Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Anything can be discussed, tempers may flare.
This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site.

Moderator: CharmQuark

Forum rules
Any controversial topic can be discussed. Freedom of expression is encouraged. The scientific validity of things posted in this forum may stray from reality quite wildly and the reader is advised to keep that in mind. Please refrain from bad language and DO NOT get overly abusive with other members. You MUST post in English. It is OK to have fiercely intense debate. This forum has no connection with CERN, the LHC or my site. The views here do not represent the forum's views or my views in any way. It is meant as a place to debate or discuss subjects that may create heated debate. Almost no moderation will occur in this forum at all.
Beast
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:05 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Beast » Fri Feb 12, 2010 7:50 am

>Magnetic hole can ruin the Earth in the period from 1000 seconds to 1000 days.

Dear Stephen. What time you collapsed for?

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:27 am

MagneticTrap wrote:Again to deadly error with cosmic rays.

Let’s see at Analogy and at Example.

Analogy.
1. What will happen, if a neutron with kinetic energy of several eV would collide with a nucleus? The following answer will be valid for most nuclei of periodic system: “Nucleus will capture the neutron and its mass number will grow per one unit”.
2. What will happen, if a neutron with kinetic energy of several TeV would collide with a nucleus? The nucleus will be ruined.
The case 1 corresponds to “collider hole”, and we can see there the matter’s capture and the growth of “nuclear quasi-hole”, (nucleus).
The case 2 corresponds to “cosmic hole”, and we can see there the destruction of “nuclear quasi-hole” by high energy neutron.

Example.
Let two protons collide with 1 TeV energies. Rest energy of proton is about 1GeV (0.001TeV), i.e. 1000 times smaller. Consequently, relativistic coefficient gamma is 1000. Let in this double-TeV collision a magnetic hole was created. Let it has 1000 x-bosons. Then the rest mass of a hole can be 4/3 TeV. The rest, 2/3 TeV of collision energy, goes into radiation. That means that the total binding energy of magnetic hole is also 2/3 TeV, and the binding energy of every x-boson in hole is 2/3000 TeV.

Let’s suppose that exactly the same magnetic hole was created at a collision of a cosmic proton with atmospheric proton. This “cosmic magnetic hole” will have exactly the same velocity as a collider proton. Consequently, in a reference system of this cosmic hole, all atmospheric protons will have kinetic energies about 1 TeV. This energy is bigger than the binding energy of a hole (2/3 TeV). Consequently, the cosmic hole will be ruined almost immediately after the first collision of a hole with atmospheric particle. A shower of secondary particle will be formed and it can be registered as “a cosmic rays shower”.

Conclusions.
1. Collision of 1-TeV protons at collider corresponds to collision of almost 0-TeV atmospheric proton with 2000-TeV cosmic proton.
2. “Cosmic magnetic hole” are ruined almost immediately. “Collider magnetic hole” can capture the ordinary matter and grow.

The 20-th of February CERN begins the “work” with 3.5 TeV energies per particle. I give 50% that the Earth will be exploded in the nearest weeks. This probability is grounded on two independent math proves, giving almost the same result, and on a dozen of additional arguments. Several scientific articles, which give some conclusions analogues to mine, except catastrophic predictions, were found.

PS. Some results of December collisions were published recently by CMS group. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/lhc- ... -0205.html It was found that the quantities of ejected mesons were unpredictably high. I think that these high transverse mesons currents prove the theory of magnetic hole. Any of next collider collision can create a stable exited magnetized region of vacuum, which was named “magnetic hole”. Magnetic hole can ruin the Earth in the period from 1000 seconds to 1000 days.

http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ru.html
Allan wrote:You appear to be expecting a lot from Ivan here. He hasn't shown any logic yet so what makes you think he will start now?
I wrote many posts. In every post I try to follow the logical chain. Can you show me an error in the upper post? According to this logical chain, CERN physicists made an error in the comparison of collider and cosmo-atmospheric particle collisions.
chriwi wrote:can you please explain why you think that the unpredicted mesons-production-rates add proove to the idea of magnetic holes.
I think that at some energy there is a boundary where the vacuum can transit from anti-ferromagnetic state into ferromagnetic state. Magnetic hole is stable in ferromagnetic state. It can ruin the ordinary matter and grow.

What will happen to this structure if some x-bosons would have inverse orientation of electric charge? Image

An answer: “The structure will decay, ejecting two jets of mesons in directions, transverse to collision plane of protons.”

Near the boundary value of collision energy the x-bosons structure is ruined. After the boundary the construction is stable. According to the article, quoted by me earlier, the boundary is somewhere near 1 TeV collisions.
Stephen wrote:Why are you convinced these articles help your case, when their authors don't seem to be concerned over the LHC?
I do not know, why they did not answer me. It is probable I have problems with my e-mail box.
Stephen wrote:Regarding your cosmic analogy - if they are not dangerous, then how was Phaeton exploded? It's especially weird considering what you said about the existence of dense planets such as white dwarfs and neutron stars.
1. Phaeton could be exploded by their citizens with the help of collider.
2. Phaeton could be exploded by magnetic hole, created by two cosmic particles, which collided near Phaeton. In this case the velocities and trajectories of these particles must be very special. Probability of two cosmic particles collision in the vicinity of a planet is very small. Such collision indeed is dangerous but it is very rare. Collisions of cosmic protons with atmospheric ones are much probable. But these collisions are safe.

In fact, stars do explode, for example SN 1987A. This explosion contradicts to theory, - because the progenitor star was a blue giant, but not a red one, as theory says. The causes of SN 1987A explosion can be the same, as causes, written upper for Phaeton explosion.

Beast
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 8:05 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Beast » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:01 am

Тебе Иван необходимо лечиться от алкоголизма, как и твоим собеседникам.

User avatar
Allan
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Denver, Colorado

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Allan » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:28 pm

Allan wrote:You appear to be expecting a lot from Ivan here. He hasn't shown any logic yet so what makes you think he will start now?
Ivan wrote:I wrote many posts. In every post I try to follow the logical chain. Can you show me an error in the upper post? According to this logical chain, CERN physicists made an error in the comparison of collider and cosmo-atmospheric particle collisions.
Since you have asked me, I will tell you that everything I have seen from you either here or on your web page is so far removed from logic if I would have submitted it as a proof in any of the logic classes I attended while in college the professors would have rejected the proof out of hand because it bares absolute no resemblance to the logical methods they taught. So far everything I see from you is more of a rant then it is a logic proof. Until I see something from you which follows the rules of a logic proof, I stand by my original opinion of you that everything you say should be totally and absolutely ignored.

Allan
Last edited by Allan on Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Shadowdraxx » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:34 pm

also worth noting by your own "calculations" we should be gone already Ivan, as we are still here discussing it, well clearly you are wrong, in some assumtions.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:21 pm

Maybe he'll be more relaxed if you checked his calculations and point out exactly why he's wrong.
Beast wrote:>Magnetic hole can ruin the Earth in the period from 1000 seconds to 1000 days.

Dear Stephen. What time you collapsed for?
Sorry, I just went to sleep. :sleeping-blue:

Also, not be annoying - but could someone once and for all explain me the situation regarding heavy ion collisions?

User avatar
Xymox
Site Admin
Posts: 1022
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 12:55 pm
Location: Phoenix, Az USA
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Xymox » Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:45 am

-NO- Russian in the forum. Posts MUST be in English...

Thats a RULE... Violate this again Beast and banning will result.

User avatar
MagneticTrap
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by MagneticTrap » Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:32 am

Here (arXiv:0711.2845v1 [hep-lat] 19 Nov 2007) we can read about gluon condensate, or so called “color ferromagnetic vacuum state”, firstly proposed by Savvidy about thirty years ago.

Here is also ferromagnetic exited vacuum.
Image
I think that such magnetized regions can be created at proton-proton collisions. Do you see the lattice?

Here is also “Lattice QCD in strong magnetic fields” http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 1808v2.pdf

Here (arXiv:0710.1084v2 [hep-ph] 23 Jan 2008) you can read that such magnetic domains are stable. And I will add: “They can grow if there is an ordinary matter in vicinity”.

Here (arXiv:hep-ph/0508219v1 20 Aug 2005) you can find that some neutron stars (magnetars) do not consist from neutrons (baryons), but are color ferromagnetic, - di-quark condensate, where magnetic dipoles are formed from monopoles.

In all these articles you can find approximately the same value of critical magnetic field (10^16 T, or 10^20 G).

The microscopic embryo of such abnormal magnetized matter will be created soon at LHC and our Solar system will go to the stars cemetery.
Stephen wrote: Maybe he'll be more relaxed if you checked his calculations and point out exactly why he's wrong.
My computed value of critical magnetic field approximately coincides with results in all these and others articles. It can be achieved somewhere about 1-TeV collisions.
…but could someone once and for all explain me the situation regarding heavy ion collisions?

At RHIC there were already received progenitors of a dangerous matter, so called fireballs. In some articles one can find the observed value of magnetic field in the RHIC collisions (10^15T), which is slightly less than my computed value of critical field, when anti ferromagnetic vacuum transforms into a stable ferromagnetic state.

Wait a couple of weeks. It is possible we will survive. I give 50% on our survival.

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Shadowdraxx » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:00 pm

ORION111 wrote:
Stephen wrote:Maybe he'll be more relaxed if you checked his calculations and point out exactly why he's wrong.
Start from where?
hmmmm thats the key to this entire thread and everyones point against Ivans theory, there are no calculations, its all "I think", "I give" etc etc.

So if we to look at the higgs mechanism, then we see the mathimatical equations that show why its such an important solution to the standard model, it fills the gaps with numbers that add up.

By not being able to do this, its all simply pseudoscience.

Everyone knows regardless of what they "believe" in, that maths is the talking language when it comes to physics, and this is what i find a joke 18 months ivan has had to break this down into some equations and well they dont exist, why is this?

Either A:

he doesnt have a clue, and has no right talking with authority about something he cant grasp. (NOTE: asking the question is great, TELLING OTHERS THEY ARE WRONG when u dont know yourself is epic fail).

B:

He cant make the numbers add up because it doesnt make any sense.

C:

He knows it isnt true but is obsessed.

I know im being harsh here Ivan but your love for dramatics really does concern some people, i just wanna throw some simple facts back in regardless of the "theories", which get all the attention.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:12 pm

ORION111 wrote: Start from where?
Anywhere. Check his equations, his claims about X-bosons (besides of the fact that no one even knows if they exist), and his recent claims about "ferromagnetic state", "exited vacuum", RHIC fireballs etc. I know that it's probably doesn't even make sense, but it would be great if you could point out exactly where he's wrong instead of just repeating that he's insane.

Plus, I have unanswered questions (not involving Ivan's theory) - according to the ion frontier you wrote, the LHC will be colliding heavy ions with an energy of 2.76 TeV. While searching for heavy ion collision in cosmic rays I found only collisions of up to 500 GeV.
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/ ... rayshi.jpg

Does this mean the energy of heavy ion collisions in the LHC will exceed the energy of heavy ion collisions in nature? (again, I'm not talking about proton proton collisions which we all know go up to 10^20 eV, but about heavy ion collisions). Some people tried to tell me there's no difference, but the RHIC safety report specifically says they don't know which type of collision is more affective at triggering phase transition, so they checked both types. The LSAG report says it didn't relied on any new information regarding vacuum bubbles.
http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/docs/rhicreport.pdf

I asked rpenner and he gave me an answer, but I don't understand his math.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 582&st=315
(my inquires started 2 pages earlier, but I didn't get any straight up answers).

User avatar
Tau
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 168
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: Heemskerk, Netherlands

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Tau » Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:33 pm

Being a humble mathematician, I'll try to convert the math into plain English.
It is something like this:
Physically, the "danger" of a collision is determined by its total energy; we don't care what is collided.
Converting the energy of a heavy ion collision to a "regular" proton collision, it is even less energetic than the 7 TeV proton collisions.
Conclusion: it is less likely that anything special would happen here than with a proton collision, so there is nothing to worry about.
Can a "real" physicist check if I got it right, please?
- Tau

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Sun Feb 14, 2010 12:41 am

The RHIC safety report disagrees with this conclusion.
Last edited by Stephen on Sun Apr 04, 2010 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

Shadowdraxx
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Shadowdraxx » Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:06 am

really? where does it say that collisions @ lhc are dangerous?
But ECM is surely not the right measure of the capacity of
a collision to trigger exotic new phenomena. If it were, a batter striking a major league
fastball would be performing a far more dangerous experiment than any contemplated at a
high energy accelerator. To be effective in triggering exotic new phenomena, energy must
be concentrated in a very small volume.

to me this is the only point worth stating, density is the same energy is higher, so whats the beef, or am I missing something?.

According to Auger they get around 30 Mega events per year, From AGN's
The exact mechanism of how AGNs can accelerate particles to energies 100 million times higher than the most powerful particle accelerator on Earth is still a mystery.
So to me its clear a collison 100 million times higher than a collider is going to have a density that far outweighs our LHC no?.

Stephen
Posts: 496
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:05 am

This is the part I'm referring to
Not knowing which would be more effective at triggering a transition, Hut and Rees
looked both at proton-proton collisions and collisions of heavy nuclei. Cosmic ray data on
proton fluxes go up to energies of order 10^20 eV [3]. They conclude that proton-proton
collisions with a center of mass energy exceeding 10^8 TeV have occurred so frequently in our
past light cone that even such astonishingly high energy collisions can be considered safe.
For heavy ions, Hut and Rees derived an estimate of the number of cosmic ray collisions in
our past light cone,

User avatar
photino
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:28 am

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by photino » Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:09 am

Stephen. It seems to me your question is, what if a quark-gluon plasma such as that created at RHIC or LHC heavy-ion collisions "somehow" catalyses a vacuum transition, so that heavy ion collisions at 2.8 TeV/nucleon are somehow more risky than p-p collisions at that energy. Is there cosmic ray data for heavy ions in this energy range to rule this out.

Now I am no expert on this stuff and maybe you should email one of the authors of your favourite paper. However, I just did a quick google for a reasonably-up-to-date review of cosmic rays. This looks OK:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 ... 0725v1.pdf

I won't pretend to have read much of this review, but have a look at figure 9. It appears iron ion cosmic rays have been observed up to 10^8 GeV. Iron has atomic weight ~56, so this is around 10^4 TeV/nucleon!

Cosmic rays become harder to observe experimentally the higher the energy and the higher the atomic weight (because they are rarer, and so the chance of one hitting your detector is lower). But from Fig. 17 it seems there is even some experimental indication that iron cosmic rays go up to around 10^6 TeV, though the data gets much thinner there.
Last edited by photino on Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply