Page 36 of 76

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 7:55 pm
by Shadowdraxx
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

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:39 pm
by Xymox
IVAN

Come join us in chat !

Portal > Chat..

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 8:40 pm
by Tau
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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:45 pm
by CharmQuark
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:

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:46 pm
by Allan
Hi Tau;

All I can add to that is AMEN!

Allan

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:10 am
by MagneticTrap
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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 9:04 am
by chriwi
@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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:54 am
by MagneticTrap
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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:35 pm
by Stephen
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?

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:17 pm
by Allan
Stephen;

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

Allan

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Mon Mar 01, 2010 4:41 pm
by Stephen
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?

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:27 am
by March_Hare
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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:57 am
by chriwi
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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:22 am
by chriwi
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.

Re: Several biggest errors of particle physicists.

Posted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:29 pm
by Stephen
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?