Space travel, and the possibilities of interstellar migration

[Thundercrack85]

Well, you know what they say about World War III. World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

 

[Dr.]

I know I seem like a broken record....but how am I around a bunch of science geeks.....and no one seems interested in the Higgs Boson? I'm pretty damn excited.

It is an extraordinary triumph of science. H-B is the missing piece of the Standard Model puzzle. It was predicted to exist back in the 60s. Everything else made sense in light of its presumed existence. But evidence (not prediction) gets the final word. And there was simply no technology that could produce the necessary GeV energies to test for the H-B. Until the LHC.

 

[NateHevens]

Hopefully. But there are several thousands of them in existence. Technically, hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs.

Sort of. The hydrogen is fused, yes, but the bulk of the power comes from nuclear fission, which means it's still not as destructive as a pure fusion bomb would be.

I know I seem like a broken record....but how am I around a bunch of science geeks.....and no one seems interested in the Higgs Boson? I'm pretty damn excited.

I'd say this isn't the right thread for it. I'd love to talk (read: ask) about the Higgs, but I think that's something that requires a whole new thread.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I'd talk about it, except I have no idea what it does. Something about the universe, and how it all holds together.

In very basic terms, it is a very heavy elementary particle, it decays almost instantly, and generates mass for other elementary particles.

Sort of. The hydrogen is fused, yes, but the bulk of the power comes from nuclear fission, which means it's still not as destructive as a pure fusion bomb would be.

Matter/Anti-Matter annihilation is more efficient still at producing energy. Not to mention more destructive for theoretical weaponised capabilities.

 

[NateHevens]

Matter/Anti-Matter annihilation is more efficient still at producing energy. Not to mention more destructive for theoretical weaponised capabilities.

But theoretical. Fusion is much more practical at the moment. We can't even catch anti-matter. We might not ever be able to harness it. I would say the more pressing threat, and the more likely form of clean energy at the moment, is fusion; not matter/anti-matter annihilation.

Not saying that harnessing the power of matter/anti-matter annihilation is out of the realm of possibility. It isn't. But technology-wise, we're much closer to fusion. So let's stick with that for now until we have the technology to harness the power of matter/anti-matter annihilation, which I certainly don't see happening in my lifetime...

 

[raybia]

In very basic terms, it is a very heavy elementary particle, it decays almost instantly, and generates mass for other elementary particles.

Forgive my ignorance on this but how does a particle that decays almost instantly generate mass for other particles?

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

But theoretical. Fusion is much more practical at the moment. We can't even catch anti-matter. We might not ever be able to harness it. I would say the more pressing threat, and the more likely form of clean energy at the moment, is fusion; not matter/anti-matter annihilation.

Not saying that harnessing the power of matter/anti-matter annihilation is out of the realm of possibility. It isn't. But technology-wise, we're much closer to fusion. So let's stick with that for now until we have the technology to harness the power of matter/anti-matter annihilation, which I certainly don't see happening in my lifetime...

Annihilation isn't theoretical, we use them for in PET scans in hospitals everyday. It's just expensive, hard to make and extremely hard to store. But gram for gram, annihilation is around 100x more efficient than fusion, which is proving just as hard to perform. We can barely make hot fusion, let alone cold, however, Hydrogen is far more abundant than Anti-Hydrogen and the materials needed to make it.

Forgive my ignorance on this but how does a particle that decays almost instantly generate mass for other particles?

Oh, in a very difficult to explain and even understand (honestly, I don't think I do, and would love if someone could either correct or corroborate what I say here) way.

You might have seen in the news that the Higgs always pops up with the measurement 125 GeV, that is the electronvolt energy of the decay of the Higgs Boson. If you were to imagine it as temperature then 125 GeV would essentially be its "melting point". This is the first part, nice and easy.

The second part is that there are four forces in nature: Electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity. At around, or a bit above 100 GeV electromagnetism and weak nuclear unify and become the "electroweak interaction".

Thirdly, the "Higgs field" theoretically permeates all of space.

When the "temperature" drops below both of these points, both the Higgs "melts" and the electroweak force breaks down and stops existing as a unified force. This asymmetry in the force and the decay of the Higgs boson can generate mass for other bosons (W&Z) as they interact with this Higgs field.


Really it's the field that provides mass, but fields each have a particle mediator and the Higgs field has the Higgs boson. The boson is basically the proof that the field is there.

 

[NateHevens]

Annihilation isn't theoretical, we use them for in PET scans in hospitals everyday. It's just expensive, hard to make and extremely hard to store. But gram for gram, annihilation is around 100x more efficient than fusion, which is proving just as hard to perform. We can barely make hot fusion, let alone cold, however, Hydrogen is far more abundant than Anti-Hydrogen and the materials needed to make it.

Okay... I had no idea that PET scans worked by matter/anti-matter annihilation. Apologies. You learn something new every day.

Oh, in a very difficult to explain and even understand (honestly, I don't think I do, and would love if someone could either correct or corroborate what I say here) way.

You might have seen in the news that the Higgs always pops up with the measurement 125 GeV, that is the electronvolt energy of the decay of the Higgs Boson. If you were to imagine it as temperature then 125 GeV would essentially be its "melting point". This is the first part, nice and easy.

The second part is that there are four forces in nature: Electromagnetism, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity. At around, or a bit above 100 GeV electromagnetism and weak nuclear unify and become the "electroweak interaction".

Thirdly, the "Higgs field" theoretically permeates all of space.

When the "temperature" drops below both of these points, both the Higgs "melts" and the electroweak force breaks down and stops existing as a unified force. This asymmetry in the force and the decay of the Higgs boson can generate mass for other bosons (W&Z) as they interact with this Higgs field.


Really it's the field that provides mass, but fields each have a particle mediator and the Higgs field has the Higgs boson. The boson is basically the proof that the field is there.

Okay... I literally cannot do math, but with a bit of Googling, I understood this... kind of...

It's very basic, but it's a good starting point.

Here's the Wiki article on the Higgs. Should help to clarify things a bit more...

 

[knowsbleed]

This really needs to be turned into a space and physics thread. I'll just leave this here though.. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/04/science/la-sci-dark-matter-filament-20120705

Thoughts?

 

[childeroland]

First possibly completing the Standard Model, and now this. Jeez, this has been quite the week!

 

[chamber-music]

About time 21st century science kicked it up another level.

The human race likes to think it knows everything but there is so much we still don't know or understand.

 

[childeroland]

A question: Some people have said that the boson discovered might not be THE Higgs-boson physicists have been looking for. If that is the case, does the Higgs-boson found still complete the Standard Model as if THE Higgs-boson had been discovered? If so, does finding the specific one they've been looking for particularly matter?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

You guys should really read the book "Endless Universe". It explains every concept masterfully.

 

[NateHevens]

A question: Some people have said that the boson discovered might not be THE Higgs-boson physicists have been looking for. If that is the case, does the Higgs-boson found still complete the Standard Model as if THE Higgs-boson had been discovered? If so, does finding the specific one they've been looking for particularly matter?

I'd like to meet someone who says that.

What they've found is consistent with the theoretical concept in almost every way. Many of the inconsistencies simply exist because they haven't had enough time to study the boson, yet.

Besides, there is only one Higgs-Boson. Essentially, what they were trying to do is break a piece off of something called the Higgs field. It appears that this is what they did.

 

[childeroland]

I don't remember where I heard or read it; I might have misinterpreted, though I thought they were working to confirm of this is the simplest type of Higgs particle one of a large group or family of Higgs particles, or even a previously unknown particle with the properties they've been looking for.

In any event, does this put an end to some or all of the Higgsless models that don't include the Higgs-boson?

 

[NateHevens]

I don't remember where I heard or read it; I might have misinterpreted, though I thought they were working to confirm of this is the simplest type of Higgs particle one of a large group or family of Higgs particles, or even a previously unknown particle with the properties they've been looking for.

I'm going to have to do more research, but as I understand it, there is no "family of particles" because the Higgs is a field, and what they've managed to do is break off a piece of that field; hence the Higgs-Boson.

To be fair, I still don't understand the idea of the so-called Graviton because gravity is not a force; it is the result of matter pushing on the fabric of spacetime. So why would there be a "gravity particle"?

So there's a lot about particles and matter and forces I still need to learn about...

In any event, does this put an end to some or all of the Higgsless models that don't include Higgs-bosons?

The Standard Model of Physics is pretty much the only model, but even if it wasn't, the Higgs was the only part of it missing. It was and is otherwise an already robust and basically proven model... at least mathematically.

 

[Dr.]

Of course, more testing will happen. Officially, a new particle has been discovered with “Higgs-like” properties. That’s conservative scientists for you. Unofficially, those same scientists seem satisfied that it’s the “Higgs” they were looking for.

 

[childeroland]

Thanks NateHevens, Dr.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

I'm going to have to do more research, but as I understand it, there is no "family of particles" because the Higgs is a field, and what they've managed to do is break off a piece of that field; hence the Higgs-Boson.

To be fair, I still don't understand the idea of the so-called Graviton because gravity is not a force; it is the result of matter pushing on the fabric of spacetime. So why would there be a "gravity particle"?

So there's a lot about particles and matter and forces I still need to learn about...

To again try and put things very simply: Gravity is very much a force. It's one of only four forces in existence. Also it is the most complicated. It's almost inexplicably weak despite having infinite range.

You'll also probably know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is incredibly difficult to unify. General relativity basically works on the large scale while Quantum mechanics is on the small scale. On the large scale the four forces basically act as waves. On the small scale, according to quantum field theory, the base of quantum mechanics, each of the forces are mediated by a particle. Gravity, as a force is mediated by the particle the graviton.

However, the particle is nigh on impossible to detect.

 

[NateHevens]

To again try and put things very simply: Gravity is very much a force. It's one of only four forces in existence. Also it is the most complicated. It's almost inexplicably weak despite having infinite range.

You'll also probably know that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is incredibly difficult to unify. General relativity basically works on the large scale while Quantum mechanics is on the small scale. On the large scale the four forces basically act as waves. On the small scale, according to quantum field theory, the base of quantum mechanics, each of the forces are mediated by a particle. Gravity, as a force is mediated by the particle the graviton.

However, the particle is nigh on impossible to detect.

See... the way I was taught to understand gravity, it is matter pushing on the effect of spacetime. So, for example... if you stretch a thin piece of rubber over an open jar, and place a small ball in the middle, the depression made by that ball on the rubber is (supposedly) a decent (though limited, as the impression is 3D, and spacetime could be as much as 11D) example of gravity.

If gravity is an active force, and not an effect of the stretching of spacetime, then how can this be?

In other words, I'm very confused, here...

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Mass pressing on spacetime is the force of Gravity, they're one in the same. But in quantum mechanics fields have particle mediators, Gravity has the graviton.

 

[childeroland]

Which could still be any massless particle with the correct spin (angular momentum?), right? Once they've found that, they've essentially found the graviton?

 

[NateHevens]

Mass pressing on spacetime is the force of Gravity, they're one in the same. But in quantum mechanics fields have particle mediators, Gravity has the graviton.

Yeah... I'm still confused. I think I'm having trouble with a force with a particle mediator being the effect of matter pressing on the fabric of spacetime.

How can an effect be a force with a particle mediator?

 

[Dr.]

Yeah... I'm still confused. I think I'm having trouble with a force with a particle mediator being the effect of matter pressing on the fabric of spacetime.

You’re in good company; physicists are confused by gravity. It doesn’t fit in the Standard Model. The other three forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force) all work under quantum theory. And the assumption is that gravity must as well. But at this point, the “graviton” is hypothetical. There is some hope that confirmation of gravitational waves will indirectly reveal the graviton. But directly observing a graviton (a la Higgs-Boson) seems beyond reach. It would require a particle accelerator the size of a planetary orbit.

 

[Marvolo]

You’re in good company; physicists are confused by gravity. It doesn’t fit in the Standard Model. The other three forces (electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force) all work under quantum theory. And the assumption is that gravity must as well. But at this point, the “graviton” is hypothetical. There is some hope that confirmation of gravitational waves will indirectly reveal the graviton. But directly observing a graviton (a la Higgs-Boson) seems beyond reach. It would require a particle accelerator the size of a planetary orbit.

I would like to know the price tag on something like that.