Is Bended Space = Contracted Space ?

[Reality Check]

To my opinion only a computer can handle that.
And if it is not programmed to rapport the energy consumption, it will not do it, and nothing will be discovered.

That is right. Computers control particle accelerators. They are programmed to control the accelerators according to the known lwas of physics which include special relativity. If there was "kinetic resistance" then they would direct the beams into the walls of circular accelerators. This does not happen unless the scientists want it to. When starting up the LHC they purposely did this so that they could test each set of magnets separately. According to you they could not have known which part of the ring the beam would hit because all their calculations would be off! That did not happen.

The computers also report the energy consumption to the accountants. An electricity bill is an electricity bill no matter hat it powers. If it doubles because of a mythical "kinetic resistance" the accountants will scream very loudly. This has never happened.

These computer also report to the scientists. Scientists really want to know the actual energy (velocity) of the particles when they collide. They can then compare what they measure to the theory. If "kinetic resistance" existed then all of the measurements would disagree with the theory. This does not happen.

Og course we do not even need an experiment to know that "kinetic resistance" does not exist as you define it. You make a totally basic mistake that a high school student can detect:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

 

[dafydd]

That is right. Computers control particle accelerators. They are programmed to control the accelerators according to the known lwas of physics which include special relativity. If there was "kinetic resistance" then they would direct the beams into the walls of circular accelerators. This does not happen unless the scientists want it to. When starting up the LHC they purposely did this so that they could test each set of magnets separately. According to you they could not have known which part of the ring the beam would hit because all their calculations would be off! That did not happen.

The computers also report the energy consumption to the accountants. An electricity bill is an electricity bill no matter hat it powers. If it doubles because of a mythical "kinetic resistance" the accountants will scream very loudly. This has never happened.

These computer also report to the scientists. Scientists really want to know the actual energy (velocity) of the particles when they collide. They can then compare what they measure to the theory. If "kinetic resistance" existed then all of the measurements would disagree with the theory. This does not happen.

Og course we do not even need an experiment to know that "kinetic resistance" does not exist as you define it. You make a totally basic mistake that a high school student can detect:
Does Bjarne know basic physics (unit-less quantities cannot be arbitrarily assigned units)
First asked 23 October 2009

Do you really expect Bjarne to understand that? You'll only get another cow in response.

 

[Reality Check]

Do you really expect Bjarne to understand that? You'll only get another cow in response.

Actually I think that I will get another "computers run particle accelerators so scientists, engineers and accountants have no idea what happens in them" response ... or a cow !

 

[Aitch]

Actually I think that I will get another "computers run particle accelerators so scientists, engineers and accountants have no idea what happens in them" response ... or a cow !

Woa!

 

[steenkh]

The best and only answer is properly Big Crunch, and maybe 13.7 billion years.

Nice try, but then you have no explanation for the expansion of the universe. At the time close to the Big Bang all matter in the universe was located in a very small area. You cannot get more gravity than that. Why did all that matter at one place not consume all the space so that there was no space to expand into?

This refers to the expanding property we know space process.

You did not answer the question. You have already told us that it is a property of space, but what does it mean to stretch space?

I don't understand "units"

Neither do I. It was just an attempt to illustrate stretching. If you stretch a rubber band, there will be less grams of rubber per centimetre. If you stretch space what will happen?

Perhaps you have never wondered about a simple question like that? And yet you are certain that space does not bend! You probably also do not know what curvature means?

 

[dafydd]

Actually I think that I will get another "computers run particle accelerators so scientists, engineers and accountants have no idea what happens in them" response ... or a cow !

Does Bjarne realise that computers have to be progammed?

 

[Bjarne]

That is right. Computers control particle accelerators. They are programmed to control the accelerators according to the known lwas of physics which include special relativity

So you believe you enter some equation into the software and pres button and that’s it?

I believe that you have many sensors connected to the computer.
The computer hence monitor exactly where the particles are , as well as the velocity of the particles, - are and it calculate exactly what to do in order to get the particles to collide at a certain point.

If the particle are too fast or to slow, the computer knows properly in a nanosecond what to do, > hence the computer adjust the energy probably million of times per second.

There are so many factors in such an experiment, that you can not beforehand calculate all that and just click start. This must be a running process.

But yes an accelerator can one time for all, shows us if the old nuts believe is true.
Properly “only” new software.

Who want to bet ?

Seriously?

 

[MRC_Hans]

To my opinion only a computer can handle that.
And if it is not programmed to rapport the energy consumption, it will not do it, and nothing will be discovered.

The first synchro cyclotron *) accelerators were built in the 1950es. No computer back then was fast enough to control an accelerator directly. Instead, the frequency sweep was calculated in advance. If there had been an unexpected resistance, nothing would have come out of the accelerator.

Hans

*) A cyclotron works by using a magnet field and two hollow electrodes. The charged particles are released in the middle, and by applying an alternating voltage to the electrodes, the particles are made to spiral outwards at ever increasing speed, until they emerge at the edge at a high speed. For this design the only difference 'kinetic resistance' would make would be that the particles circulated for a little longer, and so could remain undetected. However, enter the synchro cyclotron (SC):

To increase the final speed of the particles, the SC was developed. Here the magnet field is modulated, starting at a low value, then increased to keep the ever faster particles circling inside the electrodes. At the same time, the alternating voltage applied to the electrodes, is increased in frequency to match the increased magnet field. Thus, unlike the original cyclotron, which provides a continuous beam of particles, the SC is pulsed and accelerates 'packages' of particles.

And here is the crunch: If the electrode frequency and the magnet field don't match precisely through the whole sweep, the particles will disperse, and will not appear at the output. Thus, the pre-calculations must be able to precisely predict the movement of the particles during the whole process. The technology at the time did not allow for any kind of in-process regulation. If 'kinetic resistance' existed it would have been discovered in the 1950es by the scientists building and running synchro cyclotrons.

 

[Bjarne]

A cyclotron works by using a magnet field and two hollow electrodes.

And what about the enery lost to heat
This as well change my freind

 

[Bjarne]

The first synchro cyclotron *) accelerators were built in the 1950es. No computer back then was fast enough to control an accelerator directly. Instead, the frequency sweep was calculated in advance. If there had been an unexpected resistance, nothing would have come out of the accelerator.

So you believe those guys also calculated the temperature difference (resistance difference) in the cables, day by day and minutes for minutes. ?

And what about the energy delivery.
This as well is not stable ? – and impossible to calculate.

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you believe you enter some equation into the software and pres button and that’s it?

I believe that you have many sensors connected to the computer.
The computer hence monitor exactly where the particles are , as well as the velocity of the particles, - are and it calculate exactly what to do in order to get the particles to collide at a certain point.

If the particle are too fast or to slow, the computer knows properly in a nanosecond what to do, > hence the computer adjust the energy probably million of times per second.

There are so many factors in such an experiment, that you can not beforehand calculate all that and just click start. This must be a running process.

But yes an accelerator can one time for all, shows us if the old nuts believe is true.
Properly “only” new software.

(My bolding)

Bjarne, think again: How fast are the fastest computers we have? They don't have time to do complex calculations in a nanosecond.

But it gets worse: The Hadron Collider is 27 km in circumference, so in the time it takes for the signal from a sensor to reach the computer, and for the computer's response to get back, the particles will be nearly half-way around the circle! So even the fastest computer cannot control it in real time.

Face it, comrade: If there was such a thing as 'kinetic resistance', the people building and running the Hadron collider would know.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you believe those guys also calculated the temperature difference (resistance difference) in the cables, day by day and minutes for minutes. ?

And what about the energy delivery.
This as well is not stable ? – and impossible to calculate.

Not at all. I'm a humble engineer, I could calculate it. I could build a synchro cyclotron. ... But I would have to be able to predict how fast the particles moved, otherwise it wouldn't work.

 

[Bjarne]

Nice try, but then you have no explanation for the expansion of the universe.
At the time close to the Big Bang all matter in the universe was located in a very small area. You cannot get more gravity than that. Why did all that matter at one place not consume all the space so that there was no space to expand into?

As I wrote: you properly also have resistance against contraction of space.
Space it self will probaly resists both to get too much expanded as well as gets too much contracted.

The strong force/gravity (unity) will always have an opposite “direction”.
This force will pull space together and therefore the Universe must shrink.
In this process the strong force properly also gets stronger. If several strong forces exist these will united.
Therefore the strong force is digging it’s own grave (in a Big Crunch) because it will continue to contracts space, and is in this possess challenging its self, because suddenly it will reach its own limit, and the result is B A N G. But well this is speculation. But as I wrote we like if phenomena is caused by something.

Neither do I. It was just an attempt to illustrate stretching. If you stretch a rubber band, there will be less grams of rubber per centimetre. If you stretch space what will happen?

I would say: “the same”. > Space is thinning out.

Perhaps you have never wondered about a simple question like that? And yet you are certain that space does not bend! You probably also do not know what curvature means?

I am not denying that this expression is better than nothing.
The problem is that the expression leads you imagination to a dead end, - unless you keep asking what does “bended space” mean ?

The problem is if this only leads to imaging space like a bike lane, - and that’s it.

I mean this phenomenon could be a bit more different.
We shouldn’t prevent us self to imaging this in a more coherent way.
And at least ask us self: Could this (bended property) have anything with the known stretches/expanding space property to do?
Could matter contract / consume space, and hence cause: that space: lacks, stretch, deforms, or bends or curves if you like.

Bjarne, think again: How fast are the fastest computers we have? They don't have time to do complex calculations in a nanosecond.

But it gets worse: The Hadron Collider is 27 km in circumference, so in the time it takes for the signal from a sensor to reach the computer, and for the computer's response to get back, the particles will be nearly half-way around the circle! So even the fastest computer cannot control it in real time.

You must make up you mind
1.) Either you believe that all you need to do is to enter a equation and press start
2.) Or if you believe that the computer(s) boths monitor exactly where the particles are, the velocity and automatically adjusting the energy supply and velocity.

How many measurement per second etc. etc etc. is not importent.

 

[Reality Check]

So you believe you enter some equation into the software and pres button and that’s it?

Basically yes. The software controls the particle accelerator. It calculates the path of the beam according to the known laws of physics.

ETA
But you do not need a computer to run a particle accelerator.
The first cyclotron was built in 1929 - well before computers existed. All you need to to is calculate the frequency of the AC current (for the magnet strength) that you need in order to produce the velocity that you want. The downside is that you only get to a small % of the speed of light. So your physically impossible "kinetic resistance" would be harder to detect.

 

[dafydd]

As I wrote: you properly also have resistance against contraction of space.
Space it self will probaly resists both to get too much expanded as well as gets too much contracted.

The strong force/gravity (unity) will always have an opposite “direction”.
This force will pull space together and therefore the Universe must shrink.
In this process the strong force properly also gets stronger. If several strong forces exist these will united.
Therefore the strong force is digging it’s own grave (in a Big Crunch) because it will continue to contracts space, and is in this possess challenging its self, because suddenly it will reach its own limit, and the result is B A N G. But well this is speculation. But as I wrote we like if phenomena is caused by something.



I would say: “the same”. > Space is thinning out.


I am not denying that this expression is better than nothing.
The problem is that the expression leads you imagination to a dead end, - unless you keep asking what does “bended space” mean ?

[qimg]http://www.sport-tiedje.com/tacx/zubehoer/dvd_velodrome1_detail.jpg[/qimg]

The problem is if this only leads to imaging space like a bike lane, - and that’s it.

I mean this phenomenon could be a bit more different.
We shouldn’t prevent us self to imaging this in a more coherent way.
And at least ask us self: Could this (bended property) have anything with the known stretches/expanding space property to do?
Could matter contract / consume space, and hence cause: that space: lacks, stretch, deforms, or bends or curves if you like.

You must make up you mind
1.) Either you believe that all you need to do is to enter a equation and press start
2.) Or if you believe that the computer(s) boths monitor exactly where the particles are, the velocity and automatically adjusting the energy supply and velocity.

How many measurement per second etc. etc etc. is not importent.

This is one of the funniest threads ever!

 

[Reality Check]

You must make up you mind
1.) Either you believe that all you need to do is to enter a equation and press start
2.) Or if you believe that the computer(s) boths monitor exactly where the particles are, the velocity and automatically adjusting the energy supply and velocity.

How many measurement per second etc. etc etc. is not importent.

The answer is 1) and a bit of 2).

Scientists enter the operating parameters that they want for a beam, e.g.

• A beam of 450 GeV is injected from the other particle accelerator, send it around the ring in this direction.
• A beam of 450 GeV is injected from the other particle accelerator, send it around the ring in the other direction.
• Arrange the paths so that the beams collide at specific points, i.e. where we have constucted detectors.

All of this is setup by the computer using the known laws of physics.
(Whoops - this does not work! We did not know about "kinetic resistance". Lets spend another few billion dollars fixing the problem ).

The LHC is actually a series of accelerators all of which need to work (and will not according to you):

Prior to being injected into the main accelerator, the particles are prepared by a series of systems that successively increase their energy. The first system is the linear particle accelerator LINAC 2 generating 50-MeV protons, which feeds the Proton Synchrotron Booster (PSB). There the protons are accelerated to 1.4 GeV and injected into the Proton Synchrotron (PS), where they are accelerated to 26 GeV. Finally the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) is used to further increase their energy to 450 GeV before they are at last injected (over a period of 20 minutes) into the main ring. Here the proton bunches are accumulated, accelerated (over a period of 20 minutes) to their peak 7-TeV energy, and finally circulated for 10 to 24 hours while collisions occur at the four intersection points.

Now that they have beams colliding at the detectors. They want as many collistions as possible. So there is a bit of tweaking, e.g. move the beam a millimeter and see if the collision rate is higher.

Around this time, accountants start to screem. They notice that is takes twice as much electricity to produce the beams as was budgeted.
(Whoops - this does not work! We did not know about "kinetic resistance". Lets spend another few billion dollars fixing the problem ).

How do scientists now that the particles have the energy that is predicted by special relativity?
IOW:
How do these experiments carried out over many decades conclusively prove the "kinetic resistance" does not exist?

The first reason is that the beams are circulated without acceleration for hours at a time. This is the accelerator acting as a storage ring. Making the beam travel in a circle is fairly basic physics. All you need are magnets and Maxwell's equations. The magnets are tuned to keep particles at a specific energy traveling in a circle. If the particles are not at that energy they escape the storage ring.
Storage rings work thus "kinetic resistance" does not exist.

You are probably unaware of this but the force on a charge traveling through a magnetic field depends on the field, charge and velocity of the particle: F= q ( v X B ).
In a storage ring the magnetic field is constant.
In a storage ring q is constant.
Add in "kinetic resistance" to decrease v and the force decreases. The beam therefore spiral out into the walls of the ring.

A second less compelling reason is that scientists are really interested in the collisions and their products. They are so interested that they measure the energy of all of the products in calorimeters.
There is a little law of physics that you should know about: energy is conserved.
Thus the energy of the products is equal to the energy of the particles that collided.
No one has claimed a Nobel Prize by noticing that energy is not conserved in the collisions, i.e. the products have half the predicted energy of the particle beams.

And a little bit about the physics of particle accelerators:

Equations of motion
The motion of charged particles through an accelerator is controlled using applied electro-magnetic fields, and the equations of motion may be derived from (or, since in many cases a general solution is not possible, approximated from) relativistic Hamiltonian mechanics. Typically, a separate Hamiltonian is written down for each element (e.g. for a single quadrupole magnet, or accelerating structure) to allow the equations of motion to be solved for this one element. Once this has been done for each element encountered in the machine, the full trajectory of each particle may be calculated for the entire machine.
In many cases a general solution of the full Hamiltonian is not possible, so it is necessary to make approximations. This may take the form of the Paraxial approximation (a Taylor series in the dynamical variables, truncated to low order), however, even in the cases of strongly non-linear magnetic fields, a Lie transform may be used to construct an integrator with a high degree of accuracy, and the paraxial approximation is not necessary.

(my emphasis added - no "kinetic resistance" )

 

[steenkh]

As I wrote: you properly also have resistance against contraction of space.

So gravity will get weaker as gravity increases?

Space it self will probaly resists both to get too much expanded as well as gets too much contracted.

You are just making it up, right?

The strong force/gravity (unity) will always have an opposite “direction”.
This force will pull space together and therefore the Universe must shrink.
In this process the strong force properly also gets stronger. If several strong forces exist these will united.
Therefore the strong force is digging it’s own grave (in a Big Crunch) because it will continue to contracts space, and is in this possess challenging its self, because suddenly it will reach its own limit, and the result is B A N G. But well this is speculation. But as I wrote we like if phenomena is caused by something.

Amazing what it is possible to pull out of your rear end. You are simply making it up as you go!

I would say: “the same”. > Space is thinning out.

So stretching space means thinning it out? What kind of answer is that? Try again, what does it mean to stretch or thinning out space? Does it mean there is less space pr cubic centimeter?

I am not denying that this expression is better than nothing.
The problem is that the expression leads you imagination to a dead end, - unless you keep asking what does “bended space” mean ?

OK, I will keep asking: what do you think that bended space means?

The problem is if this only leads to imaging space like a bike lane, - and that’s it.

You are the only one imagining space as a bike lane.

I mean this phenomenon could be a bit more different.
We shouldn’t prevent us self to imaging this in a more coherent way.

It is rich to hear you asking for a more coherent theory!

You must make up you mind

You are not reading what he wrote: no computer on Earth is fast enough to to do calculations fast enough to make corrections on the fly in the LHC.

 

[dafydd]

So gravity will get weaker as gravity increases?


You are just making it up, right?


Amazing what it is possible to pull out of your rear end. You are simply making it up as you go!


So stretching space means thinning it out? What kind of answer is that? Try again, what does it mean to stretch or thinning out space? Does it mean there is less space pr cubic centimeter?


OK, I will keep asking: what do you think that bended space means?


You are the only one imagining space as a bike lane.


It is rich to hear you asking for a more coherent theory!


You are not reading what he wrote: no computer on Earth is fast enough to to do calculations fast enough to make corrections on the fly in the LHC.

I'm looking forward to reading the next set of things that Bjarne pulls out of his fundament.Any bets on ''absorbent space'?

 

[Bjarne]

Funny yes off course, we can only guess, that’s funny too.

1.) Do you believe that strong force is a independent force of each elementary particle?
2.) Or do you rather believe its original is a property of space?

You do not have other possibilities, right ?

How was it created and why does it interact with matter?

To my opinion the strong force must be interact with the (elastics flexible) space.
The only cause responsible for connection / interaction between particles, is “teamwork” between partciels - what else. - Spin up and spin down is now because the partciels have noting else to do

When particle A pulls space particle B push and if A push B pulls, in or coordinated way with billion of other particles.
This is the strong force.

Now how can one such frequency connect through the whole universe?
Well when the universe is pretty small, its no distance problem to reach.

Is it thinkable that every star or galaxy have its own strong force frequency?

And is it thinkable these can unificate with outer, when the universe collapses and distances become smaller?
Or is the strong force always one.

I think it is one force, beyond time.
Think about if you were living at a photon, time and distance would not exist. You would be everywhere at the same time. – But not for us. - That's a fact.

Basically yes. The software controls the particle accelerator. It calculates the path of the beam according to the known laws of physics.

If that’s all my laptop ano 1992 can handles it all I guess.
Why do you think a session takes hours?.

The answer is 1) and a bit of 2).

Ohh progress.

How do scientists now that the particles have the energy that is predicted by special relativity?

Try to calculate:
1.) the joule due to resistance agiant motion, and -
2.) due to e.g; heat resistance in the cables.

We talk about insignificant amount of energy in ex 1. – and pretty much more in ex.2 .
Do you think they have calculated every single little joule, to any thinkable temperature?
Tkink twice..

Around this time, accountants start to screem. They notice that is takes twice as much electricity to produce the beams as was budgeted.

Strange ?
No.
Science is always full of surprises.
Must of the time nothing is that we though.
Think e.g: how much we have cheated us self regarding fusion tha past 50 years.

Bjarne
As I wrote: you properly also have resistance against contraction of space.
Steenkh
So gravity will get weaker as gravity increases?

Gravity is too complex to be described in one word.
You have 2 properties ADG + Mass attraction
and you have central gravity and between objects.

The nature of space is not only gravity, but also anti-gravity and gravity at the same time.
Even though space is contracted it also resists being so.

You are simply making it up as you go!

Space have a both an expansive as well as a contraction ability.
I think most scientist agree to that.
If the expansive energy is out of breath, the whole process must be opposite.
In other words the so called”dark matter” between cluster galaxies and between cluster of galaxies etc… must increase´…

So stretching space means thinning it out? What kind of answer is that? Try again, what does it mean to stretch or thinning out space? Does it mean there is less space pr cubic centimetre?

You know this happens already.
Expansive space is a fact.
We don’t get very much closer?
As I can see you “wonder” because of a property we know space process.
Now imaging how if would be to wonder if space “should” have more such properties: e.g; "bended space". - Can you imaging ?
It is no reason to make it more difficult as it is. You already have enough problems to understand what we know.
Advise: don’t invent more strange independent properties e.g: "bended space", - unless you are completely sure it is necessary.

You are the only one imagining space as a bike lane.

No, I am saying we can’t even imaging, and an attempt becomes immediately ridiculous.

 

[steenkh]

You know this happens already.

I did not ask if it happens already, I asked what it means to stretch or thin out space. Your reluctance to answer this simple question makes me think that it is because you have no idea what this central concept in your ideas means.

You blame science for not knowing exactly what gravity means, and yet you do not know exactly what contraction of space means, although it fills the same role as gravity in your system.