Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Posted: Sun Jan 03, 2010 1:21 pm
Didn't you admit SN 1987 is not a proof for your theory?
THE place to discuss the LHC
http://lhcportal.com/Forum/
I think I figured out Ivan's theory. He doesn't define anything the way anyone else does hence his answers. Now that I figured that out I look at anything he says as crap. Until he falls into line and starts using the same definition, he will not be able to convince me of anything. Goodbye IvanMagneticTrap wrote:Proton as three point-like particles is an approximation, which is tuned to be treated by mathematical apparatus. I can not see it as three particles u, u, d, but I see it as some "stable rotating space-time medium" with three mixed poles u, u, d. And you also had wrote that proton do have not only three particles u, u, d, but also “with some virtual gluons and quarks sprinkled about”.First, treating a proton as an elementary particle is a low energy approximation that can't be used for proton decay. The proton is actually three valence quarks with some virtual gluons and quarks sprinkled about.
1. "Proton decay" can occur only in the exited space-time, i.e. in a space-time with changed geometry, or, which is the same, - in the strong fields....proton decay...
2. As a result, it can not be thought as if it decays per quarks. Three-polar construction of proton under its decay creates two two-polar constructions: x-boson and positron. The decay process is accompanied by ejection of a couple of gamma-quanta. At this figure we can see a proton as three-polar construction (u,u,d):
After entering into a strong field (or in Kaluza Klein space-time) and after proton decay we can see two two-polar constructions:
positron, having two magnetic poles;
and x-boson, also having two poles: magnetic NS; or electromagnetic N+S-, or N-S+, or N~S~, or mixed electro-magneto-weak. These poles are not already the QCD’s quarks, because x-boson can only live in this unusual geometry.
My x-boson do not consist of two up quarks. It has some properties of X and Y bosons; and it has some properties of “Kaluza-Klein Z’, W’ bosons”.Second, the X boson has a charge of 4/3. The charge of your proton decay equation isn't adding up.
My x-boson is not a virtual pair of up quarks, but a real two-polar construction, which can exist only in the strong field (only in Kaluza-Klein space-time). In order to make it free, one must spent energy, which is more then binding energy of x-boson in magnetic hole. If such energy (E) is added, then x-boson goes out and decays like this:Third, the X boson doesn't need a "magnetic hole" to cause proton decay. Two up quarks can merge into a virtual X boson, which can then decay into a positron and an anti down quark.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_boson
x-boson + E --> p + e.
The needed energy E ~ m[sub]pr[/sub]c[sup]2[/sup]/3.
Proton decay can occur only in already created strong field. The mass of my x-boson is about (2/3) of proton mass. But the minimal possible magnetic hole, which is able to ruin protons, must have about 340 of such x-bosons. That mass corresponds to about 0.34 TeV. Total binding energy of such hole is about 0.17 TeV. In order to create such hole, it is necessary to collide two protons with energy about 0.25 TeV per proton.The low observed rate of proton decay shows that the mass of the X boson must be around 10^15GeV or higher.
Observed low rate of proton decay is close to zero because there were no p-p collisions of corresponding energy yet. Wait a little, soon, the process of extremely high rate of proton decay will be switched on and the Solar system will look after as the remnants of SN 1987A.Virtual particles of that type would cause proton decay, and the observed low rate of proton decay shows that such particles must be extremely massive, far beyond anything the LHC can ever do.
2. Nothing will happen. Because there is no x-boson as you define it. Plus your ideas are not a theory.MagneticTrap wrote:Well, if my theory is not a theory at all, then place your bets, gentlemen!
What will happen when at LHC they reach the equality pФ / S = mc^2? (p – magnetic moment of x-boson; Ф - magnetic flux through the Compton surface of proton; mc^2 – rest energy of proton.)
1. This will create a microscopic magnetic hole, which will grow and explode the Earth.
2. Nothing will happen.
3. I do not know.
1b. Magnetic hole is impossible.MagneticTrap wrote: I think, if magnetic moment of x-boson is equal to magnetic moment of proton, then magnetic hole can be created at the p-p collisions with 0.25 TeV per proton. If the moments are different, then there are two possibilities:
1a. Magnetic hole can be created at another energy;
1b. Magnetic hole is impossible.
Well, not yours but othersMagneticTrap wrote: Do you want to test these conclusions on LHC?
No they are not better explained by your ideas. You make so many assumptions and yet not deliver a single experimental evidence, that i would be really surprised if your ideas are even self consistent.MagneticTrap wrote: Note: Astronomers do see GRBs, charged jets, pulsars, magnetars, novae and supernovae explosions. All these observable things can be better explained by magnetic holes comparatively to black holes and neutron stars.
My main theory “Ever Young Universe” has much less assumption as Big Bang Dogma with all its unproved fantasies and especially invented essences, such as dark energy, dark matter, inflation, time centrism, bh evaporation, neutrino oscillations and so on. My last small theory “Magnetic Holes” has math proves and many experimental evidences such as GRBs, charged jets, pulsars, magnetars, novae and supernovae explosions and so on.You make so many assumptions and yet not deliver a single experimental evidence, that i would be really surprised if your ideas are even self consistent.
Do you see the difference between my cautious assertion “Magnetic hole is impossible, if…”, and your brave assertion “Magnetic hole is impossible” without any “if”. That led me to the conclusion that you are a person, unable to reasonable scientific discussion.Magnetic hole is impossible.
You know that the big bang theory was not favoured and only won out, because it explained a lot more observations, such as Galaxy flying away from us and so on. It also predicted the cosmic microwave background, which was found later.MagneticTrap wrote:My main theory “Ever Young Universe” has much less assumption as Big Bang Dogma with all its unproved fantasies and especially invented essences, such as dark energy, dark matter, inflation, time centrism, bh evaporation, neutrino oscillations and so on. My last small theory “Magnetic Holes” has math proves and many experimental evidences such as GRBs, charged jets, pulsars, magnetars, novae and supernovae explosions and so on.You make so many assumptions and yet not deliver a single experimental evidence, that i would be really surprised if your ideas are even self consistent.
No, its not me that is not joining a discussion. Present your ideas at a conference. In Germany, there is for example the DPG conferences, where some sessions are always dedicated to people with theories, which are not (at all) accepted by the main stream. And people are listening to such ideas, because it might provide a new view on the world.MagneticTrap wrote:Do you see the difference between my cautious assertion “Magnetic hole is impossible, if…”, and your brave assertion “Magnetic hole is impossible” without any “if”. That led me to the conclusion that you are a person, unable to reasonable scientific discussion.Magnetic hole is impossible.
Some theorists suggest that the Higgs bosons will be registered at the LHC. And, if these particles will not been found, the theorists would be very surprised; - this would prove that the Standard Model is wrong. Higgs boson had received a new name, "the God particle". We know that the most of particles have their corresponding antiparticles. So, if there is a particle of God, then there is a particle of Devil.
Relax, the LHC will never reach 0.25 TeV per proton.MagneticTrap wrote:... magnetic hole can be created at the p-p collisions with 0.25 TeV per proton. ...
Do you want to test these conclusions on LHC?
Not to mention his fear mongering on CNN articles.ORION111 wrote:I have read your despicable comments on scientific videos on YouTube.
ORION111 wrote:(2)Well, he inherently hates science. (3)And is of-course paranoid by his own highly-deluded and mangled views of physics.Stephen wrote:(1)Not to mention his fear mongering on CNN articles.
I’ll read the articles. And you, please, read the article “History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson”Allan wrote:I do hope you read the two articles referenced by Orion earlier. I think you then will be able to see a couple of truly well written papers. They have no name calling nor do they jump are around without logic as your ramblings do.
They simply quote data from experiments and then once all the facts have been laid out reach conclusions. Granted their conclusion are totally at odds with yours but after attempting to read your totally nonsensical ramblings that doesn't surprise me.
What is Big Bang: fact, theory, hypothesis, lie, religious dogma? I think it is the last. Big Bang is a Religious Dogma, built on theft, deception, lies, crime.ORION111 wrote:1. The terms
Again. The word "theory" in science means different than the one used in common language. In science, "theory" means the overarching logic [overarching fact] of evidence, observations, and the scientific laws.
That is not the age of Universe. 365 days is not the age of Earth. The Earth needs 365 days in order to make one full revolution around the Sun in 3d space. The Universe needs 13.34 billions years t make one full 4d rotation. The value 73.29 km/s/Mpc is not the parameter of Universe expansion, but the angular frequency of Universal 4d rotation. (If we reduce km and Mpc to meters, we will have the Hubble constant, written in SI units: H=2.375*10^-18 1/s.)ORION111 wrote:The "Big Bang" is a yet unknown event that occurred 13.72 ± 0.12 billion years ago.
There are dozens of Steady State models of Universe. They were and are developed by real scientists. There are thousands of real scientists all over the world. But most of them are dispersed now, because the official science is a gang of criminals now. http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ORION111 wrote:…leave the Steady State hypothesis alone, which has been disproved of long ago in the last century…
1. “Galaxy flying away”, or to be more precise “the red shift of galaxies light”, can be explained by many of others more scientific causes.Anitusar wrote: You know that the big bang theory was not favoured and only won out, because it explained a lot more observations, such as Galaxy flying away from us and so on.(1) It also predicted the cosmic microwave background, which was found later.(2)
You know that neutrino oscillation has been measured with quite a great precision.(3)
…
No, its not me that is not joining a discussion. Present your ideas at a conference. In Germany, there is for example the DPG conferences, where some sessions are always dedicated to people with theories, which are not (at all) accepted by the main stream. And people are listening to such ideas, because it might provide a new view on the world.(4)..
1. If we will not stop LHC, the ceiling of your room will smash you into a thin film some day this year with probability about 50%. That will be the proof of my assertion that "CERN scientists are criminals".Stephen wrote:You are the one making bold statements, Ivan.
"CERN scientists are criminals" - without a proof.
"Big Bang theorists are wrong" - where in reality, this theory has more basis than yours.
"There is a 50% chance that a magnetic collapse will occur at 3.5 TeV" - without a calculation to show how you calculated this probability.
Which are absolutely worthless until published and verified, and I strongly suspect would be found to have no basis in scientific fact whatsoever.3. I said about my personal power of trust to results, following from two independent mathematical proves, and to dozens of additional proving arguments.
1. Show the calculation you used to reach the result of 50%.MagneticTrap wrote: 1. If we will not stop LHC, the ceiling of your room will smash you into a thin film some day this year with probability about 50%. That will be the proof of my assertion that "CERN scientists are criminals".
2. Big Bang theorists are thieves, witches, bandits, potential killers. I and others are trying to build the real cosmology and to stop BB crimes.
3. I said about my personal power of trust to results, following from two independent mathematical proves, and to dozens of additional proving arguments.