LHC - Could it be put on "hold" due to lawsuit?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>centsworth, you are correct I was saying new particles were not being created. --&nbsp; Posted by mickeyl</DIV></font></p><p>One thing you said in your previous post:&nbsp; <font color="#333399">"</font><font><font color="#333399">I believe that particles observed during the collision of two protons, are simply momentary fragments of created mass," <font color="#000000">actually made sense.&nbsp; How do you explain that?&nbsp; Did you not mean to say that new particles -- "created mass" -- resulted from a collision?</font><br /></font></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>centsworth, you are correct I was saying new particles were not being created.&nbsp; They may be created in the minds of the scientists at the lhc.&nbsp; Observing the destruction of a proton does not indicate any secret proton structure, only fragments of destroyed mass.&nbsp; Somewhat like an ice cube dropped on a hot summer sidewalk, that shatters into many pieces then evaporates and disappears.&nbsp; Just like CERN, the LHC will be worthless. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>IF a proton were to break up and any individual pieces were detected, that would be a BIG DEAL.&nbsp; It would in fact be the first direct detection of a quark.</p><p>A fragment of destroyed mass IS a new particle.&nbsp; Mass and energy are really the same thing, and that energy can be manifested in different ways.&nbsp; The job of the LHC is to reveal some of those different ways.&nbsp; Neither CERN nor the LHC are likely to be worthless, though one might possibly debate the return on investment, since they are quite expensive.&nbsp; But given the sort of knowledge and understanding of the universe that might result, I think the money is pretty well spent.</p><p>&nbsp;The subject is elementary particle physics.&nbsp; And elementary particles are called elementary for a reason.&nbsp; So when a particle breaks up into smaller particles at the level at which the LHC experiments are conducted one learns a bit more than comes from breaking up an ice cube.&nbsp; The pieces of an ice cube are pretty much just smaller ice cubes.&nbsp; But the pieces of a proton are not smaller protons.</p><p>What seems to be worthless is neither CERN nor the LHC but rather your uninformed opinion.&nbsp; Everybody has a right ot an opinion.&nbsp; But opinions are not all created equal.&nbsp; Some opinions ought to be kept to oneself.&nbsp; You basically have two choices.&nbsp; You can keep quiet and perhaps people will wonder if you are a fool.&nbsp; Or you can speak up and remove all doubt. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>centsworth, you are correct I was saying new particles were not being created.&nbsp; They may be created in the minds of the scientists at the lhc.&nbsp; Observing the destruction of a proton does not indicate any secret proton structure, only fragments of destroyed mass.&nbsp; Somewhat like an ice cube dropped on a hot summer sidewalk, that shatters into many pieces then evaporates and disappears.&nbsp; Just like CERN, the LHC will be worthless. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure you're translating correctly in your posts.&nbsp; Surely, you are not suggesting that the resulting particles are somehow "<em>smaller</em> protons?"&nbsp; Do you mean, however, these are constituent components of a proton and that they are somewhat combined and result in a "proton" yet can not exist in that state after the collision?&nbsp; The first interpreation has serious problems.&nbsp; The second interpretation has less problems. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<p><font size="2">MeteorWayne:&nbsp;&nbsp;Every physicst agrees the "Standard Model of Particle Physics" does not work.&nbsp; It breaks down totally when gravity is introduced.</font></p><p><font size="2">a-lost-packet:&nbsp; No, I am saying protons were created from positive-charge-energy, and the fragments created in a collider, are simply remnants&nbsp;of a mass-particle being destroyed, and converted back into it's primal substance.&nbsp; As you know the fragments vanish instantly after their detection.</font></p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MeteorWayne:&nbsp;&nbsp;Every physicst agrees the "Standard Model of Particle Physics" does not work.&nbsp; It breaks down totally when gravity is introduced.a-lost-packet:&nbsp; No, I am saying protons were created from positive-charge-energy, and the fragments created in a collider, are simply remnants&nbsp;of a mass-particle being destroyed, and converted back into it's primal substance.&nbsp; As you know the fragments vanish instantly after their detection. <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>Your assertion is absurd.&nbsp; No responsible physicist has ever or would ever make such a statement.&nbsp; The standard model seems to give very good predictions of the behavior of elementary particles under most conditions.&nbsp; It is quite well known that no quantum theory currently extant is able to incorporate general relativity.&nbsp; However, gravity is not an important factor in most&nbsp;physical problems.</p><p>There are situations in which a theory that can handlle both quantum effects and large gravitatinal fields is called for.&nbsp; Black holes and the conditions near the time of the Big Bang are two such situations.&nbsp; That is one reason on the research emphasis in attemptin to formulate a quantum theory of gravity.&nbsp; Unfortunately efforts to do so have not been successful thus far.</p><p>The remainder of you post is gibberish.&nbsp;It cannot be refuted because it makes no sense whatever.&nbsp; If you could restate your premise more clearly the gibberish might rise to the level of rubbish.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....a-lost-packet:&nbsp; No, I am saying protons were created from positive-charge-energy, and the fragments created in a collider, are simply remnants&nbsp;of a mass-particle being destroyed, and converted back into it's primal substance.&nbsp; As you know the fragments vanish instantly after their detection. Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>Are you just inventing words here? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...converted back into it's primal substance. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></font></p><p>It looks to me like you are basing your understanding of reality on 2500 year old Greek philosophy.&nbsp; Twentieth century scientists have learned a thing or two since then.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

arkady

Guest
<p>Wasn't this the same guy (Walter L. Wagner) that tried to stop RHIC collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory? To my knowledge Long Island is not a big hole in the ground. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I recently came across&nbsp;a radio program&nbsp;containing a lengthy interview with a Danish professor in theoretical astrophysics that was part of the 5 man expertpanel&nbsp;set in place by CERN to&nbsp;adress these worries. Basicly he was trying to explain the reasoning behind why it was deemed safe, and I thought I'd try&nbsp; to convey his explanations as best I can.&nbsp;First of all he was careful to explain that in a mathematical sense there is no such thing as zero probability, so trying to calculate the risk by means of physics and mathematics quickly becomes an exercise in futility. However with the help of quite simple physical considerations and simple logic&nbsp;all of the suggested scenarios can be refuted. </p><p>It seems three scenarios has been described that would be capable of causing&nbsp;catastrophic results.</p><p>1)&nbsp;&nbsp; Black Hole. By far the most discussed. Presumably because it is the simplest to grasp. Ironically quite a few physical theories actually predictics such phenomena to appear in the LHC. However it's important to remember that black holes isn't necessarily especially heavy, they are just extremely dense. If you are anywhere but at the very surface of them, they do not exhibit any special gravitional properties. If&nbsp;we imagine the Sun being compressed to a black hole (about 10km radius afaik) the Earth would just continue it's orbit unaffected. </p><p>At CERN energy will be compressed to an extremely small area, but according to accepted physical principles not nearly dense enough to invoke black holes. By a factor of a million or so. However of you incorporate newer more speculative theories like superstring-theory that introduces more dimensions that come in to the picture at these extremely small distances it is&nbsp;conceivable that gravity could change behavior that might make black holes a possibility with respect to this experiment. But even if they were produced (a subject of great discussions&nbsp;I might add) as mentioned above there is no reason to think that they'd suddenly start sucking up all matter around them. Furthermore they would hardly be around for but a fraction of a second as they are thought to be unstable and will "vaporize" into (Hawking) radiation almost instantly.</p><p>2)&nbsp;&nbsp; Phaseshift. Like when water becomes ice. A common phenomena with respect to this is undercooling. When the water is actually in an unstable state a few degrees below zero in which it will suddenly turn to ice if disturbed. It is thought that the Universe has gone through phaseshifts like this very early in it's history and that it may have experienced states of similar unstability like undercooling. The big concern in this respect is the suggestion that the Universe might be in such a state right now, and that the experiments should somehow act as a catalyst much like the tapping&nbsp;a&nbsp;glass of undercooled water induces a phaseshift.&nbsp;The notion can readily be dismissed though considering that much more energetic events occur on a daily bases for example when cosmic rays collides with atmosphere or Earth itself. It should have happened a long time ago.</p><p>3)&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CERN also intends to collide much heavier objects than protons like lead atoms in an attempt to observe some kind of quark/gluon plasma or strangelets. Some have speculated that these could be thought to have a negative electrical charge and thereby attract and absorb atomic nuclei. In essence eating up our planet from within. However, while it is thought that these might actually be stable, according to simple physical considerations they'll always be positively charged. Should they, contrary to all knowledge, be allowed to&nbsp;exist with a negative charge&nbsp;they would be highly unstable and "degrade" extremely fast.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<p>&nbsp;<font size="2">centsworth said:&nbsp; It looks to me like you are basing your understanding of reality on 2500 year old Greek philosophy.&nbsp; Twentieth century scientists have learned a thing or two since then.</font></p><p><font size="2">---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></p><p><font size="2">Too bad the scientists can't understand what they've discovered.&nbsp; I believe the protons (all fragments) dissapear because they are converted back into energy.&nbsp; (Not into new entities.)</font></p><p><font size="2">&nbsp; I was saying mass (or the big bang) was created from the merging of positive and negative charged (massless) "energy".&nbsp; That the universe is suspended in "dark-matter", much as a gas bubble can be suspended in a loaf of bread.&nbsp; That&nbsp;the heat and energy of our universe is "eating away" the surface of the surrounding absolute-zero (temp.)&nbsp;dark-energy.&nbsp; This creates dark-energy-radiation ("space"), and&nbsp;accounts for our&nbsp;expanding universe.&nbsp; And it's&nbsp;dark-energy-radiation ("space") that causes&nbsp;electron&nbsp;(and atom) vibration (and charge) that has allowed the universe to exist (and evolve) for 13 billion years.&nbsp;</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;centsworth said:&nbsp; It looks to me like you are basing your understanding of reality on 2500 year old Greek philosophy.&nbsp; Twentieth century scientists have learned a thing or two since then.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Too bad the scientists can't understand what they've discovered.&nbsp; I believe the protons (all fragments) dissapear because they are converted back into energy.&nbsp; (Not into new entities.)&nbsp; I was saying mass (or the big bang) was created from the merging of positive and negative charged (massless) "energy".&nbsp; That the universe is suspended in "dark-matter", much as a gas bubble can be suspended in a loaf of bread.&nbsp; That&nbsp;the heat and energy of our universe is "eating away" the surface of the surrounding absolute-zero (temp.)&nbsp;dark-energy.&nbsp; This creates dark-energy-radiation ("space"), and&nbsp;accounts for our&nbsp;expanding universe.&nbsp; And it's&nbsp;dark-energy-radiation ("space") that causes&nbsp;electron&nbsp;(and atom) vibration (and charge) that has allowed the universe to exist (and evolve) for 13 billion years.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>This is pure gibberish.&nbsp; You have no idea what you are talking about.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/1/a5d292d7-c93b-4026-81ec-782f1260cf1a.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<p><font size="2">DrRocket said:&nbsp; "This is pure gibberish.&nbsp; You have no idea what you are talking about."</font></p><p><font size="2">----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></p><p><font size="2">When the LHC goes online, check out the results.&nbsp; They will again show spiraling, vanishing particles of matter.&nbsp; They'll again give these nano-second-existence particles exotic names.&nbsp; Useless research, the particles are being again converted back into Energy.&nbsp; Particle scientists are trying to make something; out of nothing.</font></p>
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<p><font color="#000080"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...When the LHC goes online, check out the results.&nbsp; They will again show spiraling, vanishing particles of matter.&nbsp; They'll again give these nano-second-existence particles exotic names.&nbsp; Useless research, the particles are being again converted back into Energy.&nbsp; Particle scientists are trying to make something; out of nothing. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></font></p><p>Well.&nbsp; You've actually got it partially right there.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p><p>The particle scientists are using high energy collisions to create particles that then decay into other particles and energy.&nbsp; Where you go wrong is in thinking that this is useless. &nbsp; Which "nano-second-existence particles" are created and how they decay provides a great deal of information which tells the researchers where their theories on the nature of existence are in agreement with reality (experimental results) and where they are not.&nbsp; This is only "useless" if you are of the opinion that building a theory that explains physical reality as accurately as possible is useless.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket said:&nbsp; "This is pure gibberish.&nbsp; You have no idea what you are talking about."----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------When the LHC goes online, check out the results.&nbsp; They will again show spiraling, vanishing particles of matter.&nbsp; They'll again give these nano-second-existence particles exotic names.&nbsp; Useless research, the particles are being again converted back into Energy.&nbsp; Particle scientists are trying to make something; out of nothing. <br /> Posted by mickeyl</DIV></p><p>It's&nbsp; only useless to the clueless...&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
M

mickeyl

Guest
<font size="2">Yes I agree, it is very easy for some people to become "clueless" when/after reading the mindless, eccentric theories of a few particle-physicists.</font>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts