The Search For Neutrons That Leak Into Our World From Other Universes 212
KentuckyFC writes: One of the more exciting predictions from "braneworld" theories of high energy physics is that matter can leak out of other universes into our own, and vice versa. The basic idea is that our three-dimensional universe or brane is embedded in a much larger multi-dimensional cosmos. These branes can become coupled so that a quantum particle such as a neutron can exist in a superposition of states in both universes at the same time. When the neutron collides with something, the superposition collapses and the particle must suddenly exist in one brane or the other. That means neutrons from our universe can leak into other branes and then back again. Now physicists are devising an experiment to look for this neutron leakage. They plan to put a well shielded neutron detector next to a shielded nuclear reactor that produces neutrons at a research facility in France. All this shielding means the detector should not see any neutrons from inside the reactor. However, if the neutrons are leaking into another brane and then back into our world, they can bypass this shielding and trigger the detector. The team has not yet set a date for the experiment but the discovery of neutrons (or anything else) leaking into our universe would be huge.
Hmmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Would this help explain quantum tunneling?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!" - the Doctor(s)
There's two of us. I'm reversing it, you're reversing it back again. We're confusing the polarity!
- the other Doctor.
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, just watched that episode a couple nights ago.
Now you've got me thinking though - what would neutron flow have to do with a time-tunnel/wormhole/whatever exactly that was. And more to the point, why don't we hear more about chronotons or other more "timey-wimey" particles when The Doctor needs a convenient plotion to keep the dialog flowing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the idea is to have a huge source of neutrons in physical proximity to increase the chances of one leaking into the other universe first so it can leak back on the other side of the shielding.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you assume there is no distance in the other brane?
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Informative)
It's not entanglement. There's only one neutron. It sounds like a kind of quantum tunnelling, except across "universes." There are types of tunnelling where distance doesn't have the same effect you might expect, but there are other types where it does.
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have a big problem with that.
What? Why should the creation rate fall with the square of the distance? I can understand the inverse square law from the standpoint of neutron emissions from our own universe, but wouldn't entanglement across branes be, by definition, independent of distance?
Reading TFA, it seems that the neutrons are coming from reactor and they are bouncing between the branes due to collisions and the affect of our gravitational field. It's long been suspected that gravity reaches across the branes which is why it is so weak compared to the the forces. This is probably an assumption of their experiment if not of the brane theory they are working with. Gravity is the key as what they are really looking for is a change in the rate they detect neutrons with the difference of the gravitational field that goes with the Earths change in distance from the sun due to its orbit. So, they are next to the reactor probably because it will drown out the other source such as neutrons from cosmic rays, but are hoping to see a change in the number of neutrons that related to the distance from the sun while other variables remain the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the neutrons literally flow across a fourth dimensional axis, and then somehow bounce back after they've moved some distance on one of the other axes, landing in the trap while within our plane of the fourth dimension?
If so, how are they supposed to spot the neutrons the moment they cross into our brane but before they move into another one? (Unless gravity is so weak in the fourth axis that neutrons tend to prefer to stay in our brane rather than all others,
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the neutrons literally flow across a fourth dimensional axis, and then somehow bounce back after they've moved some distance on one of the other axes, landing in the trap while within our plane of the fourth dimension?
Not exactly, the quirk they are testing is effectively the neutron travelling through both "branes" in a superposition state (well, it's actually a bit more subtle than that, but that's the easiest way to explain it).
If so, how are they supposed to spot the neutrons the moment they cross into our brane but before they move into another one?
They aren't tracking specific neutrons, they are making a statistical assumption about a collection of neutrons.
More specifically, by running the experiment multiple times with the neutron source a different distance away from their shielded measurement chamber and at different times of year (to account for different magnetic vector contribution from the sun), they can potentially statistically isolate neutrons detection events that are expected to spontaneously appear (e.g., as a result of cosmic rays originating outside of experimental parameters) from those neutrons that supposedly move in and out of our "brane" as a result of superposition which are sourced locally (whose flux depends on the distance from the source).
We'll see how it goes. They haven't done the experiment yet...
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Informative)
No. Basically brane theories posit that our universe is a 4-dimensional "membrane" in a higher-order metaverse (usually with at least 11 dimensions, or was it twelve? The minimum number at which the various QM constants emerge naturally), and that there are probably other 4-dimensional branes in the metaverse as well. They're one of the four main scientifically recognized classes of possible "parallel universes". Picture if you will many sheets of paper floating in a room, each sheet a universe, and if two sheets were close enough together particles could potentially jump back and forth between them.
mmmm... that feels good... (Score:2)
Damn dirty pervert interdimensional communist space ameobas.
Re: (Score:2)
+1 Asimov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but now I may have a reason (Score:2)
Aha (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Socks too. Jobs. And women.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Socks too. Jobs. And women.
Actually where socks go has already been well investigated.
The little known fact is that socks are actually the larval form of hangars, which makes perfect sense, you always find socks missing but check your closet.. and you find that you have many more hangars than you accounted for. Mystery was solved back in 09.
Re: (Score:2)
More like 99. Thats from Lord Demon [wikipedia.org], by Roger Zelazny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It took me ten years to get "What's so bad about being drunk?/Ask a glass of water."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I bought the complete set about a year ago and I believe this printing actually just used ball point pen instead of biro.
Re: (Score:2)
And it must be where wire hangers come from.
Re: (Score:2)
I think paper clips leak _out_ of our universe, but coat hangers leak in.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's where my car keys go.
If you collect enough neutrons in a box along with some protons and electrons, they may express themselves in the form of a live cat. Or maybe a dead one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually all you need is the neutrons - free neutrons are unstable and decay very rapidly into proton/electron pairs (Beta decay). Of course that only gets you a box of hydrogen, and while its technically not impossible it would spontaneously give rise to a cat, you'll probably have to wait for a very, very long time before you even get two of those hydrogen atoms to spontaneously fuse into helium.
What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the other brane also has a reactor shield in the same spot?
Re: (Score:2)
What if the other brane also has a reactor shield in the same spot?
Don't worry, it's branes all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the other brane also has a reactor shield in the same spot?
Doesn't matter, from my reading of TFA, the true variable is the gravitational field around the Earth from the sun it orbits. Unless there is a similar earth in the same spot with a gravitational field that varies exactly inversely to ours, shielding shouldn't matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. The conspiracy theory about aliens says they crashed in Roswell after crossing an interdimensional rift to tell people to stop setting off nukes because it had the potential to destroy the universe by making the two dimensions collide. If the theory holds true the conspiracy theory just got a bit more legitimate sounding.
Maybe in your universe. This one isn't that weird.
Re: What if... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It's weirder.
In support of that: "I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." - J B S Haldane in "Possible Worlds and Other Papers" (1927), p. 286 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane [wikiquote.org]
Re: What if... (Score:2)
It may be that weird but the explosion has to be on the scale of an object with several times more energy than our sun to make such thing possible. According to some, a black hole could have a universe attached to it, a controlled explosion could thus create a universe and subsequently also allow it to collapse. Any aliens in the universe wouldn't notice though.
Re:What if... (Score:5, Insightful)
So do they need all the stars to quit fusing and fissioning as well?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but most of them can spell "holes" properly.
Oh yeah, and math.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but most of them can spell "holes" properly.
Oh yeah, and math.
I meant to write "whores." Stupid auto correct.
And math? Having all the math we know about correct doesn't mean it isn't based on a faulty premise to begin with. The stranger, or more Star Trek that predictions and hypotheses get, the more I wonder if people are using a little too much imagination to fill in the gaps. Maybe they are correct. Or maybe the alternate universes aren't what we typically conceive them as -- Buckaroo Banzai, et al -- and instead they are states of matter we lack the science to com
Re:What if... (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, we don't really have any reason to expect alternate universes to exist at all, except that the theories don't preclude them.
The real problem is that we have some really huge gaping holes in established theory*, places that we *know* our understanding is flawed, and all the "patches" we've dreamed up are so outlandish that we need even more outlandish experiments to test them, where we've even managed to dream up potential experiments at all.
* for example - General Relativity requires that the base energy of empty space be exactly zero, while Quantum Mechanics requires that it have a definite non-zero value. (the so-called vacuum energy field) Both cannot be the case, so clearly one or both theories must be flawed.
Re: (Score:3)
Wonderful - you've solved the problem that's stumped physicists for a generation! May I please see your experiments and equations which prove that is the case?
Re: (Score:3)
What if this prediction is the result of too many people making a life out of academia, such that they now have to come up with ever-wackier notions? It's as though current theories leave all these wholes, and people get PhD's coming up with nonsense to fill them. It seems like the control against which their observations are measured is their own assumption about what they should not expect to see.
You mean wacky notions like the speed of light being the same regardless of how the light source is moving?
Re:What if... (Score:5, Informative)
You've got it almost exactly, except for the bad attitude. We have theories that are experimentally more accurate than classical physics (relativity, quantum mechanics), but those theories are mathematically inconsistent, plagued by apparently arbitrary "magic numbers", and make some predictions that we see no evidence of: i.e. they create holes where we *know* our knowledge is incomplete, and even more where we reasonably *suspect* there's more to be known. So, we try to come up with new theories to plug those holes. But because the holes are very strange, the patches must be very strange as well, and the patches we've come up with make few or no testable predictions, or at least none testable with current technology. So we keep trying to come up with ever-more-outlandish scenarios where the "patches" predict the potential for different outcomes than the widely accepted, but known-broken, theories. Because until we find an experiment that decisively disagrees with the known-broken theories, how are we ever going to know if we're on the right track, or just inflating a donkey with combustion byproducts?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know if you've realized this, but the universe is an insane place. Time dilation, quantum entanglement, particle/wave duality, cosmic inflation, the very existence of all these forces and more are all incredibly wacky-sounding theories until we find out they seem to be real. I mean, what the fuck is gravity and *why* is it there? What is time?
I mean, have you seen how large the observable universe is? How the FUCK did all that shit get there? It's wacky. I'd be more concerned at this point if the th
What! (Score:5, Funny)
We need to build a fence to keep these undocumented neutrons out of our Universe and from taking jobs from our neutrons. # IAmNotAScientist
Re:What! (Score:4, Funny)
Even worse... what happens when those undocumented neutrons get together and create anchor hadrons.
Who's going to pay for those?
Re:What! (Score:4, Funny)
Even worse... what happens when those undocumented neutrons get together and create anchor hadrons.
We can smash [wikipedia.org] the large hadrons, it's the small and medium ones I'm worried about...
Re: (Score:3)
Call me an old geezer, but I definitely have problems with neutrons from another brane taking a leak on my lawn . . .
Re: (Score:2)
We need baryon reform now!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want our nuclear reactors mediating any kind of reaction using illegal alien neutrons!
Re:What! (Score:4, Funny)
You just set up the computer controlling the experiment to create a bunch of zombie processes. They'll eat the branes...
I'm hoping this experiment results... (Score:3)
...in the creation of transparent Aluminum....
Re: (Score:2)
But we already have that - it's called corundum. Or alternately ruby, sapphire, or padparadscha, depending on color.
Okay, so technically that's aluminum oxide, only ~53% aluminum by mass, and lacks in strength what it makes up for in hardness, but hey, we've been halfway there since before our ancestors mastered breathing!
Genuine Neutron Pads (Score:5, Funny)
Is neutron leakage ruining your day?
Well, no more! Now with my patented genuine neutron pads neutron leakage will be a thing of the past!
We use only the purest boron from the banks of Rio Tinto to absorb your stray neutrons*.
*Neutrons from other universes are not covered by this product. If the neutron flux is higher than the OHSA limits, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.
Proving that they leaked from another brane (Score:2)
Theoretical metaphysicists (Score:2)
They plan to put a well shielded neutron detector next to a shielded nuclear reactor that produces neutrons at a research facility in France. All this shielding means the detector should not see any neutrons from inside the reactor. However, if the neutrons are leaking into another brane and then back into our world, they can bypass this shielding and trigger the detector.
Seems like the more likely answer is the nuclear reactor isn't as well shielded as they hoped. Besides, how can you have a braneworld if the universe is a simulation [slashdot.org] of a hologram [slashdot.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
The theory assumes limited interaction between simulations. They're probably using RS-232 cables because that's all the budget would pay for.
As Ray Maggliozi would say (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone screen these submissions?!
Maybe we're in the other brane... (Score:3)
Have they searched for unexplained sources of neutrons in our brane? I guess that might indicate a nuclear reactor (or something else interesting) one brane over.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says there is another earth much less a planet in the corresponding other brane?
Re: (Score:2)
Since the Earth is whizzing around the edges of the galaxy it is never in the same l
The Gods Themselves (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
could be from our own universe as well (Score:2)
I am not a theoretical physicist, but a neutron state could exist coupled with a neutron state outside the shielded detector (but within our universe). How do you distinguish that?
other part of same universe (Score:2)
Somehow it's way more cool to call this 'another universe' than to call this another part of the same universe, isn't it?
I wonder what the official ISO Linnaeus number is for extreme weakness of physical interaction below which universes are properly botanized.
Unlikely to work even if there is such a leakage.. (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, so we have multiple cosmi (space-time continua) embedded in a higher dimensional universe. I'm totally down with that and have written an entire SF novel based on the premise. Those cosmi (as the plural of cosmos) have a coupling. I'm good with that. But that means that "neighboring" cosmi will exist in a coherent bundle, and one will have to get quite distant from "this" brane to find a brane with substantial drift in its general mass distribution.
This is simple statistical mechanics, by the way -- if most brane-to-brane transitions occur in places where there is chuck of mass in one cosmos and none in another cosmos, there will be steady diffusion from the high mass concentration to the low one. This would lead to egregious and painful violation of mass-energy conservation as my foot in this cosmos diffuses into a vacuum in many, many others, because after all, the mass density of any cosmos at all is nearly zero with a hard, hard vacuum nearly everywhere.
This is overwhelming evidence that this sort of brane to brane, cosmos to cosmos transition does NOT happen in a universe in which the cosmi are equidistant and randomly organized. The only way that those transitions are possible at all is if there is a metric in the higher dimensional universe and if neighboring cosmi have ALMOST identical mass distributions and if transitions are only likely as pair exchanges between neighboring cosmi (note the requirement for pair exchanges is also a rather hard one or else one would observe a cumulative violation of conservation of mass in random-walk style that would be impossible to miss and that people have looked for, unless the transitions were VERY unlikely, or became very unlikely as a function of the intercosmos metric separation to increasingly different cosmi.
Note well that these constraints mean that no matter what, they aren't going to "bypass" a shield with a neutron flux, because there are going to be no nearby cosmi/branes in which the shield does not exist.
Note well in addition the response to those who suggest that this might be a way of viewing tunnelling. It is indeed -- the alternative cosmi are one of the POSSIBLE (I don't say plausible) interpretations of path integral formulations of quantum mechanics, integrated out. But in this case you STILL won't get tunneling through a barrier centimeters thick.
So this is a pointless experiment. One might as well just look for egregious violations of mass-energy conservation in everyday experiments, because if there is any substantive probability of mass energy departing our own spacetime cosmos and appearing in another "nearby" one, it would happen all the time and all mass concentrations would diffuse out into a multicosmo heat death.
Gravitation is an excellent possibility as the coupling between branes/cosmi -- one would guess that the "dimpling" of one spacetime dimples all of the neighboring ones on all sides (however many "sides" there are:-). The dimples probably don't have to precisely correspond, but they are likely to have to approximately correspond to minimize almost any sort of coupling across the sheets that permits a transition to occur in the first place.
rgb
Success would work well for me (Score:3)
Gravity should be a stronger force than it is, it's seen as sharing this force between dimensions weakening it in ours.
A successful outcome of this experiment to me, would help prove my thinking that dark matter is in a different dimension. it's gravity affecting ours.
Apparently I'm not alone in this thinking as en.wikipedia.org had this listed as a theory, yet not one seemed as a very viable. I thought I had a great brain fart until finding it listed and very lightly at that.
Preservation of proximity (Score:2)
The experiment seems to be based on the assumption that a particle leaving and returning our universe would be likely to enter closely to where it left - is this an inevitable part of brane theory, or could the particle come out somewhere else entirely?
Re:What did I miss? (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea is to create so many they couldn't help to jump back and forth. To (hopefully) leak into another brane and (hopefully) leak back.
If they just sit in the middle of nowhere, it's a hope that an abnormally large source from another brane just happens to emit in that particular spot at the right time. In other words, beyond improbable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What ensures the detected neutron isn't just some other neutron?
Re: (Score:2)
What ensures the detected neutron isn't just some other neutron?
Be quiet, or they'll lose their funding! This project is just a front for funding their DeLorean time machine.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to have the branes to figure it out yourself...
Re: (Score:2)
Not a single thing.
Re:What did I miss? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What did I miss? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the baseline expectation is derived from experience with previous, presumably brane-leaky, shielding.
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible that there are historical measurements that were recorded and examine those for possible differences, but ideally in order to run an experiment like this you would need to be taking specific measurements along with recording specific information about the reactor state and shielding involved, which may not have been done already.
Ideally they would be using their own, very carefully built s
Re: (Score:3)
Well, they derive how much the shielding should be blocking, so they can go back to fundamentals there.
What fundamental laws that lack constants based on empirical measurements would they use?
The way you know how much radiation a 1" lead plate blocks is by passing radiation through a 1" lead plate. If you figure it out by looking up a figure in a reference book, it is only because somebody else did the measurement and put the constant in a book for you to look up.
Those experiments would have already accounted for leaking between branes. You'd need two complementary ways to do the measurement, with one of t
Re: (Score:3)
Spitballing here, but the level of neutrons that get blocked by shielding is proportional to the amount of shielding, and the level of neutrons that tunnel out is some sigma of the density of the number of neutrons still travelling in the correct direction to hit the sensor, while the level of neutrons that tunnel back is not related to the amount of shielding at all, so measurements at different levels of shielding should create a solvable system of equations. Assuming there is no shielding present in the
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly by doing something that would potentially create an trans-dimensional particle flux substantially greater than spontaneous matter creation. Like, oh, I don't know... maybe operating a heavily shielded high-neutron flux nuclear reactor right next to a heavily shielded neutron detector.
Also, last I heard spontaneous matter creation doesn't happen. What does happen is the spontaneous creation of virtual particles (kind of like matter, if you have a sufficiently short attention span) and the conversio
Re: (Score:2)
And as I was pointing out, that isn't actually spontaneous creation of matter - which would violate conservation of energy laws rather badly. We've known for decades that matter and energy can spontaneously transmute between states - that's something *VERY* different than spontaneous creation.
Re: (Score:2)
For quite some time the alternate theory is that they (and the force of gravity) leak in and out of our univer
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but that "almost instantly annihilate", along with the fact that said annihilation is not accompanied by the energy burst you'd expect from "real" particle annihilation (or else it wouldn't count as "borrowed from the future", and we'd all be bathed in a steady glow of omnipresent high-energy radiation) is why they're considered "virtual" particles rather than matter. Hit them with a burst of energy to "pay the debt" while they still exist, and you can convert them to normal particles.
I hadn't heard t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm French! How do you think I got this outrageous experiment design?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Am I looking at my calendar wrong? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess you haven't been keeping up with physics lately, but this kind of thing has been seriously discussed for decades, and has gained a lot of momentum in the last 10 years or so. The only thing slowing down the development of the science of alternate universes is inability to make falsifiable predictions. While not finding neutrons we can't account for wouldn't disprove anything, finding them could be the biggest science news since the prediction of and then discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background.
It's a weird world out there and the possibilities of what reality really consists of are getting weirder and weirder and yet more plausible at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's consistent with all the stuff we know now that we didn't know 30 years ago. Look up inflation cosmology.
Re:Am I looking at my calendar wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good. I like when things are questioned. I read both Brian Greene and Lee Smolin.
Nonetheless, there are predictions that can be made based on current research, and it makes sense to try them out if there's a reasonable way to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is a solid indication that you have gone insane in the membrane.
Re: (Score:2)
... I have so many coathangers. I don't remember buying most of them.
Mind blown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is ever "perfect."
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid calling it a "brane" makes me think more the former than the latter.
"Brane" is simply an abbreviation of "membrane" that indicates it has more than three dimensions.
Or is this just one of those wacky theories physicists come up with and then try to find evidence for?
All scientific theories are "wacky" until evidence is found, maths is not evidence but it is very often a good clue. The problem with things like cosmology and quantum mechanics is that it is unexplainable in any language other than math. The "average person" doesn't have the required fluency in math to even read it, let alone examine the consequences that flow from it. I have a math degree but this math is a ve
Re: (Score:3)
They set up the same experiment, but do NOT put the shield in place, so as to facilitate the discovery in our brane.
A universe where they are, through altruism, trying to help us out with no expectation of reward.
What a nice brane! Thanks guys!
The proposed experiment does not require an other-dimensional intelligence conducting an identical experiment, jut another universe. The neutrons would leak out of our universe and then back in, untouched.
Re: (Score:3)