quote Divinorse

quote Aurora

From what I understand it's something which they'd like to test in particle accelerators but haven't done so yet, so yes, you're pretty much correct.

Isn't the particle accelerator something that scientists use to speed atoms up at enormous rates and then smash them together to break them up and see what(smaller) particles are inside of them(of course protons, electrons, and neutrons, but other things I believe).

Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Although it isn't as exact as that, the put billions upon billions of PARTICLES firing at each other and hope they hit.

You can get electrons from a device called an electron gun, which boils electrons off a filament. An electron gun is basically the same device you have in the back of your TV or your computer monitor. You can get protons by ionizing (that is, stripping the electrons off of) hydrogen gas, whose atoms consist of one proton plus one electron. To get other types particles, you need to smash your accelerated protons or electrons into something else in order to produce other particles, then use some fancy particle selection techniques to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were.

There are 2 types of PA's. Ones that fire into a stationary object and the other that fires them at each other such as electrons or positrons into protons.


They have many uses, mainly just varying research. But they can be used usefully in Medicine and Industry. Most notably the production of radioisotopes.



Append Quote Prepend Quote

I think it's more a matter of them not being forbidden by current theories, or them being proposed based on a "missing piece of the jigsaw". For example, numerous sub-atomic particles were discovered on the basis that charge (or mass or momentum) weren't conserved during decay or other radioactive processes. But, because we know that charge et. al. are always conserved within a system, a particle x, which hadn't yet been detected at the time was proposed to "balance the books", so to speak. By introducing this particle, the laws of conservation were upheld and everything looked fine. This particle was probably not actually detected until some time after it had been proposed, but the point is that it did indeed exist and the missing charge/mass/momentum was accounted for and attributed to this particle. Getting back to the inter-dimensional particle mentioned by Dragoon, I wouldn't be surprised if a similar reason is present here, which is why the scientists want to search for a particle with such behaviour to confirm or disprove their theories. From what I understand it's something which they'd like to test in particle accelerators but haven't done so yet, so yes, you're pretty much correct.



Append Quote Prepend Quote

I found stuff about certain particles which have been thought by some to slip in and out of numerous spatial dimensions, but not much about time travel of any sort (besides the (pseudo) 'time travel' which is already accepted to happen).

I'm not even sure what "bouncing in and out of time" means.



Append Quote Prepend Quote

quote Aurora

quote Dragoon

Time travel is possible but only on an atomic level. According to scientists, atoms bounce in an out of time on a regular basis.

I can't find anything saying that. What I can find is articles about atomic time travel being hypothetically considered. That's not even comparable to something which is actually real.

It was mentioned on Wonders of the Universe IIRC. In which case I may have misinterpreted.



Append Quote Prepend Quote

quote Dragoon

Time travel is possible but only on an atomic level. According to scientists, atoms bounce in an out of time on a regular basis.

I can't find anything saying that. What I can find is articles about atomic time travel being hypothetically considered. That's not even comparable to something which is actually real.



Append Quote Prepend Quote