Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

[chelle]

Physicists, who make money in physics, especially at accelerators and colliders, know that, if they will say the truth, the TeV-physics will be closed and they will must to seek for a new job.

That is a fact, like I already pointed out in the clip of the Apollo space program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8chx10UbI8

Chelle explains his point of view about atomic Bose-Einstein Condensate (BEC) and has the right to do that.

Thx.

And indeed what else can you say than that it's dangerous and criminal to continue, once you draw the conclusion that Fireballs or BEC could be produced at a high rate.

[Mailo]

Physicists, who make money in physics, especially at accelerators and colliders, know that, if they will say the truth, the TeV-physics will be closed and they will must to seek for a new job.

You know, I'd really like to know who comes up with crap like this. If TeV-physics would really be closed, 95+% of the people currently working there could easily switch to working in research departments in the industry, earning up to 100% more than they currently do. Like I did. And I don't know if I would have been good enough to work at CERN.

[Kasuha]

Regarding combustion it's really hard to outperform stars which combust hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, etc etc ... all the way to iron which is the lowest energetic state of atomic matter, changing it to anything else requires adding energy.
Surprisingly, LHC is mostly made of iron...

There is no iron coming from the sun, now that would be something.

I wasn't mentioning sun, was I?

[chelle]

You know, I'd really like to know who comes up with crap like this. If TeV-physics would really be closed, 95+% of the people currently working there could easily switch to working in research departments in the industry, ...

You don't need to be a scientist to figure that out, but in case you didn't here you go:
"The hardship CERN would suffer from an injunction is enormous - idling thousands of workers and equipment worth billions of euros, and upending a great scientific adventure." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... -down.html

Face it, its a rat race, like the one at the stock exchange where people loose grip on reality, and where some are hoping to Win a Nobel price, and the herd follows ...

Don't you thing the Astronauts on the Apollo Space program couldn't have found a job anywhere else?

How easy/hard would it be to find a job in "the industry" when you will be named a "crackpot" when you start saying that the lhc is dangerous?

[chelle]

Regarding combustion it's really hard to outperform stars which combust hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon, etc etc ... all the way to iron which is the lowest energetic state of atomic matter, changing it to anything else requires adding energy.
Surprisingly, LHC is mostly made of iron...

There is no iron coming from the sun, now that would be something.

I wasn't mentioning sun, was I?

No, you didn't.

Sun: Photospheric composition (by mass) Iron: 0.16%

(Massive) Stars: The final stage is reached when the star begins producing iron. Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy.

[Kasuha]

(Massive) Stars: The final stage is reached when the star begins producing iron. Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy.

Good... I feel we're finally getting somewhere. As you can see it takes some pretty extreme conditions to "combust" elements, even our sun is not hot and heavy enough (yet) to "combust" more than hydrogen to helium (which is also what humans are working hard to accomplish in tokamaks).
LHC may provide some pretty hot "sparks" but it's still pretty much like if you light a match in the middle of antarctis. You can thaw a bit of ice but you're not going to put the continent to flames.

[chelle]

(Massive) Stars: The final stage is reached when the star begins producing iron. Since iron nuclei are more tightly bound than any heavier nuclei, if they are fused they do not release energy—the process would, on the contrary, consume energy.

Good... I feel we're finally getting somewhere. As you can see it takes some pretty extreme conditions to "combust" elements, even our sun is not hot and heavy enough (yet) to "combust" more than hydrogen to helium (which is also what humans are working hard to accomplish in tokamaks).
LHC may provide some pretty hot "sparks" but it's still pretty much like if you light a match in the middle of antarctis. You can thaw a bit of ice but you're not going to put the continent to flames.

You might be right, let me think about it ... in the meanwhile check this out, I've come up with a new suggestion for a big error or particle physicist, peraps the biggest
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=555

[chelle]

You might be right, let me think about it ... in the meanwhile check this out, I've come up with a new suggestion for a big error or particle physicist,
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=555

Enough for the intermezzo.

As you can see it takes some pretty extreme conditions to "combust" elements, even our sun is not hot and heavy enough (yet) to "combust" more than hydrogen to helium.

But the lhc smashes protons at a high rate into pieces, and create Fireballs, I don't think this happens in the Sun, btw as quoted earlier: When two beams of protons collide, they will generate temperatures more than 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun

So you could say that in one way conditions are far more extreme.

LHC may provide some pretty hot "sparks" but it's still pretty much like if you light a match in the middle of antarctis. You can thaw a bit of ice but you're not going to put the continent to flames.

You look at it in reference of gravitational pressure to make matter combust, but that is not aways necessarily, look at the match you can light, it's a fire that happens right here on earth, of one substance being combusted in to others. If you generate an array of fireballs what radiation do they emit that wouldn't cause surrounding more solid matter to collapse, ignite and explode, just like you can break a wine glass using resonance, you don't even need to touch it.

[Stephen]

If you are worried about heavy ion collisions, you have slightly more than half a year to stop them. How about contacting physics professors from different universities, or presenting your idea at a science conference? Maybe writing a paper would be a good suggestion as well. Your pictures and analogies (no matter how interesting they are), are probably not enough to prevent the LHC from operating.

[Kasuha]

When two beams of protons collide, they will generate temperatures more than 100 000 times hotter than the heart of the Sun

Sun is relatively cold place in scope of universe. I don't understand why do you keep using it as an argument.

So you could say that in one way conditions are far more extreme.

Burning matchstick in Antarctica means pretty extreme local conditions too.

You look at it in reference of gravitational pressure to make matter combust,

I don't remember talking about gravity.

If you have "forest" where trees are 200 meters apart from each other, you may burn one but you're not going to make a forest fire out of it. Even if you manage to perform nuclear explosion in the middle of such forest, only trees directly lit up by the explosion will burn, no chain reaction will occur.

[chelle]

If you are worried about heavy ion collisions, you have slightly more than half a year to stop them. How about contacting physics professors from different universities, or presenting your idea at a science conference? Maybe writing a paper would be a good suggestion as well. Your pictures and analogies (no matter how interesting they are), are probably not enough to prevent the LHC from operating.

That is true, but to go defend a possible combustion scenario, is not evident. It comes down to knowing the numbers of the radiation produced by Fireballs and collisions in general. Once you know the numbers of the stress that is put on surrounding matter you can measure the environmental impact. If in such a case BEC (or more Fireballs) would be produced you have to know exactly what energy is coming out of Bose-nova's, is it only the tiny shift in temperature or much more. The problem is, I haven' got any measurements of both Fireballs or BEC and I believe that nobody else does.

[chelle]

You look at it in reference of gravitational pressure to make matter combust,

I don't remember talking about gravity.

I supposed you where referring to pressure in general, in a star it would be caused by gravitation.

If you have "forest" where trees are 200 meters apart from each other, you may burn one but you're not going to make a forest fire out of it. Even if you manage to perform nuclear explosion in the middle of such forest, only trees directly lit up by the explosion will burn, no chain reaction will occur.

Nuclear explosions don't generate Fireballs if I'm correct, and the danger for a sub-atomic reaction to happen, would be that most of the matter on our planet becomes inflamable.

[Kasuha]

I supposed you where referring to pressure in general, in a star it would be caused by gravitation.

I wasn't even talking about pressure. You just keep putting things to my mouth which I never said.

Nuclear explosions don't generate Fireballs if I'm correct,

You're not correct.

and the danger for a sub-atomic reaction to happen, would be that most of the matter on our planet becomes inflamable.

Rock will not turn to paper when you come with scissors.

[Mailo]

But the lhc smashes protons at a high rate into pieces, and create Fireballs, I don't think this happens in the Sun, btw as quoted earlier:

Nuclear explosions don't generate Fireballs if I'm correct

I think you should really tell us what you mean when you say "fireball" if a proton-proton collision (which by the way is over when the next collision occurs, no "build up") qualifies as one, yet the sun or a nuclear explosion does not.
Because you definitely do not mean the same as the rest of the world has in mind when reading the word.

[chelle]

Nuclear explosions don't generate Fireballs if I'm correct,

You're not correct.

I'm talking about Fireballs of Free Quarks:
"Seven experiments have been gathering data for the past six years at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics near Geneva. Although the accumulated evidence is not as direct and clear-cut as had been hoped for when the program began, scientists conducting the experiments felt sufficiently confident to make their February 10 announcement. "We now have compelling evidence that a new state of matter has been created," said CERN theorist Ulrich Heinz."
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?f ... 75CD583E6C

Do you have a reference for Nuclear explosions?

and the danger for a sub-atomic reaction to happen, would be that most of the matter on our planet becomes inflammable.

Rock will not turn to paper when you come with scissors.

I don't see why Fireballs wouldn't pass through rocks like a knife through butter.