John Baez wrote:
In article .com,
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I think experimental GR is cookin, like LIGO,
VIRGO, GP-b, GRACE. You're in the that loop
with the smart guys. I for one, would appreciate
a synopsis of what's new WRT those experiments,
when you post your "This weeks finds".

I'll definitely do that sometime; first I need to say
something about the Large Hadron Collider is doing.

Great, I'm student on that. I've been studying
Jay Yablon's papers regarding the NuTev anomally.
We *suspect* the energy of the LHC may require
the use of GR to get more accurate predictions,
as the energy density's in the scattering may
affect the local curvature, (Guv=Tuv), much like
Mercury's orbit needed a GR *tweek* from Newton.

I understand HEP physicists generally use flat
Minkowski space and regard GR as just gravity,
(ignorable).

I would think that at some energy (LHC) Guv=Tuv
will need to be considered, but we won't see it
if don't look. It would be a magnificent acheive-
ment to notice repeatable GR effects in HEP.

We'd appreciate your take on that sometime, gives
us a reality check.

In the meantime, download Einstein@Home and help
LIGO analyze their data and find some gravitational
waves:

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/

At Loops '05 someone asked: "if my computer finds
gravitational waves, will I be made a coauthor of
the paper that announces the discovery?" The answer
was that they're considering this, but haven't decided.
I think they should do it.

Yup, should be a lottery.

Never fear John, I'm dustin' off the old Radio
Shack TRS-80, writing some assembler, and we'll
phase array the whole sky before Domino's gets
you a pizza!

But seriousy, in the 80's I worked in ultrasound
imaging, and we used a dedicated FFT (Fast Fourier
Transform) PCB to properly calculate how to display
the image. A General Processor was way to slow.
A dedicated processor has the algorithm hard wired,
more or less, mainly more.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I understand HEP physicists generally use flat
Minkowski space and regard GR as just gravity,
(ignorable).

Yes. At current energies gravity is ignorable by many orders of magnitude.


I would think that at some energy (LHC) Guv=Tuv
will need to be considered, but we won't see it
if don't look. It would be a magnificent acheive-
ment to notice repeatable GR effects in HEP.

Current models indicate gravity is not important until we approach the
unification scale, ~10^17 GeV. LHC is ~10^4 GeV.


Tom Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I understand HEP physicists generally use flat
Minkowski space and regard GR as just gravity,
(ignorable).

Yes. At current energies gravity is ignorable by many orders of magnitude.


I would think that at some energy (LHC) Guv=Tuv
will need to be considered, but we won't see it
if don't look. It would be a magnificent acheive-
ment to notice repeatable GR effects in HEP.

Current models indicate gravity is not important until we approach the
unification scale, ~10^17 GeV.

How did you calculate that?

Tom Roberts

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| I understand HEP physicists generally use flat
| Minkowski space and regard GR as just gravity,
| (ignorable).
|
| Yes. At current energies gravity is ignorable by many orders of
magnitude.
|
|
| I would think that at some energy (LHC) Guv=Tuv
| will need to be considered, but we won't see it
| if don't look. It would be a magnificent acheive-
| ment to notice repeatable GR effects in HEP.
|
| Current models indicate gravity is not important until we approach
the
| unification scale, ~10^17 GeV.
|
| How did you calculate that?

He didn't. Someone else did. It is called the GUT scale but I thought
it was more like ~10^15 GeV and the Planck scale is ~10^19 GeV. But
neither has any experimental confirmation at all. There are only hints
that aren't really even that great. But if in fact, extra large
dimensions exist, then it is possible these huge scales could be pulled
down to the TeV energy range. Which makes more sense to me. Mini
quantum black holes at LHC will definitely make gravity much more
important to particle physics in the TeV range. Man, we have these
quantum black hole (QBH) papers comin' out of the wordwork all of a
sudden. ;-) I also saw something recently about hints of QBH's at RHIC.

FrediFizzx

http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...uum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/qu...cuum_charge.ps

http://www.vacuum-physics.com

FrediFizzx wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Tom Roberts wrote:
| Ken S. Tucker wrote:
| I understand HEP physicists generally use flat
| Minkowski space and regard GR as just gravity,
| (ignorable).
|
| Yes. At current energies gravity is ignorable by many orders of
magnitude.
|
|
| I would think that at some energy (LHC) Guv=Tuv
| will need to be considered, but we won't see it
| if don't look. It would be a magnificent acheive-
| ment to notice repeatable GR effects in HEP.
|
| Current models indicate gravity is not important until we approach
the
| unification scale, ~10^17 GeV.
|
| How did you calculate that?

He didn't. Someone else did.

Well then he ought to know how, here' a baseline...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ar/nucuni.html

We need G_00 == T_00 , Nabla^2 g_00, Nabla g_00 and g_00,
to start, any ref will do if tom's got one...not likely.

It is called the GUT scale but I thought
it was more like ~10^15 GeV and the Planck scale is ~10^19 GeV. But
neither has any experimental confirmation at all. There are only hints
that aren't really even that great. But if in fact, extra large
dimensions exist, then it is possible these huge scales could be pulled
down to the TeV energy range. Which makes more sense to me. Mini
quantum black holes at LHC will definitely make gravity much more
important to particle physics in the TeV range. Man, we have these
quantum black hole (QBH) papers comin' out of the wordwork all of a
sudden. ;-) I also saw something recently about hints of QBH's at RHIC.

FrediFizzx

In the LHC the particle masses will be increased
1000x by relativistic acceleration.

In the case of Mercury's orbital deviation, it's
like mass = 1 + 10^-8, that's get's noticed.

I guess I should re-simulate that.
Ken

John Baez:
In article .com,
Ken S. Tucker wrote:

I think experimental GR is cookin, like LIGO,
VIRGO, GP-b, GRACE. You're in the that loop
with the smart guys. I for one, would appreciate
a synopsis of what's new WRT those experiments,
when you post your "This weeks finds".

I'll definitely do that sometime; first I need to say
something about the Large Hadron Collider is doing.

In the meantime, download Einstein@Home and help
LIGO analyze their data and find some gravitational
waves:

http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/

At Loops '05 someone asked: "if my computer finds
gravitational waves, will I be made a coauthor of
the paper that announces the discovery?" The answer
was that they're considering this, but haven't decided.
I think they should do it.

Even if half of the earth's population were included, the author
list wouldn't look much different than the author list for a typical
high energy experiment.

Ken S. Tucker:

Tom Roberts wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote:
I understand HEP physicists generally use flat
Minkowski space and regard GR as just gravity,
(ignorable).

Yes. At current energies gravity is ignorable by many orders of magnitude.


I would think that at some energy (LHC) Guv=Tuv
will need to be considered, but we won't see it
if don't look. It would be a magnificent acheive-
ment to notice repeatable GR effects in HEP.

Current models indicate gravity is not important until we approach the
unification scale, ~10^17 GeV.

How did you calculate that?

\Delta E\Delta t ~ hbar. \Delta t = plancktime. E =~ 1.2 x 10^19 GeV.