with the way many if not most people conceptualize space. And as far as I can tell, there's no real scientific reason for this view of space. If I were to ask a theoretical physicist what would happen to a chunk of matter if I were able to toss it out of our universe, I'm pretty sure the answer would be, I don't know. Well, if deep space beyond our universe could accommodate matter (in other words, if the outer barrier of our universe is not the end of everything in existence), then we have something that could be reasonably defined as space (and in all likelihood, it would be at least close to a perfect vacuum, no activity beyond maybe some virtual particles emerging then destroying each other, and while any matter may crystallize because of the temperature, unless we can say that if we tried ejecting a piece of matter from our universe, it would essentially hit a wall and bounce back, then how do we say something like space only makes sense in the context of our universe)?
To me, I don't know means I don't know, it doesn't mean replace my ignorance with semantics about how space or time can only exist within our universe. So I'm interested in hearing thoughts from a physicist on this question?
My question is ... if these primordial mini-black holes cannot be found at this high energy level, then would it debunk string theory altogether, only rule out some aspects of string theory, or would it not do much to impact the validity of string theory one way or the other?
I have another question, or maybe this can be considered a grievance with the theoretical physics community. We always hear that its nonsensical to describe anything that might lie beyond the boundaries of our universe as comprising time or space. So the maxim "universe from nothing" has become popularized.
I understand space-time (as we know it) came into existence at the big bang. However, to say that the idea of "space" necessarily relies on the existence of our universe, is I think using the term in way that's inconsistent with the way many if not most people conceptualize space. And as far as I can tell, there's no real scientific reason for this view of space. If I were to ask a theoretical physicist what would happen to a chunk of matter if I were able to toss it out of our universe, I'm pretty sure the answer would be, I don't know. Well, if deep space beyond our universe could accommodate matter (in other words, if the outer barrier of our universe is not the end of everything in existence), then we have something that could be reasonably defined as space (and in all likelihood, it would be at least close to a perfect vacuum, no activity beyond maybe some virtual particles emerging then destroying each other, and while any matter may crystallize because of the temperature, unless we can say that if we tried ejecting a piece of matter from our universe, it would essentially hit a wall and bounce back, then how do we say something like space only makes sense in the context of our universe)?
To me, I don't know means I don't know, it doesn't mean replace my ignorance with semantics about how space or time can only exist within our universe. So I'm interested in hearing thoughts from a physicist on this question?
