Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
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.
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.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
> Stephen, i am away )))
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
I did get some answers atShadowdraxx wrote:ok ok chill your beans, Ivans claims have never been backed up by any mathimatical evidance that can be looked at, because there is non.
Ok heavy ion collisions are of academic purpose only they energy released inside is nothing high enough to touch any very hypothetical theory.
Stephen, i am away now for some time so might not always get on, however i'd suggest making a post in this thread, asking if someone caan break it down for you.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=85716
They are good guys and are always ready to answer well structured and legit questions.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 582&st=300
Although I'm still not sure about this specific question, since the RHIC safety report stated something else.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Commentary: Agent 999, code name 'The Beast', intent on destroying the world, prevents The Magnetic Trap from saving the planet.
The saga continues in part 3.14, "Stephen gets real answers"
The saga continues in part 3.14, "Stephen gets real answers"
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
I always wanted to star in a science fiction story along with Ivanspencer wrote:Commentary: Agent 999, code name 'The Beast', intent on destroying the world, prevents The Magnetic Trap from saving the planet.
The saga continues in part 3.14, "Stephen gets real answers"
Anyway, here is rpenner's answer, for anyone who can understand it. I have a feeling this is the best comment we're going to get on this subject.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 582&st=315
-
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
aye so basically nowt to worry about, just to make some hot plasma, but not energetic enough to cause concern.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Yes, that's what he meant. Did you get his calculations?
- MagneticTrap
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
- Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
- Contact:
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
I'm banned there, - cannot read, and cannot answer there.Stephen wrote:I did get some answers at
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 582&st=300
Can you copy interesting answers from that thread?
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Иван ты как бандит хочешь развести по беспредельным понятиям (магнитная дыра) весь мир.
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
@magnetic
he mainly quoted http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8 ... 5.abstract there, I hope you are not banned from this one too.
@all
But as far as I understand this is only looking at the deposition of energy of heavy-ion-cosmic-rays to human tissue and I also not sure what the unit J/kg exactly neans and how it is to be compared to collisionenergies of heavy-ions. As far as I understand it it measures the energy deposited to 1kg of human tissue by a given amount of heavy-ion-cosmic-rays over a certain time, but neither the amount of HICRs nor the length of time is stated here. So in my opinion this article has nothing to do with the question of Stephen besides the fact that there are also high-energy-heavy-ions in cosmic rays at all and that they have a significant energy deposition alltogether.
he mainly quoted http://rpd.oxfordjournals.org/content/8 ... 5.abstract there, I hope you are not banned from this one too.
@all
But as far as I understand this is only looking at the deposition of energy of heavy-ion-cosmic-rays to human tissue and I also not sure what the unit J/kg exactly neans and how it is to be compared to collisionenergies of heavy-ions. As far as I understand it it measures the energy deposited to 1kg of human tissue by a given amount of heavy-ion-cosmic-rays over a certain time, but neither the amount of HICRs nor the length of time is stated here. So in my opinion this article has nothing to do with the question of Stephen besides the fact that there are also high-energy-heavy-ions in cosmic rays at all and that they have a significant energy deposition alltogether.
bye
chriwi
chriwi
- MagneticTrap
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:56 pm
- Location: Ukraine Crimea Feodosia
- Contact:
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
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
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
- chriwi
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: Stuttgart Germany
- Contact:
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
can you please explain why you think that the unpredicted mesons-production-rates add proove to the idea of magnetic holes.
bye
chriwi
chriwi
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
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?
Allan
Allan
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
chriwi wrote: But as far as I understand this is only looking at the deposition of energy of heavy-ion-cosmic-rays to human tissue and I also not sure what the unit J/kg exactly neans and how it is to be compared to collisionenergies of heavy-ions. As far as I understand it it measures the energy deposited to 1kg of human tissue by a given amount of heavy-ion-cosmic-rays over a certain time, but neither the amount of HICRs nor the length of time is stated here. So in my opinion this article has nothing to do with the question of Stephen besides the fact that there are also high-energy-heavy-ions in cosmic rays at all and that they have a significant energy deposition alltogether.
I was starting to think I'm really dumb for not understanding the relevance of their answers. It seems like they have been avoiding giving me a direct answer so far. Rob is not a physicist, and it seems like he wants to dismiss any concerns over the LHC even when he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's understandable considering the fact he used to be terrified of it, but it doesn't exactly help me.
What about rpnner's answer? Does it really prove the safey of heavy ion collisions? I don't understand his calculation.
Can someone please post there (no need to register) and ask my questions more clearly? Maybe they misunderstood me.
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
Why are you convinced these articles help your case, when their authors don't seem to be concerned over the LHC?MagneticTrap wrote:Several scientific articles, which give some conclusions analogues to mine, except catastrophic predictions, were found
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.
Me wrote: Magnetic hole is analogues to nuclear quasi hole (nucleus). They both have their correspondent binding energy. Cosmo-atmospheric magnetic hole is bombarded by TeV atmospheric particles and decays, creating the show of secondary particles. Collider magnetic hole moves slowly, ruins protons and grow, capturing x-bosons.
Analogy: nucleus, bombarded by TeV-neutrons, will be ruined; average nucleus, bombarded by eV-neutrons, will grow.
-
- LHCPortal Guru
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:03 am
Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.
ok so the energy involved is high but the density is low because it breaks into the smaller fragments (which creates the plasma).
I think he is saying if the smaller fragments hit each other at over say 10x the density and nothing happens why would this?.
I still dont think there is an issue, but maybe thats just me.
I think he is saying if the smaller fragments hit each other at over say 10x the density and nothing happens why would this?.
I still dont think there is an issue, but maybe thats just me.