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.
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 28, 2010 7:55 pm

Stephen wrote: I talked to John Ellis on the phone, and he took half an hour to answer all of my dumb questions without avoiding the point.
wow that was nice of him, anyone that takes the time to do this clearly has nothing to hide

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 » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:39 pm

IVAN

Come join us in chat !

Portal > Chat..

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 » Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:40 pm

Here you can clearly see the difference between a scientist and a crackpot.
If you ask a scientist questions, you get answers, and (s)he'll keep explaining until you understand.
If you ask a crackpot questions, you get nonsense, and (s)he'll keep blabbering until you believe.
- Tau

User avatar
CharmQuark
Site Admin
Posts: 1484
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:22 am
Location: Berwick-Upon-Tweed (UK)

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by CharmQuark » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:45 pm

Tau wrote:Here you can clearly see the difference between a scientist and a crackpot.
If you ask a scientist questions, you get answers, and (s)he'll keep explaining until you understand.
If you ask a crackpot questions, you get nonsense, and (s)he'll keep blabbering until you believe.
That is so true Tau :thumbup:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

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 » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:46 pm

Hi Tau;

All I can add to that is AMEN!

Allan

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 » Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:10 am

Stephen wrote:
MagneticTrap wrote: I think that the most dangerous terrorists are the authors of LSAG report.
Here is a phrase, told by one of them, by John Ellis:
“So, to finish the way to stop all this argument about whether the LHC is going to destroy the planet is to get the LHC working. Within a few weeks time, we will know that LSAG was right.”
I talked to John Ellis on the phone, and he took half an hour to answer all of my dumb questions without avoiding the point. It doesn't seem like a terrorist behavior to me.

Let me ask you something. Do you think the earthquakes in Haiti and Chile have anything to do with the LHC?

So basically if we survive the 3.5 TeV collisions, there is an 80% chance that we'll survivor the 7 TeV collisions as well? Do you accept the possibility that your theory can be incorrect?
1. Earthquakes. No, I think that those earthquakes are not the results of collider collisions. But I do not exclude that these earthquakes can be some constituent elements of a massive, which can lead to a ban of collider exploitation.

2. Yes. I give about 80% that we will survive after a billion 2*7 TeV collisions, if we would survive after a billion of 2*3.5 TeV collisions. The chance of death at 2*3.5 TeV step is about 50%. Collisions of 0.45 TeV energies are still dangerous, and we did not made a complete step even at this energy level.

If our civilization was a reasonable one, it would ban long ago the collisions with energy more than 0.1 TeV per particle.

3. I reread the LSAG report once more and found there another error. The binding energy of constituent element of strangelet is not several MeV, as they wrote there, but about 500 MeV. So, all their talks about thermal bath are erroneous. Strange matter is very dangerous!

The value 500 TeV, as a binding energy of (uds) in a strangelet N(uds) can easily be received from comparison with the rest energy of kaons K+ and K0, which are correspondingly 493 MeV and 497 MeV.
Kaons (K+=us; K0=ds) can be side products, occurring at the time of proton (p=uud) and neutron (n=udd) capture by strange matter N(uds):

N(uds) + p = (N+1)(uds) + K+ = (N+1)(uds) + e+ + 500 MeV.
(N+1)(uds) + n = (N+2)(uds) + K0 = (N+2)(uds) + 500 MeV.
...
...
...
Extremely powerful explosion.

This explosion has specific energy output, which is hundred times bigger than under the nuclear explosion.

By the way, at the time of November-December collisions there were more Kaons output that it was theoretically predicted. That means that we are very close to creation of this dead droplet which can transform the whole Earth into 10-meterr lump of strange\dead matter.
Space observations says us that periods of pulsars are almost do not change. That means that strange matter is very stable.

Read about strange matter, strangelets, and strange stars in Wikipedia. I think that our civilization is crazy. From one hand, it already knows about a deadly dangerous strange matter; from the other hand, it tries to create that dead droplet at colliders. I do not understand you, people.

I wish you to become mentally healthy and STOP all powerful colliders.

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chriwi » Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:04 am

@Ivan

you still did not explain how a triplet of uud should be converted to uds plus energy while the mass of s is 104 MeV compared to 1.5 to 3.3 MeV for an u.
Also the mass of a proton is 938.272 MeV/c^2 and the mass of a uds is 1,115.683 MeV/c^2.
So you postulate an increase of mass plus an exess of energy, sounds very strage to mee indeed.
bye

chriwi

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 » Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:54 am

chriwi wrote:Also the mass of a proton is 938.272 MeV/c^2 and the mass of a uds is 1,115.683 MeV/c^2.
Mass of a free proton is 938.272 MeV/c^2.
Mass of a proton in deuteron is several MeV/c^2 less.
Mass of a proton in He is several MeV/c^2 less.
Mass of a proton in C is several MeV/c^2 less.
Mass of a proton in Fe is several MeV/c^2 less, and minimal.

These mass differences say us about binding energy.

Strange droplet consisting of a several (uds) is unstable and decay.

AFAIK some authors said that droplet could be stable if it has at least 10 elements.
The more number of “strange nucleons” inside the droplet, the more binding energy.
I think that its binding energy properties are analogues to those of a magnetic hole. So I think that specific binding energy has a limit and it lays somewhere near 500 MeV (or about of 1/2 of protons rest energy).

Note. My computation for magnetic hole gives: energy of ruined protons splits per two parts: 2/3 goes into creation of magnetic field; 1/3 goes into binding energy or simply emitted with radiation.

Strange matter has fermionic structure.
Magnetic hole has bosonic structure.

CERN physicist can create dead droplet, having fermionic, bosonic or scirmionic structure. Any such condensate is dangerous, because it can transform the whole Earth into dead extremely dense matter.

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

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:35 pm

The LHC has less of a chance to create strangelets than the RHIC, which has been working for 10 years now with no strangelets detected. The authors of the RHIC safety report calculated an upper limit of 1 in 10^22 for strangelets creation. Now the chances diminish even further.

Can anyone disprove Ivan's latest claims? I'm not sure I understand what he's saying. Do the results of the December collisions somehow prove his theories?

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 » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:17 pm

Stephen;

I am sorry to say that disproving Ivan's claims would be extremely difficult because how can you disprove fantasy?

Allan

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

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:41 pm

Isn't there a way to disprove his claims about "fermionic, bosonic or scirmionic structure", his claims about "crude errors" at the beginning of the topic, or his recent calculations about strangelets?

User avatar
March_Hare
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 6:09 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by March_Hare » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:27 am

Stephen,

Did you ever hear of the problems Physics departments at universities have with would-be inventors of a perpetuum mobile? Or Maths depts with would-be (dis)proofs of Fermat's theorem?

Disproving a theory like this can be very difficult. Unless there are clear errors in the thing (think 1+1 = 0 for instance). But if there are none of those, someone needs to go through the whole thing and take a look at all the underlying assumptions (implicit ones and explicit ones), along with the whole theory that has been constructed on top of those assumptions (and check for logical errors, etc.). She/he will also need to think about testable predictions, and take a good look if there are any predictions that are contrary to what we already know about the universe (think: "two positive charges attract one another").

This can take a lot of time, and may not actually lead to predictions that run contrary to what we know, but to totally new predictions that need to be tested independently.

I am sure that most people who can follow this magnetic hole thingy, have actually better things to do.

I've had to deal myself with similar situations in my own scientific work (Social Psychology). There was this guy who had totally independently developed his own theory. Anyone could see that he was confusing concepts, using incorrect logic, and generally making a mess of it. However, actually rigorously proving it wrong was quite difficult (I tried, as an exercise).

So, yes there is a way to disprove it. No, those who could do it may not be all that interested in it.

Just have a little faith in the judgement of the real experts.
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws.
~Douglas Adams

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chriwi » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:57 am

Whats new here in this thread since Ivan focuses on the Strangelets is:
The magnetic hole is mainly his Idea with hardly any other supporters.
The possible danger of Strangelets was postulated by someone else and is only followed by Ivan now.
There is no real way to proofe the possible danger of strangelets wrong because they really might be possible if certain paramaters like surfacetension of a nucleus made of up, down and strange quarks or the quantum state and energy of bigger conglomerations of this kind, which are not yet known, have a certain value (wich seems highly improbable cause it would be very strange compared to the respective values of known matter).
The only possibility to assume it no danger by now is that it not happened anywhere else until now and the conditions produced by the LHC are not so unusual comparted to supernovas etc. afterall.
bye

chriwi

User avatar
chriwi
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by chriwi » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:22 am

Many things stated byIvan cannot be proofen wrong in the short remaining time, but are definitely depending on many highly improbable parameters not yet known.
Its just like the case you know that the world will end if you hit the jackpot in the lottery next satureday that someone calls you a terrorist if you dare to play lotto.
The probabilities stated by him can only be correct under certain conditions which are highly improbbable for themselfes.
bye

chriwi

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

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:29 pm

You're saying Ivan was never actually proven incorrect? It makes me worry a bit. :sad-pacing:

How can you call him an idiot and a lunatic when you haven't disproven his theory?

Post Reply