FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
COLLIDERS
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
avergon@verizon.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:06 pm    Post subject: COLLIDERS Reply with quote

PARTICLE PHYSICS


If you take two pieces of china and smash them together violently, what
do you get?
Small shards flying in all directions.

If you take two protons and smash them together violently, what do you
get? Small shards
flying in all directions.

The difference is that in the case of the protons the shards are
standing waves with charge, etc., - but shards nonetheless.

However, as standing waves, they are not in resonance and so are
unstable. Thus they immediately reduce to resonant frequencies and
become other stable particles. This is known as "decay".

IN NO WAY ARE THESE SHARDS FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES.

Classifying the plethora of shards became a project - a not too
successful project. Gell-Mann attempted
to find common denominators to the "atomic zoo". Thus was born
Quarks - which was extended to ridiculous heights and declared super
particles that were the composition of protons and neutrons, etc.
Folly at its best.

In order to keep their jobs, the accelerator operators laid on the
biggest con job in the world. After all they had to keep the money
rolling in or they were out of a job. Besides, they had an unearned
prestige to keep up.

Below is a sample of their technique.


"The machine could cost more than $6 billion, would measure roughly
20 miles from one side to the other and would require so many advanced
technologies that no single country could supply them all. Its goal
would be to mine the areas opened up by evidence indicating that
ultra-powerful new accelerators may be crucial in explaining not just
the nature of matter and energy but also the birth of the universe and
the structure of space and time themselves.
According to some theories, the machine could see evidence for
previously unknown dimensions, beyond the usual four, lurking right
under humanity's noses. Elusive particles that account for most of the
mass of the entire universe - the so-called dark matter - could
also turn up.
Scientists also hope to test theories that describe how the universe
may have behaved in its first explosive instants and to work out the
detailed properties of a particle called the Higgs boson. Believed to
be the key to why other particles have mass, the Higgs, if it exists,
may be discovered by accelerators now operating or being built."

Can you believe that?

What we have here is a plethora of very definite maybes and qualified
perhaps.:

"the machine COULD see"

"COULD also turn up"

"also HOPE to test - and work out"

" Higgs boson --- BELIEVED to be"

"Higgs, IF it exists"

"MAY be discovered"
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:09 pm    Post subject: Re: COLLIDERS Reply with quote

In article <1150999575.692852.210500@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, Do
Do <avergon@verizon.net> wrote:

<snipped garbage>

*PLONK*

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
Dr Ivan D. Reid
science forum beginner


Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:41 pm    Post subject: Re: COLLIDERS Reply with quote

On 22 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, Do Do <avergon@verizon.net>
wrote in <1150999575.692852.210500@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

Quote:
However, as standing waves, they are not in resonance

Oh, FFS, look up the necessary condition for a standing wave.
Everything else colapses on that misapprehension...


--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Back to top
avergon@verizon.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:49 pm    Post subject: Re: COLLIDERS Reply with quote

Dr Ivan D. Reid wrote:
Quote:
On 22 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, Do Do <avergon@verizon.net
wrote in <1150999575.692852.210500@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

However, as standing waves, they are not in resonance

Oh, FFS, look up the necessary condition for a standing wave.
Everything else colapses on that misapprehension...


--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

VERGON
Thank you for your comment.
You are right, I spoke too loosely. I meant FREE-standing wave, meaning
a group wave that because of resonance maintains its existence
independantly -- like elctrons, protons and neutrons. When that
resonance is absent, the group deteriorates to a stable quantity.
Photons, that are configured consecutively, follow superposition and
Gaussian group waves. That is another ball game.
Back to top
avergon@verizon.net
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Jan 2006
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Sat Jun 24, 2006 3:54 pm    Post subject: Re: COLLIDERS Reply with quote

Dr Ivan D. Reid wrote:
Quote:
On 22 Jun 2006 11:06:15 -0700, Do Do <avergon@verizon.net
wrote in <1150999575.692852.210500@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:

However, as standing waves, they are not in resonance

Oh, FFS, look up the necessary condition for a standing wave.
Everything else colapses on that misapprehension...


--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

ps

VERGON
I will overlook your inference that I am stupid because sooner ot later
you will learn better. Smile
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:58 pm    Post subject: Re: COLLIDERS Reply with quote

Do Do wrote:
Quote:
PARTICLE PHYSICS


If you take two pieces of china and smash them together violently, what
do you get?
Small shards flying in all directions.

If you take two protons and smash them together violently, what do you
get? Small shards
flying in all directions.

Quite often, there are multiple protons flying in all directions, along
with other particles that are no more "shards" than protons are,
including electrons, neutrons, pions, kaons, photons, etc. So if there
are protons in the final state, is that shards producing shards?

Quote:

The difference is that in the case of the protons the shards are
standing waves

Standing waves? What makes you say that?

Quote:
with charge, etc., - but shards nonetheless.

However, as standing waves, they are not in resonance and so are
unstable. Thus they immediately reduce to resonant frequencies and
become other stable particles. This is known as "decay".

IN NO WAY ARE THESE SHARDS FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLES.

Of course not. The fundamental particles are, as far as we know, quarks
and leptons. The leptons are seen in the final state (electrons, for
example). Quarks are not -- they get dressed into hadrons.

Quote:

Classifying the plethora of shards became a project - a not too
successful project. Gell-Mann attempted
to find common denominators to the "atomic zoo". Thus was born
Quarks - which was extended to ridiculous heights and declared super
particles that were the composition of protons and neutrons, etc.
Folly at its best.

In order to keep their jobs, the accelerator operators laid on the
biggest con job in the world. After all they had to keep the money
rolling in or they were out of a job. Besides, they had an unearned
prestige to keep up.

Nonsense. Accelerator operators had other jobs BEFORE the decision to
build an accelerator was made.

Quote:

Below is a sample of their technique.


"The machine could cost more than $6 billion, would measure roughly
20 miles from one side to the other and would require so many advanced
technologies that no single country could supply them all. Its goal
would be to mine the areas opened up by evidence indicating that
ultra-powerful new accelerators may be crucial in explaining not just
the nature of matter and energy but also the birth of the universe and
the structure of space and time themselves.
According to some theories, the machine could see evidence for
previously unknown dimensions, beyond the usual four, lurking right
under humanity's noses. Elusive particles that account for most of the
mass of the entire universe - the so-called dark matter - could
also turn up.
Scientists also hope to test theories that describe how the universe
may have behaved in its first explosive instants and to work out the
detailed properties of a particle called the Higgs boson. Believed to
be the key to why other particles have mass, the Higgs, if it exists,
may be discovered by accelerators now operating or being built."

Can you believe that?

Yup.

Quote:

What we have here is a plethora of very definite maybes and qualified
perhaps.:

"the machine COULD see"

"COULD also turn up"

"also HOPE to test - and work out"

" Higgs boson --- BELIEVED to be"

"Higgs, IF it exists"

"MAY be discovered"

Right. That's why you need to build it. If you knew the answer ahead of
time, there would be no need to build the instrument to look for it,
would you?

Why do you need to build a telescope? To look for things you can't yet
see.
Why do you need to build a better microscope? To look for things you
can't yet see.

PD
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [6 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:00 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  


Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0219s ][ Queries: 11 (0.0020s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]