The famous Reissner-Nordström metric and the so-called Maxwell-Einstein equations and the Eddington-Finkelstein transformation and the Kruskal-Szekeres-Fronsdal coordinates are unphysical, and so is the Gauss-Stokes law if applied to charge in general relativity.
The famous Reissner-Nordström metric and the so-called Maxwell-Einstein equations and the Eddington-Finkelstein transformation and the Kruskal-Szekeres-Fronsdal coordinates are unphysical, and so is the Gauss-Stokes law if applied to charge in general relativity.This follows from new results obtained at the University of Tübingen. Specifically, just as gravity is different on the moon since Newton (“no Ur-weight”) and just as time progresses at a different pace on the moon since Einstein (“no Ur-second”), so also length is different on the moon (“no Ur-meter”) and mass is different on the moon (“no Ur-kilogram”) and charge is different on the moon (“no Ur-charge”). While quite a few physical constants lose their global validity in this fashion, the speed of light, c, becomes globally valid (“Ur-speed”).
As a consequence, black holes do not Hawking evaporate and are undetectable when freshly produced at CERN. In addition, they are much easier to produce than thought because the electron is no longer point-shaped owing to the new unchargedness result for black holes implicit in the “no Ur-charge” result. Some form of string theory acquires an empirical basis.
The new results (gothic-R theorem; Telemach theorem) are anathema to CERN. (CERN two days ago preferred to announce precarious hints at a “god-particle” hoped to be found next year that if found would violate the minimum mass-energy of a unit electric charge first predicted by J.J. Thomson in the late 1890s. See also the beautiful NYT interview with professor Lisa Randall http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/science/physicists-anxious…wanted=all .)
The described conscious neglect by CERN provides a bonanza for future historians of science and politics. Unfortunately, black holes are by virtue of the new findings both undetectable and easier to generate than expected. Both facts are ignored by CERN and so is a well-known quantum effect (superfluidity of neutron-star cores) and a chaos result (exponential growth of black holes inside matter). These four new facts about black holes invalidate all safety claims so far made by CERN regarding their pursued goal to generate ultra-slow miniature black holes on planet earth.
The new results are known to CERN for years, with the essentials sent to them early on and published in July 2008. CERN after refusing to quote the new results could go ahead with the experiment for a year and plans to continue next March. Why?
The answer to this important question bears a single name: that of my esteemed colleague Hermann Nicolai. He asserted on the Internet 3 years ago that my results were false, offering arguments already defeated at the time by maverick physicist “Ich” on “achtphasen.” This public fact notwithstanding, professor Nicolai never corrected his disproved assertions and continues to refuse communication (the last refusal being two days old).
With this stance held up by a leading member of the German “Albert-Einstein-Institut,” CERN could afford to publicly ignore the Cologne Administrative Court’s call for a “safety conference” last January the 27th. Since the world’s media and the United Nations fell prey to professor Nicolai’s upheld disinformation, CERN was able to “shoot with live ammunition” for a whole year, risking that the fruit will become manifest after a few years’ time: a “slow dirty bomb” of infinite strength implanted into the planet with a sizeable probability.
I therefore challenge my honorable and in many ways admired colleague Hermann Nicolai to respond to my public accusation that he bears the chief responsibility for the assault on our planet by CERN – in case the new ”Ur” results hold water. I consider this public call for a scientific answer an act of friendship and invite more friends to join in.
The User ICh has confirmed the critique of Nicolai et al as he clearly pronounced that your R was wrong ( not a solution of the Einstein equations any longer ) and second that the interpretation of this R as “real distances” etc was unphysical. He further stated that even a repaired version of the R was useless as it contains undefined terms. He also stated as Nicolai that the choice of coordinates does not change the physics as you were proposing with your R.
You theorems are pure nondefined pieces of pseudoscience. Nothing more to say about that.
There will be no discussion this time. everyone can read the paper by ICH (althogh it is unfortunately in german) to reveal the lies in your posting. There is no refutation of the arguments given by Nicolai et al and therefore there is not need for anyone to waste his time with this pseudoscience any longer.
Rössler himself sees that very clearly and has therefore replaced his pseudoscience with pure defamation and nazi-comparisons in order to get at least the stage of a court.
Forget it, Otto. :D
I hope that co-worker Hansel will not succeed in preventing his boss from replying.
Somewhere on the planet there ought to be a scientist who is thrilled by the new Ur-results. Imagine they were true and you could contribute to drawing further consequences. Besides the non-existing electrical Ur-charge, there are many equally non-existing other Ur-charges so far naively held to be true. There is a whole new freedom waiting to be explored theoretically.
It cannot possibly be that we are all back in the middle ages where everyone is a dogmatist down to his or her bone’s marrow.
God particle??
This has been fortold in Revelations 13 — CERN LHC will create the blackhole that will destroy this world.
See http://revelation13.net for a frightening reality to come, it’s too late, it’s begun.
Rössler has of course also no knowledge about particle physics. His talking about the Higgs is therefore meaningless as usual. Of course the same applies for his fantastic “proof” of string theory, born also in his wrong R-theorem. (So far there is not even a full theory deserving this name.) He is in fact throwing around with fancy buzzwords without knowing anything about them.
BTW I forgot: The user ICH, presented as a supporter by Rössler above, also confirmed the statement that Rösslers wrong interpretation of the Schwarzschildmetric does not change anything of the quantum effect hawking radiation.
Where is my colleague Nicolai?
He will not appear here because he has better things to do than waste his time with vague pseudoscience like yours.
Your theory was disproved, no one is supporting your conclusions. You yourself are contradicting yourself everytime you were asked something about definitions. You have in fact no argument against the astronomical arguments given by Giddings & Mangano as it was shown countless times before.
The case is closed.
And no we will leave you alone with your fanatical and blind believers (Houston et al). Be happy with your own small sect.
Hansel, who do you mean by “et al”? Not me, I hope. I am a journalist who merely seeks clarity and investigates the basis for claims in science. And are you accusing Houston of being “fanatical and blind”? As an objective oberver of your responses to the distinguished Professor Rossler, I have to say that I feel the adjective “fanatical” applies to your excellent self, before it applies to Houston, who resolutely and reliably quotes chapter and verse in all his comments, whereas you tend to fire off machine gun bursts without aiming them at anything specific.
You may be right, but if so, why the lack of specifics? And by the way, why the change of names all the time? Are you afraid there is an insufficient number of CERN defenders here to win your case? I ask merely for information.
Professor Rossler rightly draws attention to the interview with Lisa Randall, Harvard professor and best selling (judging from the book displays in NYC) author, who informed us that if the “hints” and “lumps” which may or may not be harbingers of Higgs’ elusive boson and the Higgs mass bestowing field, do not prove out, then this negative result would be “spectacular” too.
One gathers she meant this would allow physicists to garner even more tax funded awards to explore what they apparently do not yet understand even now. All Professor Rossler is saying is that some kind of caution is called for as we escalate energy. Why should physicists be so frightened of that?
And, by the way, why couldn’t we just use earlier accelerators to explore for the Higgs, since it is expected to be found if it is found at an energy level of .5TeV? Or are you insufficiently informed in this field to answer an easy question such as that?
Surely not. I think of you as a brilliant grad student working long hours in Geneva to make sure all is under control.
Actually, looks like .12TeV.
Allow me to add a so far unappreciated element. My rich correspondence with Dr. Mangano, author of the CERN-defending LSAG report, in the first months of 2008 (the last two papers published in July I had sent him as preprints by May 28, 2008) reveals that apparently so many committees were involved in the finalization if the LSAG report and the subsequent corrected version, published at the end of 2008, that the behemoth was unable to include any new information after March 30.
In other words: When it comes to new results, CERN cannot possibly include them. What looks like fraud is un-maneuverability in the face of two much red tape.
But then in the aftermath, the necessity of face-saving forced the institution to continue with the — at first possibly involuntary as we saw – cover-up.
If this is true, the role Professor Nicolai inherited was only that of providing a fig leaf. What counted was the behemoth’s need of a post-facto excuse. If so, his refusal to communicate after his inadvertently having helped hatch Telemach is understandable.
To expect him to now answer to the facts that lie on the table would mean to expect him to withdraw the fig’s leaf he had been hired to provide. He then would suddenly stand with me on the side of science rather than that of power politics.
Since he is a fellow scientist, I cannot reasonably expect him to put his career at stake. So I would have to advise him (science is friendship) to continue lying — that is, saying nothing: the most convenient type of lie. Can anyone say for sure about himself that he would have acted otherwise?
The planet needs good luck in such a situation.
Ah, now Rössler comes again with the conspiracy theory to explain why his fantastic “results” were not mentioned in the papers.
So instead of giving scientific arguments he delivers conspiracy theories and comparison of scientists with nazileaders. (BTW That is unbelievable polite, Anthony).
The truth is of course that Rössler was disproved and has in fact not delivered anything new but even worse versions of the same wrong private views of relativity theory. And of course the rich conversation with Dr. Mangano will not reveal anything else than what is already well known from discussions with Rössler on the web (e.g. here on lifeboat). He was disproved and simply did not accept it.
Slave voices — always the same — are redundant.
Where is his master’s voice?
Why couldn’t we just use earlier accelerators to explore for the Higgs, since it is expected to be found if it is found at an energy level of .12TeV?
One asks merely for information. But Hansel cannot tell us?
This is very disappointing. Hansel has given us the impression that he is the arbiter of truth in regard to all things subatomic, and now this silence.
Could it be that Hansel is merely a trolling computer geek, cheeking his elders and betters to our great amusement but rather obscuring the vital point of the exercise, which is to avert the unlooked for disappearance of the planet down a black rabbit hole.
Profess Rossler of Tubingen has pointed out that this is not the first time in history that a large mechanical invention has been launched into the night amidst thoughtless reassurances that all is safe as houses, thank you, from the pr minded propagandists at the top of the institution in charge.
As it turned out, the operators of the Titanic were quite misleading in telling the captain, the crew, the passengers and the world that the Titanic was unsinkable. But as Professor Rossler hinted, the disaster was triggered by a very small element in the nature of the officers on that ill fated superbarge, namely, their snobbish sense of entitlement relative to the unfortunate crew members assigned to lookout duties.
Apparently after the binoculars assigned to the lookout were lost the first day out, none of the officers were willing to hand over their own and the lookout on the night when the Titanic found itself trying to occupy the same position as a giant iceberg was unable to see the latter until too late.
If he had had a pair of binoculars Frederick Fleet would have seen the monster in time, instead of having to live down his embarrassment for the rest of his life.
Perhaps in the case of the LHC the officials and physicists in charge at CERN should borrow Rossler’s binoculars ie double check the Telemach theorem?
Thank you, dear flamboyant Anthony L. Otto
Anthony, only this: Do you really think the Higgs is the only particle created in the collision of two protons (or better: the particles forming the
proton)?
And why have you not dared to ask the great man here?
(Have you really thought about why the physicists need this high rate of events? probably because the Higgs is not created in every event? Probably because the collisions are less reproducible than this pseudo-physicist Rössler is suggesting? And so on. )
Hansel, why are you still around here, increasing the traffic of this zombie blog? Anthony’s question is naive and silly, and if he had the slightest interest in science (as opposed to conspiracy theories and scaremongering) he would just google the answer by himself. Don’t you see that he’s just trying to provoke you in the hope of keeping the thread alive? The fact that Rossler thanks him idiotically, instead of setting him straight, shows that he has no idea about what a hadron collider is either. Should we still find it surprising at this point?
To be honest I do not know why I am still around here in this blog full of blind believers and scaremongering pseudoscientific guru.
One of the clearest signs of a lack of intelligence is blindness to humor, PassigBy, but no one could accuse you of lack of intelligence, so I am sure you will cotton on shortly by rereading my post.
As regards my question, the breathtakingly brilliant but cruelly demanding PassingByAgain calls it naive and silly, which is extremely hurtful to my pride, what there is of it. Why is it that gentle manners and kindness are lacking on the part of certain distinguished posters here? Does this go along with PBA’s disregard for the fate of the world and its inhabitants, which includes all his relatives? Is there a character fault here?
Surely not. My query was raised in good conscience. It is impossible for the man in the street (whom I represent, as a hard working hack) to understand why if the energy level of 0.12 TeV is where PBA’s friends are hunting the Boson, less risky machines than the LHC could not be used.
Hansel I am most grateful for your kind attempt at a civil reply, which PBA is unwilling and ungenerous enough not to attempt, but instead prefers to insult a harmless hack raising a simple if naive question, which is his job, after all.
But your reply doesn’t address my question. Is my premise wrong? Did not the powers that be inform us via Dennis Overbye and Physics World that 120 GeV is the level at which they are hunting the Boson? If they did, I would like to know why the LHC is necessary.
“http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/science/tantalizing-hints-but-no-direct-proof-in-search-for-higgs-boson.html?scp=1&sq=overbye&st=cse”:
“By next summer, they said, they will have enough data to say finally whether the elusive particle really exists.
If it does, its mass must lie within the range of 115 billion to 127 billion electron volts, according to the new measurements.
The putative particle would weigh in at about 126 billion electron volts, about 126 times heavier than a proton and 250,000 times heavier than an electron, reported one army of 3,000 physicists, known as Atlas, for the name of their particle detector. ”
Also http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/48105:
“Particle physicists are today digesting the news from yesterday’s special seminar at CERN, where potential glimpses of the Higgs boson were revealed. Based on nearly all the data collected so far – the debris of some 500 trillion proton–proton collisions – the Large Hadron Collider’s ATLAS and CMS experiments have now excluded the Higgs at pretty much all masses outside the narrow region between 115–130 GeV/c2 and 115–127 GeV/c2, respectively. The analyses represent a major reduction in the particle’s possible hiding places compared with the situation just a few months ago. ”
I ask merely for information, which is my prerogative as a hard working hack, without risk of being called naive and silly by one of the greatest minds here at Lifeboat.
Certainly I would have asked Professor Rossler to explain, but I am reluctant to bother a truly great mind with explaining the basics to an ignoramus. However, Hansel is so generous in his expression of disregard for the achievements and standing of Professor Rossler that I hoped he might also have time to enlighten me, unless TRMG wanted to relieve me of my ignorance.
Come back Tevatron all is forgiven.
PS Perhaps one should add that in the four days leading up to the unfortunate coincidence of the giant iceberg and the Titanic there were no fewer than 27 warnings of ice sent from nearby ships to the Titanic across the radio waves.
But the radio operator of the huge ship was too busy sending greetings from the VIP passengers to their loved one on shore while the officers chatted up the ladies among them to listen and actually told a ship nearby to stop sending ice warnings while he dealt with the backlog half an hour before the ship struck.
Incidentally Captain Smith was a grizzled old timer who assured the New York press that“I cannot imagine any conditions under which a ship would founder Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that.”
Another point made in the inquiry was that binoculars would have helped protect the eyes of the lookout from freezing wind which caused his eyes to stream and blinded him until he recovered by looking away and warming them again.
Any of this remind you of the LHC and the many warnings from the “blind believers and scaremongering pseudoscientific guru(s)” on Lifeboat, Hansel?
It should.
Humans are fallible and they cannot think of everything. With very large machines you need three redundant levels of checking even if the consequences of failure are less that the gulping down of our only little home in the vast cold universe in one swallow.
If that is the consequence then you need several more levels of checking, I would suggest. This is a simple principle unrelated to your scorn of heretics of any ilk.
Anthony asked a valid question. Why do we need the enormous energies of the LHC to find the Higgs boson, if as recently surmised it has a relatively low mass of around 120 GeV? The higher rate of collisions at the LHC may facilitate finding the Higgs, but the much weaker Tevatron and other colliders already eliminated an even higher range for its mass.
Hansel commented that there are other particles of interest that may arise from proton collisions at the LHC. Now just what could he have in mind? Could it be perhaps, just possibly, oh I don’t know, maybe…BLACK HOLES?
They don’t announce it publicly these days, but string theorists have admitted that they are hoping for evidence of mini black holes arising at the LHC, for such would buttress theories involving one or more extra dimensions. According to a CERN physicist at ATLAS, their analyis found that “The black hole threshold is around 9.5 TeV” (Dr. F. Ledroit-Guillon, quoted by Amir Aczel in Present at the Creation, 2010, p. 212). According to Dr. Aczel, a graph from the ATLAS physicist showed that “some production of tiny black holes at the LHC could begin at energy levels between 8 and 9 TeV.”
In her recent NY Times interview, Prof. Lisa Randall discreetly left out a significant aspect of the Higgs boson This is the fact that recent studies indicate that it may actually be the Inflaton — the violent particle/field believed to have caused a colossal inflation of space an instant after the Big Bang (F. Bezrukov, The Standard Model Higgs Boson as the Inflaton, Physics Letters B 659:703–706, 2008). Citing this Russian study, a team of scientists from MIT, including Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, recently wrote: “We conclude that running inflation based upon a Standard Model Higgs makes predictions that are consistent with the current cosmological data…” (A. De Simone, M. Hertzberg, F. Wilczek, Running Inflation in the Standard Model, Physics Letters B 678:1–8, 2009).
Finding the Higgs boson also means producing it, which thus might be disastrous. It is believed to have formed in the first microsecond of the Big Bang, the conditions of which are reproducible by the heat, density and luminosity of the magnetically focused LHC collisions.
So, what happens to Geneva, Europe, or the Earth if the inflaton (Higgs or not) is produced and “does its thing,” triggering a local expansion of space? This risk has not even been considered by CERN. Rationally, the search for the Higgs boson should be stopped until the safety of its production can be assured.
Yes, Houston. particle physcics know only Higgs and Black holes. Particle physics knows only one decay channel, only one possibiliy to create a free higgs. of course particles are created and detected directyl, not via decays.
and so on.
Of course it is entirely unimportant to know something about the physics. Of course it is absolutely logical that the expert Rössler has nothing to say about that :D
Hansel, your answer seems to lack both conventional grammar and ordinary intelligibility. Would you mind repeating it with corrections so that one can fathom what you intended to say?
And what about my question, or do you accept what Mr Houston has opined?
One’s general impression is that you have not read the references linked to above or earlier ones quoted by Houston. Would it not be better if you leashed your seeming prejudice against all doubt about the LHC’s safety until you do so?
After all, we now have reason to fear mBHs, strangelets and inflatons. How can you be sure that there is no danger if you have not even read the relevant papers?
I accept all of Houstons statements, he is a real genius. Of course there is normally no Higgs-field present and it is created only in colliders by evil scientists.
So it is absolutely logical that the Higgs created will blow up the world. I am real impressed by the deep understanding of the references Houston is always showing.
And now ask the dear Professor Dr. Dr. hc Otto E. Rössler if you have questions about particles. He has more knowledge about the stuff than all of these evil people which have disproved him (of course they have not. Rössler demonstrated already in his first paragraph above that relativity physics must be completely wrong. All the things in contradiction to his views are simply wrong!!) So please do not bother the evil scientists any longer, ask the dear Professor. Certainly he can explain to you in detail the answer to your silly question.
The real advantage of Houston et al is to read papers without any knowledge. This way he can reveal the hidden dangers and evil intentions of scientist much better, even better than the dear Professor.
Perhaps this will be the last christmas with a probability of 3,667%
Hansel, it’s time to leave the geniuses here alone, really! Lt them debate amongst themselves, like any good conspiracy site ends up with. Nobody takes them serious except you, so stop it.
Given that neither Howell, Hansel or PassingBy seem capable of writing any cogent reply to Houston’s points, let alone keep their grammar straight, and that Hansel cannot even answer a simple question on the basic objectives of the LHC, it does seem the time has come to adjourn, until they have something to contribute. I had hoped they would somehow show us that the theorizing of their heroes as to the possible yield of the LHC had more validity than the theorizing of the critics, but they have failed. I conclude that the only real physicist here is/was TRMG, and the rest of you are without expertise in the matter. This is a pity, since as Houston points out, there is much in the writings of the official defenders of the safety of the LHC which admits there are unsolved problems and dangers, and it would have been useful if those posting here had been genuinely qualified to comment. Instead, we have a situation where the only Commenter here who has read the material is Houston, and the rest of you are just winging it, apparently because you are not qualified to respond, even when I ask a simple question.
Therefore it does seem right that you should stop posting, as all three of you have suggested, and leave the matter to people who have read the papers being discussed..
You are of course right, Peter.
So as these people believe that Rössler is a real scientist with rich knowledge in this field, they should ask him. He is the expert and the guru of these believers.
So Rössler, its your turn now. :D
Houston has not read the relevant papers, he picked words without understanding of them. Best example is his funny Higgs-will-probably-blow-up-scenario above. Selective wordpicking wihtout understanding is certainly a better qualification to discuss the dangers than anything else.
anthonly, if the great Houston and the fantastic Rössler are really serious experts in the field I see no reason why anyone else should waste his time any longer. Ask the high-qualified experts in cosmology, particle physics, hadron colliders, blow-up-Higgs and so on Houston or Rössler if you want to know something. should be easy for them as they were able to reveal this evil doings at CERN …
And now, Good bye and have fun, litte Rössler-sect of scaremongerers.
The Higgs field is widely suspected by many professional physicists and astrologers to be the “kindling behind the Inflaton,” (Paper by Steve Carlin, in the “Journal of New England Metaphysical Transactions,” Q1 2011, pgs 36–81), so, as Robert Houston says, it follows that if a Higgs particle is created in an accelerator, under conditions closely approximating the Big Bang, it may (with a 3.5% chance according to Carlin’s paper), trigger a big bang!!!
The CERN physicists are clearly hiding behind a phalanx of professional “Closed guild stonewalling,” confident in their understanding of their esoteric topics.
CERN must stop!
Clearly, any attempt to create the Higgs
Well, If the interest of astrologers and a review in a metaphysical journal is not enough to convince the CERNians of the significance of an issue, who knows what will? Apparently, studies by physicists identifying the Higgs boson as the Inflaton, which appeared in top peer-reviewed physics journals, brought only disdain from Hansel et al., even when the findings were supported by a Nobel laureate physicist (Wilczek). In fact, a look at any physics database will reveal a burgeoning sub-field called “Higgs inflation.”
So, what would be the consequences if the LHC produced a liberated inflaton and its inflationary field, whether or not it’s the Higgs? A prominent scientist who has addressed this issue is Prof. Brian Greene of Columbia University. In his latest book he asked, “should we worry that if we artificially set off new inflationary realms, our own corner of space may be swallowed by the ballooning expanse?” (Hidden Reality, 2011, p. 278). He offers a theory that the inflation would expand into a new universe leaving behind “a deep gravitational well… which would appear to us as a black hole” (p. 279).
So why did it expand in this universe after the big bang? And will Geneva slide down the “deep…well”? Oddly, these are questions that CERN’s safety report never considered. A science website that did discuss the matter is: http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/kicking-mother-natures-s…g-ever.htm
Hansel’s sarcastic digs are quite amusing, even when I’m the target. What’s really upsetting is to recognize that one has made a mistake. The quotation from a CERN physicist in my previous comment left out a key word: “mass”. The actual statement by Dr. Ledroit-Guillon was that “The black hole mass threshold is around 9.5 TeV.” According to Dr. Aczel, the graph showed that “some production of tiny black holes at the LHC could begin at energy levels between 8 and 9 TeV.” (Aczel, Present at the Creation, 2010, p. 212). This exemplifies the relationship of the collider energy level to the maximum mass of particles that can be produced.
Very interesting speculations about possibilities.
Humankind has a record of never taking mere possibilities into account. Most people are used to this fact, maybe unfortunately so, but enterprise and endeavor are to a large extent based on this “Voreinstellung” (pre-setting of parameters).
The difference with CERN is that they treat proven facts as if they were mere possibilities. Like the ship’s boy telling the captain that he seees something definitive being considered a mirage himself.
This is new and never happened before in history.
“We conclude that running inflation based upon a Standard Model Higgs makes predictions that are consistent with the current cosmological data…”
Good quote. Once again Houston delivers a bunkerbuster that sends the CERN defenders fleeing. Once again we see they have no answer to the very high authorities (top name physicists) they worship. Once again we see that those same authorities are the ones who state the reason for alarm. Small wonder that Hansel is reduced to slinking off in defeat, since he has never read any of this stuff, quite evidently, with Parthian shots about Houston’s “genius”, meant in mocking irony but in fact only underlining that the label is quite suitable.
Anyone who wants to known more about this topic in entertaining clarity should follow Houston’s link http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/kicking-mother-natures-s.….g-ever.htm
to my post at Science Guardian which although it was written many moons ago lays out the issue quite well if I humbly say so myself. Any objections welcome in comments.
Charlie Rose: When we say the word particle what do we mean?
Lisa Randall: That’s actually a really good question in the sense that we really are digging down deeper inside matter. We see this tabletop then we go down and we see atoms, atoms are not fundamental they have smaller components in them, nuclei and electrons, and so when we talk about particles we really are trying to look for what are the more elementary components of matter. And then we can study them and learn about their properties and learn about the forces through which they interact and in fact the proton actually is made up of smaller objects called quarks and actually does have mass even without the masses of those elementary particles. What’s so interesting about the Higgs boson particle is that it will tell us how those elementary particles get their masses.
Charlie Rose: Let me go back to another definition when we say “mass” what do we mean?
Lisa Randall: That’s an intrinsic property of a particle in fact Einstein taught us that one of the ways to understand mass is as a relationship between energy and momentum that has to be satisfied. It’s response to a force it tells you what… I mean it tells you response to gravity which is how much it weighs but it tells you response to forces in a sense and mass is an intrinsic property of a particle that can be measured and identified. (Nods several times in agreement with herself).
Lisa Randall, who teaches at Harvard and has written a book which is a best seller judging from displays in Manhattan, appeared on Charlie Rose Wed 21 at midnight (ie Dec 20/21) and stumbled through the above replies to some elementary questions posed by the sycophantic Charlie Rose.
Rose’s next question might have been, shall we adjourn until you recover from your jet lag and can answer these questions competently? But of course he ploughed on regardless, leaving the viewer none the wiser, unless they had time to google as they watched.
Google: Wiki: Particle: In the physical sciences, a particle is a small localized object to which can be ascribed several physical properties such as volume or mass.[1][2] The word is rather general in meaning, and is refined as needed by various scientific fields.
Whether objects can be considered particles depends on the scale of the context; if an object’s own size is small or negligible, or if geometrical properties and structure are irrelevant, then it can be considered a particle.[3] For example, grains of sand on a beach can be considered particles because the size of one grain of sand (c. 1 mm) is negligible compared to the beach, and the features of individual grains of sand are usually irrelevant to the problem at hand. However, grains of sand would not be considered particles if compared to buckyballs (~1 nm).
The concept of particles is particularly useful when modelling nature, as the full treatment of many phenomena is complex.[4] It can be used to make simplifying assumptions concerning the processes involved. Francis Sears and Mark Zemansky, in University Physics, give the example of calculating the landing location and velocity of a baseball thrown in the air. They gradually strip the baseball of most of its properties, by first idealizing it as a rigid smooth sphere, then by neglecting rotation, buoyancy and friction, ultimately reducing the problem to the ballistics of a classical point particle.[5]
Treatment of large numbers of particles is the realm of statistical physics.[6] When studied in the context of an extremely small scale, quantum mechanics starts to kick in, and give rise to several phenomena such as the particle in a box problem[7][8] and wave–particle duality,[9][10] or theoretical considerations, such a whether particles can be considered distinct or identical.[11][12]
The term “particle” is usually applied differently to three class of sizes. The term macroscopic particle, usually refers to particles much larger than atoms and molecules. These are usually abstracted as point-like particles, even though they have volumes, shapes, structures, etc. Examples of macroscopic particles would include dust, sand, pieces of debris during a car accident, or even objects as big as the stars of a galaxy.[13][14] Another type, microscopic particles usually refers to particles of sizes ranging from atoms to molecules, such as carbon dioxide, nanoparticles, and colloidal particles. The smallest of particles are the subatomic particles, which refer to particles smaller than atoms.[15] These would include particles such as the constituents of atoms – protons, neutrons, and electron – as well as other types of particles which can only be produced in particle accelerators or cosmic rays.
Google: Wiki: Mass: In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα “barley cake, lump (of dough)”), more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to the change of its speed. In addition to this, gravitational mass can be described as a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force which is
exerted by an object (active gravitational mass), or
experienced by an object (passive gravitational force)
when interacting with a second object. The SI unit of mass is the kilogram (kg).
In everyday usage, mass is often referred to as weight, the units of which are often taken to be kilograms (for instance, a person may state that their weight is 75 kg). In scientific use, however, the term weight refers to a different, yet related, property of matter. Weight is the gravitational force acting on a given body, while mass is an intrinsic property of this body. On the surface of the Earth, the weight W of an object is related to its mass m by W = mg, where g is the Earth’s gravitational field strength, equal to about 9.81 m s−2. An object’s weight depends on its environment, while its mass does not: an object with a mass of 50 kilograms weighs 491 Newtons on the surface of the Earth; on the surface of the Moon, the same object still has a mass of 50 kilograms but weighs only 81.5 Newtons.
The inertial mass of an object determines its acceleration in the presence of an applied force. According to Newton’s second law of motion, if a body of fixed mass M is subjected to a force F, its acceleration α is given by F/M. A body’s mass also determines the degree to which it generates or is affected by a gravitational field. If a first body of mass MA is placed at a distance r from a second body of mass MB, each body experiences an attractive force FG whose magnitude is FG= G MAMB r-2, where G is the universal constant of gravitation, equal to 6.67×10−11 N m2kg-2. This is sometimes referred to as gravitational mass[1] Repeated experiments since the 17th century have demonstrated that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent; since 1915, this observation has been entailed a priori in the equivalence principle of general relativity.
Special relativity shows that rest mass (or invariant mass) and rest energy are essentially equivalent, via the well-known relationship (E=mc2). This same equation also connects relativistic mass and “relativistic energy” (total system energy). These are concepts that are related to their “rest” counterparts, but they do not have the same value, in systems where there is a net momentum. In order to deduce any of these four quantities from any of the others, in any system which has a net momentum, an equation that takes momentum into account is needed. Mass (so long as the type and definition of mass is agreed upon) is a conserved quantity over time. From the viewpoint of any single unaccelerated observer, mass can neither be created or destroyed, and special relativity does not change this understanding (though different observers may not agree on how much mass is present, all agree that the amount does not change over time).
Macroscopically, mass is associated with matter. But on the sub-atomic scale, not only fermions, the particles associated with matter, but also some bosons, the particles that act as force carriers, have rest mass. In the Standard Model of particle physics, mass is described as arising as a consequence of a coupling of the field of which the massive particles are quanta to a postulated additional field, known as the Higgs field.
The total mass of the observable universe is estimated at between 1052 kg and 1053 kg, corresponding to the rest mass of between 1079 and 1080 protons.
What if Charlie Rose had asked us.
What is a particle?
AL: A very small thing which in large quantity bunched together makes up a much larger thing, as sand particles make up a beach, or physicists make up CERN, and which has attributes such as volume and mass.
What is mass?
AL: The mysterious attribute of material things large and small in the universe which allows them to be influenced to a predictable extent by forces such as gravity and rocket power and to resist being pushed out of the way or accelerated by such forces, comparable to the way that CERN defenders such as Hansel resist changing their position however great the force of logic brought to bear upon their uninformed views, but are eventually accelerated off stage when the pressure becomes too great.
The above Scienceguardian link says: “Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.”
Dear all who know
My goodness. How can we know what really will happen? (Anyway CERNs cosmic ray argument that they stubbornly use as THE general safety proof is invalid — the reasons have been told many times.)
The Higgs-inflaton risk sounds hair-rising to me and I am still waiting for some serious counter arguments here instead of :-( please…
Merry X-mas to all and best regards,
Niccolò
Humble apologies for what may be Lifeboat’s truncation of my link to ScienceGuardian above. The whole link without the .….. part is
http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/kicking-mother-natures-s…g-ever.htm
Hope this arrives in front of you in full. If not I will repost to explain further. For me, it got the right page if I just put the cursor in the slot and back spaced to get rid of the … part, when it went to the right page. But this may have been becuse it was in my computer which knows better.
Merry Christmas all, especially to the Scrooges Hansel etc who have no doubt been reformed by the visits of the ghosts of the LHC future that came to visit them last night.
Good link, beautiful encouragement, dear AnthonyL. Blessings to all readers and Niccolò. Otto
That seemed to work OK, let me know if not.
I too now have to return to Science Guardian and write up this mammoth six month Rossler versues CERN Lifeboat exchange for those unable to read through all the 1275 posts. My conclusion is probably going to be that conCERN about the LHC is very justified by the writings of CERN itself and its apologists, but that the knowledgeable critics have made no progress in attracting anyone of influence to their cause, as is so often the case when truth meets the politics of large organizations.
The reasons for such developments are well explained in two books which should be read by all interested parties after Christmas.
One is called The Folly of Fools by Robert Trivers. Excellent explanation of the self deceptive stupidities in those they try and enlighten with which scientific heretics and originators such as Rossler have had to contend with without apparently being aware of how innate they are in most people’s thinking.
» http://www.amazon.com/Folly-Fools-Logic-Deceit-Self-Deceptio…atfound-20
»
» There is also another on the same topic of how flawed the thinking of human beings tends to be, Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, which analyses all the ways in which reasoning commonly goes wrong, without people being aware of it. It is a careful and complete analysis, chapter by chapter, but written well enough to avoid wasting the reader’s time trying to fathom it. The author got a Nobel in Economics earlier.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0374275637/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp…B00555X8OA
There are innumerable well known quotes which describe the absurdities of poor thinking attendant on politicized issues in science and society by every author you like, most of them on my page
http://www.scienceguardian.com/blog/quotations-on-science-and-belief
but these are two intelligent books which describe the landscape properly based on studies. I think all thinking people will find them a great comfort and illumination and should have them for Christmas. They will be a great comfort whenever they blame themselves for
their difficulties.
Thank you very much.
Still it is not a usual phenomenon with which we are confronted here. It is not human frailty but a conscious cover-up done in the open. The media know they are being lied to by CERN, by the latter never quoting the published new results — so that they would have to justify themselves.
And the media never quoting a Court’s request for a safety conference convoked to save the planet is, perhaps, also a historical first.
It can only be “excused” by the fact that there never was a more important cause in history. Imagine the danger were as big as it is and the media would have to explain why they did not report. As you know I see in their cowardice the real cause of the catastrophe.
Well yes but the factor which allows this bad behavior to go on without embarrassment or conscience or response to your and others’ agitation is the self deception and cognitive faults these books analyze, which your wife or friends should buy you for Christmas, Profesor.
I am grateful, my dear journalist friend.
But what can we do to kiss the press awake?
As you imply, the press is a Sleeping Beauty. Possibly an extremely large explosion in the vicinity of Geneva and/or a gaping chasm the size of the Grand Canyon x6 might do it, but one can never overestimate the power of group denialism, so they would possibly have to ask each other first if it was a “story”.
The (failed) arrival of the Titanic was heralded by a “story” anticipating its docking before it took place, I believe. If that is wrong, then one has to compare the situation to the critics who reviewed a play or some music for the next day’s edition and went to bed without knowing that the performance had been called off. This has happened more than once.
It is not the job of the media to question the pronouncements of distinguished Harvard physicists such as Lisa Randall, whose confidence in the LHC appears to be about as soundly based as theirs, since she has clearly failed to read the safety material properly, if at all, just as they have not.
The physicists kept their fingers crossed when they detonated the first atomic bomb and so they reckon that the same strategy will work indefinitely. The press assume they know what they are doing. Those who bother to research the topic properly are outsiders, and therefore not to be believed. Sweet reason is not a factor. Research is not a factor. Original thinking is not a factor. Such things do not enter into enjoying the Christmas party, and are therefore grounds for expulsion.
All we can do is do what they do — keep our fingers crossed and join in. Bottoms up! Jesus Christ and his church has taken over 2000 years to change the quality of human nature and failed to complete the job. What are we going to do in a few years?
A Christmas toast and a Happy New year as we go over the next brow of the rollercoaster hill. God will presumably keep us on the rails. Hello, God? God? Are you there?
Why does he never answer? So impolite.
No, “He is ashamed of working visible miracles,” as my young son said.
(He probably remembered that I had explained that the Now and Color are palpable miracles which humankind decided to overlook.)
Mr. anthony, the houston guy did not deliever a bunkerbuster as the kind of “safety issue” is indeed already adressed by the cosmic ray argument. if particle collisions of LHC center of mass-energy can produce a inflation field, they would have done so in the past. Our existence rules this scenario out.
i recommend a lttle bit more thinking before talking about bunkerbusters.
the comment above als applies for the foolish claim that cern itself would give the vidence for dangerous scenarios. the danger is interestingly always seen by people without any knowledge in the field or at least basic logical thinking abilities.
Don’t be naive, Visitor.
Through magnetic focusing, beam compression, and particle density, the LHC is designed to produce conditions comparable to those existing a trillionth of a second after the big bang. Such conditions include temperatures over 100,000 times that of the core of the sun — conditions not producible by cosmic rays, which are merely isolated particles, with nowhere near the luminosity of the LHC. Furthermore, cosmic rays do not involve collisions of lead nuclei, as occur in the LHC’s ALICE experiments.
Nor do cosmic rays produce quark-gluon plasmas, such are believed to have occured in the big bang and in supernovas. There are a number of such pertinent diferences that permit the LHC to generate phenomena not detected in cosmic rays.
The inflaton particle and field were produced an instant after the big bang in conditions which are not produced by cosmic rays but which might occur in the LHC. Yet not one word about this possible danger was ever mentioned in any of CERN’s safety documents.
“Yet not one word about this possible danger was ever mentioned in any of CERN’s safety documents.”
Well, they should have had the courage, since it has become clear that none of the media reporters or other boosters of CERN folly ever trouble to read the material, which may as well be written on water as far as they are concerned, since their ruling assumption is that one finger crossed over another is the only safety strategy needed.
Arguing with CERN boosters is like arguing with the brain-paralyzed followers of a cult, or indeed, an established religion. Their faith is admirable in being a great source of comfort to them all, including their wives and children, one assumes.
All these people like Houston in their book are mere troublemakers who attack their God, and remind one of Christopher Hitchens the sourpuss who attacked Mother Theresa and even God Himself (Herself? Itself?) until he got struck down by lightning from Heaven in a significant area of his body (fatal cancer in the lower throat).
We are waiting for CERN defenders to call down hellfire from on high just like God did on poor Hitchens, who was merely pointing out flaws in logic and evidence, just as Houston et al are doing. Perhaps they are waiting for the Christmas recess to be over before.…
Wait! the LHC is starting up in March again!
Let’s hope that is not the hellfire they have in mind.
Houston, as expected now the story of the ultradense particle beams and so on.
You should really think about the real conditions in the LHC. Think about the number of partticles in each bunch, think about the number of collisions when two bunches meet each other and also think about the speed of the involved particles. All these facts lead to the conclusion that collisions at the LHC are statistical independent events and do not interact with other collisions. Besides this is in fact the desired operational mode because interacting events would be a nightmare for the data processing.
Furthermore you should inform yourself about the definition of terms like “temperature”.
So in the end the naive guy is Mr. Houston who evidently has not read a single data sheet about the machine itself. The recommendation to learn a little bit about physics is therefore justified again.
The cosmic ray argument stands on firm grounds. If a kind of blow-up particle could be produced by collisions of protons with the same energy as used in the LHC then it would have happend long before. For this type of scenario not even the use of dense astronomical objects is necessary to confirm that there is no danger.
AnthonyL: Thanks for the nice words, of course all the people at CERN or elsewhere are brain-paralyzed followers. The possibility that some deeper knowledge of the issues could be the reason that only laymen like Houston see any danger is completely absurd. All what is needed is the ability to read some words in some papers. No one needs to know anything about machine conditions or the physics behind it. :D
In this response, a trace of competence is tangible for the first time in a note from Potsdam.
I therefore can take issue with the one ideological element above in confirmation of AnthonyL’s worst fears: “The cosmic ray argument stands on firm grounds.”
This either is a dirty lie — which I do not believe in the above context — or a proof of the brainwashed status of this member of the Potsdam (Golm) Institute. He only read what CERN allowed him to read and never even checked whether the literature that CERN chose to ignore for more than three years exists, not to mention read it.
Nor did he read the counterproofs and background given on Lifeboat. To see a specialist go astray is especially tragic. I can only congratulate him for having withheld his name from his readers.
Rössler, I forgot to mention that your knowledge is also rather limited. For example, the dear “journalist” Anthony should think about your last probability estimations. On the one hand you have talked about chances of 3 or 4 % or, more interesting, a rise to 3 or 4% through the year, each time referring to a rise of luminosity. No your estimate is again at 1% with the additional statement that you have no knowledge about the luminosities. Do you really want to talk about lies?
This is only one example for your business of scaremongering, your pseudoscientific crusade against proper science. There are more examples, not at least on this blog (e.g. your difficulties to explain or derive your wrong equations and much more).
So if someone is brainwashed then the blind followers of your lies, tricks and pseudoscience.
However, the party is over. this blog has an anti-scientific agenda and Rössler fits perfectly to it. Be happy with your “expert” and do not think to much about the inconsistencies or changes in probabilities or something like that. to be critical of Rössler and to ask questions is of course the result of dogmatism , brain washing or some psycholgical disorder.
Best regards from your imaginary friends in Geneva,
The Evil Visitors.
This is Hansel at his best again. He cannot see that an approximate probability of the world being extinguished with 1 or 4 percent is the same thing. Sleep on, my friend. I wish you a good year 2012 from my heart.
What does this comment above — Rossler Dec 31 3.56pm — –refer to? Is Visitor none other than Hansel? Is there a missing Comment? The last Comment on page 1 of this Nicolai post thread ends with “The Evil Visitors.”
The first 50 comments are at http://lifeboat.com/blog/2011/12/the-cern-nicolai-coverup-%E…ent-page-1
which is as usual the url of this new 50 post section with /comment-page-1 replacing #comment at the end of the url.
Anyhow referring to the comments which just preceded this one, one wonders about the peculiar logic of the “Evil Visitor” in referring to the dear “journalist” (sic) AnthonyL. I am a journalist, as my site states, though an investigative one, ie that does not takes everything in press releases as gospel. Why does Visitor put this in quotes? Is the brain of the Visitor even functioning when he/she writes his/her posts?
Visitor’s brain seems to have completely failed whecontemplating the cosmic ray argument, since he states “The cosmic ray argument stands on firm grounds. If a kind of blow-up particle could be produced by collisions of protons with the same energy as used in the LHC then it would have happend long before. For this type of scenario not even the use of dense astronomical objects is necessary to confirm that there is no danger.”
This shows such illiteracy and unread unfamiliarity with all that has been written by CERN scientists and Martin Rees and everyone else including Houston and myself on this blog that one wonders, as I say, is the brain of the Visitor even engaged when writing his comment here?
Even Rossler who usually kindly ignores silly mistakes by the untutored is forced to point out that this statement is prima facie absurd.
Since Visitor is obviously basically intelligent and tutored in the basics of the LHC one can only conclude that indeed he write from emotion on this blog, and his brain is disengaged in order to allow full rein to his prejudice that any criticism of the LHC operation doesn’t take into account the difference between what is written in papers and what happens inside the machine.
What? That is a new one. Papers are usually the basis of the design of the machine, sop to say that papers don’t accord with its operation is a daring assertion. One waits with interest to see if Visitor can justify this slip.
My explanation is that I recognized the voice from an insider of the so-called AEI. They all use their names interchangeably, and from time to time a new mask is introduced. I may be wrong, as on any one on a fancy-dress ball can be.
But I was impressed by the inside glimpses, too.