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.
Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Kasuha » Tue Sep 28, 2010 9:31 am

MagneticTrap wrote:Every tenth bucket in your garden is a nuclear fuel, which are K39 and HI, but this fuel will not burn in one stage.
Of course, any element lighter than iron is potential nuclear fuel. And in centers of old stars they actually burn. Now, please, check your position and learn about reaction energy efficiency.
MagneticTrap wrote:Open your eyes. Ca40 is a product of the proposed reaction. Ca40 is a stable element.
K40 is radioactive isotope with very long life-time period. That is why it still exists in the Earth’s mixture of K39, K40, K41. Yes, K40 is very rarefied, but it is restored in the proposed reactions.
K40 is intermediate product in your reactions. I see nothing strange on it, have seen longer chains. Aren't you afraid of CNO cycle starting here? It's much more energy efficient than what you are trying to make us afraid of...
MagneticTrap wrote:Point me on the error. Ha-ha-ha.
Every time you came with any real maths you were proven wrong so recently you only come with graphs and numbers you pull out your sleeve. You neither scare nor impress me with these. What you're doing is just plain wrong, on many levels.

Anyway ... to point the error, right?

K39 + n + p --> K40 + p --> Ca40 + n

1/ it's not even chain reaction. It requires constant supply of protons and even number of neutrons is not multiplied, you get one neutron in and one out

2/ even if the earth was made of pure K39, chances for a neutron scattering off the nucleus and decaying before it can react are high enough to make the reaction stop after a few cycles at best

3/ earth is not made of pure K39

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

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Tue Sep 28, 2010 10:42 am

MagneticTrap wrote: No. John Ellis, who is one of LSAG, said something like: “the best proof that LHC is safe is to switch it on”. Do you like such empirical evidence?
Have you payed attention to the 1 hour long scientific lecture preceding this lighthearted statement?

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 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 12:27 pm

Stephen wrote:
MagneticTrap wrote: No. John Ellis, who is one of LSAG, said something like: “the best proof that LHC is safe is to switch it on”. Do you like such empirical evidence?
Have you payed attention to the 1 hour long scientific lecture preceding this lighthearted statement?
The main support of LSAG-report is a comparison with cosmic rays. These support can be easily ruined by knowing that 1) TeV-TeV cosmo-cosmo p-p collisions in the whole Solar system are extremely rarefied even at the Hubble time; 2) equivalent cosmo-atmospheric collisions can lead to creation of condensate with TeV kinetic energy per constituent element, whose rest energy is about GeV and binding energy is about 1-100 MeV. This condensate will be immediately ruined be TeV collisions with atmosphere particles. 3) Condensate, made on LHC, can have the same rest and binding energies, but its kinetic energy can be close to zero. It will not be ruined but can grow and ruin Earth. That is why all mentioning about cosmic rays must be thrown away. That is why LSAG-report must be thrown into rubbish bucket. Our Civilization is a gamer in a Russian Roulette. So, John Ellis is correct, - “the best proof that LHC is safe is to switch it on”, OR “the best proof that LHC is deadly dangerous is to switch it on”. .
Kasuha wrote:
MagneticTrap wrote:Every tenth bucket in your garden is a nuclear fuel, which are K39 and HI, but this fuel will not burn in one stage.
Of course, any element lighter than iron is potential nuclear fuel. And in centers of old stars they actually burn.
There is a very big difference. You can not write any two-stage reaction except my reaction. In my reaction there is no transition of total proton behind the Colombian barrier of heavy K-nucleus. K40 and HI interact by their halos, through recharge of proton into neutron. Resulting neutron is captured by K39, transforming it into K-40.
Kasuha wrote:
MagneticTrap wrote:Point me on the error. Ha-ha-ha.
Every time you came with any real maths you were proven wrong so recently you only come with graphs and numbers you pull out your sleeve. You neither scare nor impress me with these. What you're doing is just plain wrong, on many levels.

Anyway ... to point the error, right?

K39 + n + p --> K40 + p --> Ca40 + n

1/ it's not even chain reaction. It requires constant supply of protons and even number of neutrons is not multiplied, you get one neutron in and one out
It not is a single-chain reaction, but N-chain reaction. N – the number of parallel reactions.
Your string K39 + n + p --> K40 + p --> Ca40 + n is not correct.
My even reactions occur in one place, and odd reactions occur in another place.
Yes, it requires a constant supply of protons and the same number of K39.
The overwhelming majority of neutrons and K40 isotopes are restored.
Of course, some neutrons and K40 isotopes are constantly lost without performing a needed reaction.
So our station needs some source of neutrons or K40-isotopes. If we have one of them we can make both of them. There are many methods to have a small supply of pure K40. Adding it to the multiple reaction chains we can support the constant process of two-stage burning of K39 and H1.

Examples:
K40 can be extracted from natural mixture of K39, K40, K41.
K40 can be received by bombardment of gaseous K39 by neutrons of uranium power plants.
Kasuha wrote:3/ earth is not made of pure K39
It is probably, you do not understand the scheme of the process.
Here is very simplified scheme of the reactor.
Image

0 – K40 foil, or may be, a circular beam of K40 nuclei; 1 – Proton beam; 2 – Trajectory of Ca40 ions. 3 – Trajectory of neutrons; 4 – Neutron moderator; 5 – Trap for Ca40 ions; 6 – Trajectories of K40 ions; 7 – Gamma quanta. 8 – Volume with dense gaseous K39. 9. – Trap for K40; 10 – Absorber of gamma quanta; R – Resonance devise, in order to increase the cross-section of the odd reactions.

Of course, I clearly understand that there are many technical problems. But if physicists would not spend their forces on the building of death machines, they would solve the technical problems of the proposed energy source.

The amount of K on the Earth is millions times bigger than the amount of uranium or deuterium! So K/H energy source can be regarded as eternal.

Ehhhhhh.
Dreams-dreams.
There is much bigger probability that we all be killed soon or already are doomed to die. Physicists, open your eyes, stop colliders, go out from TeV energies, do not try to create a particle of God, because you can create its antiparticle.
Make, please, things, which are useful to people.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Kasuha » Tue Sep 28, 2010 1:43 pm

So you are declaring bombarding K40 nuclei with protons a cheap and affordable neutron source. Interesting idea, I wonder why known neutron sources use different techniques. Maybe because there are actually cheaper and more affordable ones.

There's nothing really two-staged on your reaction. The amount of K40 acquired in the target would be a fraction of it used in the source so you'd need constant supply of K40 even if it was as cheap and affordable as you suggest. As a source of K40 I believe the target would be way less effective than acquiring it the usual way - at least until its natural sources aren't almost depleted.

But whatever, if you think your idea is so great why don't you go and register it at patent office?
MagneticTrap wrote: Ehhhhhh.
Dreams-dreams.
There is much bigger probability that we all be killed soon or already are doomed to die.
You're still dreaming.

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 » Tue Sep 28, 2010 5:47 pm

Is it me or is Ivan getting really cheeky these days? LOL I wonder if i am on his foe list :roll: cause he is completely ignoring me :D
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

User avatar
astrogeek
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:49 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by astrogeek » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:21 am

CharmQuark wrote:Is it me or is Ivan getting really cheeky these days? LOL I wonder if i am on his foe list :roll: cause he is completely ignoring me :D
"Cheeky"... hmm. Cheeky Ivan.

It fits.

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 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:25 am

astrogeek wrote:
CharmQuark wrote:Is it me or is Ivan getting really cheeky these days? LOL I wonder if i am on his foe list :roll: cause he is completely ignoring me :D
"Cheeky"... hmm. Cheeky Ivan.

It fits.
Yes yes it does LOL :crazy:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

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 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:04 pm

CharmQuark wrote:Is it me or is Ivan getting really cheeky these days?
I was not a cheeky man. But I am deadly scared by the LHC experiments, tried to explain the danger to others, but I can see that all my attempts were in vain.
But whatever, if you think your idea is so great why don't you go and register it at patent office?
I could patent a device. But which device? The main invention is a reaction. In order to conduct it I can suppose a dozen of devises. One scheme you could see in my last post. Another scheme was drawn on my web-page.

Reaction can be performed in two Tokamak-like devices.

1. Mixture of K39, K40, H1 is injecting into a tokamak. Proportion can be tested by experiment. I would start from 10:1:10, correspondingly. Reactions occur at three-particle collisions. Here are diagrams of reaction:

Image

It can been written thus K39+p+K40 -> Ca40+K40.
This is useful reaction. There possible one harmful reaction, which do not restore K40: K40+p+K40 -> Ca40+K41.
That is why a proportion was taken10:1:10.
It is known that beta decay of radioactive isotopes can be accelerated almost by million* times by complete ionization. Here we have (a) complete ionization; (b) tree-particle strengthening; beta-decay transformed into fusion reaction of K39 and p.

2. Mixture of K40, H1 is injecting into a tokamak in a proportion 1:1, respectively. Blanket of a tokamak is made of K39. Neutrons are captured by K39 and thus K40 is restored. This process is analogues to DT tokamak, where Li blanket restores T-isotope by capturing of neutrons.

(*) I do not remember exactly. Interested can look for a paper of Loshak.

Note:
I give 30% probability that my K/H reaction can solve the problem of world energy crisis.
I give 1% probability that somebody will test my idea in practice.
I give 50% probability that physicist will explode the Earth in the period 2010-2013.

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 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:28 pm

OK Ivan i know your scared..........but don't you want help in becoming unscared? I worry about you :roll: I have asked you to tell me were these fears have come from but you insist in ignoring them and not giving me answers. This puts me off askign you everything is it that bad that i actually want to know?
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

Kasuha
Posts: 570
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:22 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Kasuha » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:01 pm

MagneticTrap wrote:Note:
I give 30% probability that my K/H reaction can solve the problem of world energy crisis.
I give 1% probability that somebody will test my idea in practice.
I give 50% probability that physicist will explode the Earth in the period 2010-2013.
You're still dreaming.

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 » Wed Sep 29, 2010 9:52 pm

Kasuha wrote:
MagneticTrap wrote:Note:
I give 30% probability that my K/H reaction can solve the problem of world energy crisis.
I give 1% probability that somebody will test my idea in practice.
I give 50% probability that physicist will explode the Earth in the period 2010-2013.
You're still dreaming.
Kasuha I love you're so direct :thumbup: :lol:
Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted with large ones either by Albert Einstein.

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 » Thu Oct 14, 2010 6:06 am

A week ago an article “Does dark matter trigger strange stars?” was published at http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43970

Here is a figure from that article:
Image

Here is my commentary o that article:

Does heavy ion collision trigger dark matter.

In a couple of weeks the LHC will start heavy ion (HI) collisions.
The probability of creation of strangelet in HI collisions is much greater, comparatively to p-p collisions.
In p-p collisions we have a formula: p+p -> p+p+N(uds)+N(u~d~s~), where: N(u~d~s~) is an antistrangelet, consisting of N anti lambda hyperons, (u~d~s~).
In HI-HI collisions we have no need to create antistrangelet: Pb+Pb -> 2A(uds)+ 2ZK^+ + 2(A-Z)K^0. Here: A – mass number of a heavy ion; Z – charge number of an ion; K^+ - positive kaon; K^0 – neutral kaon.
Creation of a microscopic strangelet can trigger a transition of our ordinary matter into a strange matter, which can be a dark matter of the Galaxy. Here are formulae of proton and neuron transformation into lambda hyperon, which is a hyper-nucleon of a strange matter:
N(uds)+p ->(N+1)(uds)+K^+ -> (N+1)(uds)+e^+ + 500 MeV.
(N+1)(uds)+n ->(N+2)(uds)+K^0 -> (N+2)(uds) + 500 MeV.

In a 500-1000 days the mass of ruined matter will achieve the value 10^15 kg. The energy, released in the process, will be sufficient in order to torn the Earth into fragments and to send them into a cosmos with velocity of about an escape velocity.

A strangelet is not the single dangerous object, which can be created at powerful colliders.
Here are several other candidates: neutronized strangelet, N(udd)K(uds); 2-nd generation matter, N(css); several types of mixtures of different types of quark triades; bosonic condensate of magnetic hole.

In a couple of weeks we will know is it possible to explode the Earth? What will explode the Earth: a strangelet or magnetic hole? The answer on the last question can be received by the investigating of the excessive neutrino flux from the Earth. If magnetic holes would be created, then an excessive flux of electron antineutrino would be registered. If strangelets would be created, then an excessive flux of different types of neutrino and antineutrino would be registered. The excessive flux of neutrino can be registered in 1-10 days after a dangerous subnuclear condensates were created. The Earth would be torn on peaces in 500-1000 days.

Janelouise
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:52 pm
Location: Glos, UK

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Janelouise » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:40 am

Well, I'mma still waiting!! :doh: :wave:

rasalhauge
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:42 pm

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by rasalhauge » Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:49 am

But... What happened to the dangerous condensate that you were so hellbent sure was going to kill us all? How come all your disaster scenarios have a timespan of 500-1000 days?
Serious calculations? :clap:

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

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Post by Stephen » Thu Oct 14, 2010 4:37 pm

The LHC is not going to create WIMPs, Ivan.

Post Reply