Scientific Forums


Pages: (148) « First ... 110 111 [112] 113 114 ... Last »  ( Go to first unread post )

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


> LHC danger, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html
buttershug
Posted: Aug 15 2008, 12:14 PM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5763
Joined: 30-September 07

Positive Feedback: 88%
Feedback Score: 146


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 15 2008, 07:23 AM)
What in the heck are you going on about here? I've always stated the broader audience needs to be considered, under all circumstances.

Even when the subject matter is above the heads of the broader audience?
QM and such don't make sense at your level of understanding.
It can not be dumbed down to the level of the ordinary person.
Even most well educated people can't really discuss it well.


--------------------
If you want to keep believing in the Wizard, never look behind the curtain. You will be disappointed.
Top
prometheus
Posted: Aug 15 2008, 02:52 PM


Annoyed by you.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: 1-November 07

Positive Feedback: 78.26%
Feedback Score: 103


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 15 2008, 05:28 AM)
Uh, didn't you get that he was talking about String Theory, not GR?
    Gillis: So you think that String theory is basically correct?

    Yes. I never believed in String theory until quite recently, when I found this result. That electrons cannot be essentially point-shaped. For if they were, they would necessarily be little black holes at the same time, which indeed no one else finds objectionable. But black holes are uncharged according to my new reading of the Schwarzschild metric. Strings then must already exist in front of our eyes -- in the form of electrons. This makes string-shaped mini black holes much more likely

The Schwarzschild metric comes from GR, not string theory. It is the metric of an uncharged non rotating black hole. The fact that Rossler (a medic and biochemist) is using a result from GR to claim he understands string theory is not a good sign.

The fact that we're having this conversation is indicative that you don't know any modern physics because QFT does not model particles as classical points, but quantum points. That is, they have a certain position and momentum that is smeared out by the uncertainty principle. That's why particles aren't mini black holes in themselves.


--------------------
Hac in hora sine mora corde pulsum tangite. - O Fortuna from Carmina Burana

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: - Isaiah 10:28
Top
AlphaNumeric
Posted: Aug 15 2008, 10:10 PM


Professional mathematician
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 10336
Joined: 16-June 06

Positive Feedback: 84.15%
Feedback Score: 420


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 15 2008, 06:28 AM)
But black holes are uncharged according to my new reading of the Schwarzschild metric.

So the black hole metric for an uncharged black holes is chargleless? What a shocker! What about the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole? It's charged. rolleyes.gif

As Prom points out, the fact you quoted that proves you don't understand it.


--------------------
The views in the above post are those of its author and not those of the people who educated him through a degree and masters, supervised him or collaborated with him during his PhD, paid him to teach and mark undergraduate mathematics and physics courses or who pay him to do research now.

Any insults, flames or rants are purely the work of the author and not said people or institutions. Cranks are not suffered well.
Top
Trippy
Posted: Aug 15 2008, 10:29 PM


I'm with stupid.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5140
Joined: 9-January 07

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


QUOTE (prometheus @ Aug 15 2008, 11:24 PM)
You don't understand that "curves towards the singularity," and "cannot move away from the singularity," are not the same thing. A particle can have a curved path towards the singularity and still move away from if. I suspect this comes from your lack of knowledge of curvature.

That star in Cygnus curves towards a singularity, and manages to move away from it.

Heck, the sun curves towards a bloody great big monster of a singularity, and still manages to curve away from it. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif


--------------------
cave et aude
Observe. Predict. Confirm.
Schroedingers Voter: I'm both Left Wing and Right Wing until you ask me a specific question.
"Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable." -Prof. Anon.
High Priest of the Revised Church of Bacchus.
Founder of the Cult if Re-frig-ATOR.
Top
Trippy
Posted: Aug 15 2008, 10:37 PM


I'm with stupid.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 5140
Joined: 9-January 07

Positive Feedback: 78.95%
Feedback Score: 220


Shhh, what's that...

Nope, just a train, still no Bosenova.


--------------------
cave et aude
Observe. Predict. Confirm.
Schroedingers Voter: I'm both Left Wing and Right Wing until you ask me a specific question.
"Incompetence is bad enough, but to persist is unforgivable." -Prof. Anon.
High Priest of the Revised Church of Bacchus.
Founder of the Cult if Re-frig-ATOR.
Top
prometheus
Posted: Aug 16 2008, 07:00 AM


Annoyed by you.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: 1-November 07

Positive Feedback: 78.26%
Feedback Score: 103


QUOTE (Trippy @ Aug 15 2008, 10:29 PM)
That star in Cygnus curves towards a singularity, and manages to move away from it.

Heck, the sun curves towards a bloody great big monster of a singularity, and still manages to curve away from it. biggrin.gif biggrin.gif

That is true, but we are talking about what happens to particles inside the black hole. Outside it, black holes behave like any other gravitational object where things can orbit or be deflected by its gravity etc.

wink.gif


--------------------
Hac in hora sine mora corde pulsum tangite. - O Fortuna from Carmina Burana

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: - Isaiah 10:28
Top
prometheus
Posted: Aug 16 2008, 07:07 AM


Annoyed by you.
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1140
Joined: 1-November 07

Positive Feedback: 78.26%
Feedback Score: 103


QUOTE (RealityCheck @ Aug 16 2008, 01:23 AM)


Hi prometheus.

Uba's misunderstandings relating to the above, especially that point highlighted in that bit I bolded, is just one of the many, MANY misunderstandings I and others have been trying to disabuse him of, using both 'conversational' AND 'technical' scientific terms/explanations. None of it gained any purchase against that uba-slippery and virtually-impervious 'preconceptions field' that seems to surround his intellectual apparatus. That 'field' should be made a field of study in it's own right! hehehe.

I gave up after many months (or is it years already!) of trying. Life's too short.

Tag!...you're it......it's your turn! hehehe.

I'll be dropping in now and then for a laugh. Nothing else, especially objective science/explanations, seems to have worked. Good luck!

RC.
.
.

In the beginning my goal was to persuade uba he was wrong, but it has evolved somewhat. I'm having difficulty figuring exactly what uba wants to get out of this, because as others have said, if he was really concerned about the LHC he would be discussing this stuff at CERN. I'm inclined to believe now that he's simply trolling.

Which brings me to my goal. Physorg is read by a lot of people, many of whom may not understand too much physics. My goal is now to make uba look as wrong as possible, and see him deflect and insult like he likes to do so much. That way, the others that read this thread will know the LHC poses no danger.

So far so good, IMO. smile.gif


--------------------
Hac in hora sine mora corde pulsum tangite. - O Fortuna from Carmina Burana

For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: - Isaiah 10:28
Top
dimazin
Posted: Aug 17 2008, 01:56 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 406
Joined: 22-January 08

Positive Feedback: 23.53%
Feedback Score: -86


Prometheus wishes to know opinions of retarded people. And so in my memory he was right only once when has corrected my "true" speed.
Top
AlphaNumeric
Posted: Aug 17 2008, 10:07 AM


Professional mathematician
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 10336
Joined: 16-June 06

Positive Feedback: 84.15%
Feedback Score: 420


QUOTE (dimazin @ Aug 17 2008, 02:56 AM)
Prometheus wishes to know opinions of retarded people.

But that doesn't mean you have to give your opinion. Pipe down and go away.


--------------------
The views in the above post are those of its author and not those of the people who educated him through a degree and masters, supervised him or collaborated with him during his PhD, paid him to teach and mark undergraduate mathematics and physics courses or who pay him to do research now.

Any insults, flames or rants are purely the work of the author and not said people or institutions. Cranks are not suffered well.
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 05:27 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (AlphaNumeric @ Aug 15 2008, 06:17 AM)
None of them relevent to this discussion. What's the matter, having trouble staying on topic?

Oh my, you can't take a joke?

Besides, those are great science fiction classics. I highly recommend them.

QUOTE
Point to the posts you mention. I research string theory on conic spaces! I work out the effects on particle fields when you vary the size and shape of the cone!

Haven't I told you enough times that I'm not playing this game with you? Do you keep forgetting? In any event, it's not my fault you can't retain the continuity of context.

QUOTE
So what exactly didn't I understand?

Oh p-u-l-e-e-z! How many times do I have to say it?

QUOTE
Did you understand the presentation I once gave on such spaces?

I keep a copy by my bed in case I'm having trouble getting to sleep.

QUOTE
Link to the posts.

Oh p-u-l-e-e-z! How many times do I have to say it?

Is there a way that we can come up with that will make you remember these things permanently?

Say I prove a point by showing the relevant information. Is there a way we can attach a keyword/phrase to it so that all I have to write is the keyword/phrase and you'll readily accept the facts of the point in contention?

QUOTE
Would you care to accept my wager about you being unable to publish your work?

I don't need to publish it myself. It's being published all by itself (it seems plagiarism is in no short supply in the physics community).

Heck, even the new CERN safety analysis includes my work, but do the give me any credit?

QUOTE
I asked a long time ago, thus prompting you to want to start betting on things, and you never accepted.

Wrong. I've been offering versions of my wager for a very long time. You always lose but you promptly forget the result. Why is that?

My wager is about currently verifiable facts. Your wager isn't about facts at all, but rather it's about personal achievement. Let's keep it about the facts.

QUOTE
You cannot just search this thread for particular words? If you'd linked to the posts in question months ago, when we started asking, you wouldn't have to do any 'research'.

Months ago, you were asking for links to posts that are many more months older than that.

QUOTE
So we've forgotten it and you cannot remember where it is or how to find it?

Actually, I've bookmarked a number of them. I'm just waiting for you to accept my wager. Why is it you won't? Is it because you know I'm right?

QUOTE
You didn't actually retort what I said. Besides, Prometheus and I research AdS/CFT. I was up till 2am this morning working on a particular set of equations in it. Would you like to discuss it?

Not especially.

QUOTE
I want a technical discussion of AdS/CFT. Something which demonstrates your understanding and which would mean you don't have to 'research' finding where you demonstrated understanding in this thread. If it's so easy to prove me wrong it won't require any effort on your part.

Oh please. You're simply trying to get me to establish my credentials because it's ticking you off so ...that I've been right all along!

QUOTE
And yet you cannot easily link to it. If you've done it repeatedly, it should be easy to find.

Make it worthwhile. Make it so you won't forget again.

QUOTE
The link, which didn't work when I initially clicked it (notice the link in my quote doesn't exist) says that it excludes black hole disaster scenarios yet you then say "It doesn't exclude black hole production". Those aren't synonymous.

When did I say they were synonymous?

QUOTE
And you claim the tiny minority are right. So how can we tell which ones are right?

That's a good question that exposes the basis for my fears. How can you know who is right? How can we know if anyone is right, at all?

Obviously, the papers with bad logic can be excluded. This is the very reasoning which wholly excluded the 2003 CERN safety analysis. It also calls into question much of the 2008 safety analysis - which is largely a whitewash of the 2003 analysis.

Admittedly, they've now (grudgingly) included the missing logic I brought forward, but their conclusions are simply drawn from thin air. They purport to know the absorption rates of micro black holes. ...micro black holes with properties they can't properly define!

QUOTE
I don't get someting I research but you understand something you don't read about, don't work on and don't understand the underlying model of? I've explained it many times. But unlike you, I'm willing to repeat myself to prove I can back up my claims of explaination.

The RHIC experiments involved gluon processes. The AdS/CFT correspondence related gluon processes to gravity processes. It models deconfinement to the production of a black hole and it's interaction with branes. The subsequent reconfinement is modelled by the black hole evaporating. So if the gluon system returns to the 'normal' status, where colour isn't free, then the correspondence says "The black hole has evaporated". If the black hole didn't evaporate then colour would not be confined and the correspondence is invalid. So if you say "We have used AdS/CFT to show a black hole was produced" then you cannot avoid saying "Which then evaporated when the system dropped below the reconfinement energy". If you say "A black hole was produced but it didn't evaporate" then you are not using the AdS/CFT correspondence and you have to explain why the system didn't show 'naked colour'. So using the model to say "A black hole was made!" means you have to accept it evaporated. Otherwise you cannot say "A black hole was made!". Hawking radiation is required to support to claim a black hole was involved.

That's not my contention, it's the factual statement of the people who developed the correspondence. If the black hole persists in the correspondence then colour is not confined. Which we experimentally see it is confined.

So I do get it. I understand it. I research it. I talked to a professor who researchs and published about half a dozen papers a year in it just on Tuesday. He's my second supervisor.So you don't get it. And there's no 'apparently' there, it's certain you don't get it.

If you want to prove me wrong, take up my offer/challenge of having a technical discussion about this stuff. Here is a review for you, where two of the authors are my supervisor and a guy I speak with every day about this stuff. He and I are working on a particular thing to do with meson Goldstone boson spectra. Want to discuss the details? I have nothing to hide.

For starters, you're making an assumption it was purely a gluon process.

Besides, I've already stated if it's purely a gluon process it would certainly radiate and if it's a black hole, it would appear to radiate similarly.

See? You don't get it.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 18 2008, 05:55 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
rpenner
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 06:26 AM


Fully Wired
*****

Group: Moderators
Posts: 5710
Joined: 27-December 04

Positive Feedback: 84.5%
Feedback Score: 397


QUOTE (rpenner @ Jun 29 2008, 12:03 AM)
...
March 21, 2008 -- Complaint filed. Case assigned.
April 25, 2008 -- A Summons is executed with respect to DOE (but none of the other listed defendants, esp. CERN.)
May 28, 2008 -- A Summons is executed with respect to CERN (but no clearly stated authority)
May 30, 2008 -- Scheduling conference between parties.
June 16, 2008 -- Scheduling conference with Judge.
June 17, 2008 -- Deadline for CERN to respond if it is a person
June 20, 2008 -- LSAG publishes "Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions", SPC endorses it. Two others publish: "Astrophysical implications of
hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes"
June 24, 2008 -- Deadline for DOE to respond to complaint. -- They moved to dismiss and moved for summary judgment.
June 30, 2008 -- Wagner/Sancho reveal CERN Summons was served and file for default.
July 1, 2008 -- Court clerk filed entry of default based of Wagner/Sancho request
July 27, 2008 -- Deadline for CERN to respond if it is a governmental agency
August 5, 2008 -- Wagner/Sancho file for permanent injunction versus CERN
August 11, 2008 -- Wagner/Sancho refile with additional signatures
August 13, 2008 -- Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson decide that this is too much fun to pass up and file legal papers
August 13, 2008 -- The Swiss Ambassador points out (rightly to my thinking) that CERN has not yet been legally served -- showing that Sancho and Wagner love wasting money
August 15, 2008 -- my guess on the deadline for Wagner and Sancho to respond
August 22, 2008 -- my guess on the deadline for DOE to respond to Wagner and Sancho
September 2, 2008 -- Hearing on Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
September 25, 2008 -- Hearing on permanent injunction versus CERN
... 
Update to timeline of Wagner/Sancho vs. US DOE, NSF and CERN
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=352977
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=357962
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=364904

Here's Physics News you can use. Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson want to end Wagner's unscientific scaremongering based on personal ignorance. They seek permission to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, explaining what Wagner does not and cannot.

Why do they want to file this brief?
QUOTE
1. Amici are physicist who have specialized in nuclear particle physics for most of their distinguished careers. Two of them have been awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the understanding of elementary atomic and sub-atomic particles; the third holds and had held endowed chairs in physics at Harvard University, was chairman and is currently a member of the Harvard Cyclotron Operating Committee, and has expertise and has published extensively on the subjects of high energy physics, radiation physics, nuclear safety and risk analysis.

2. This case involves challenges to the United States' financial support for the construction of the Large Hadron Collider ("LHC"), a subatomic particle accelerator straddling the French-Swiss border near Geneva, Switzerland, and research to be conducted there. The core of Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the United States and other defendants violated the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") by failing to prepare an adequate analysis of the risks of several theoretical objects that Plaintiffs allege could be produced by the Collider.

3. Defendants' argue that Plaintiffs' allegations of injury are speculative are not scientifically credible because they are based on purely hypothetical occurrences which do not pose a safety risk. Amici know that the LHC has undergone thorough scientific safety and risk analyses, and Plaintiffs' claims have not been accepted by the scientific community and are not based on rigorous scientific analysis. Other than the purely speculative "disaster" Plaintiffs speculate about, they do not allege any injury that is particularized, nor do they assert any claim with sufficient geographical nexus to the United States.

4. Amici have special knowledge with they believe will assist the Court in this case. Similar claims of potential, cataclysmic, disaster were made (including by one of the plaintiffs in this case) when the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) was planned, constructed, and began operations at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, New York State. One of the amici was a member of the high level committee selected to analyze the potential risks of the RHIC, and the other two amici published an article on the risks associated with the RHIC in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific journals prior to the commencement of operations of the RHIC. The RHIC has been fully operation[al] for almost ten years without incident.

5. Amici are concerned about the use of litigation based on misinformation about and misunderstanding of science under the guise of concern for the environment that inhibits vital and important scientific inquiry.


QUOTE
In the case before this Court, one important questions [sic] is whether the LHC at CERN is sufficiently understood that we can be confident that it will not cause a catastrophe of cosmic dimensions, as Plaintiffs claim. Amici asset that the question has been asked and studied by many of the world's best scientists and they have concluded that not only has a scientifically acceptable procedure been followed but that we do know enough to respond to the safety requirements.

...

The amici recognize that a new procedure had to be developed for the concerns at issue in this case. It has been claimed that the new particle accelerator could trigger an irreversible process that would have enormous consequences including the destruction of the Earth. This is not a new concern -- for example, scientists working on the Manhattan Project in the 1940s seriously considered whether a nuclear explosion could release enough energy to ignite the Earth's atmosphere. At that time, probabilistic risk assessment, as it is known today, did not yet exist. The Manhattan Project scientists use then existing knowledge and concluded that the catastrophe postulated would not happen, and history has proven them right.

Concerns about the LHC at CERN are legitimate and are properly raised. In fact, they have been raised, studied, and answered decisively by scientists in the United States and in Europe. But the revival of the concern by the Plaintiffs in this case is non well-founded, or even legitimate, because they have, apparently, not educated themselves about the extensive analysis that has been done and the published literature widely available on the subject.

...

Amici consider that the operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. Plaintiffs' claims are merely hypothetical and speculative, and contradicted by much evidence and scientific analysis and the complaint should be dismissed.
emphasis in original.

QUOTE (Swiss Chargé d’Affaires)
I refer to the attempted service of a civil matter ... on the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Geneva.

In this case, the court documents in the English language were delivered to CERN by Mr. Marco Breitenmoser, a Geneva-based bailiff. CERN justifiably disputes the method of the delivery since the bailiff deposited the court documents against CERN's will although CERN had already pointed out that the delivery and therefore also the service were inadmissible.

In fact, the delivery of official court documents to an intergovernmental organization through a bailiff, an attorney or the court itself violates international law and, in particular, the Agreement between Switzerland and the European Organization for Nuclear Research Concerning the Legal Status of the European of the European Organization for Nuclear Research in Switzerland, which sets down the inviolability of the buildings of the Organization and the immunity from legal process.

According to the Swiss legal interpretation, the service of court documents from Swiss and foreign authorities on an intergovernmental organization with headquarters in Switzerland with which Switzerland has concluded a headquarters agreement must be done by diplomatic channels. Since CERN is such an intergovermental organization with a special status with certain inviolable rights, the cour documents to be served must be delivered by the United States Embassy in Bern to the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), which would carry out the service on CERN via our Mission in Geneva.

Therefore the documents were not delivered properly and thus their service was not executed. I request that the service of the court documents concerned on CERN be done validly through the diplomatic channels described above.


This post has been edited by rpenner on Aug 18 2008, 07:25 AM


--------------------
愛平兎仏主
"And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Philippians 4:7
It's just good Netiquette. Failing that, Chlorpromazine.
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 08:33 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (prometheus @ Aug 15 2008, 11:24 AM)
I've demonstrated that, whatever my level of general intellect is, I can talk rings around you when it comes to physics.

You mean you can lie better than me.

QUOTE
You may have an IQ of 1 billion but you still don't understand physics.

Says the guy who couldn't map a cone intrinsically.

QUOTE
The reason I haven't responded to text (in parenthesis) is because all you ever put in them is "you can't respond to text in parenthesis." - there's nothing to respond to.

Ah. I see you've improved a little (hopefully). The fact remains you missed several salient points in parenthesis in the past. How do you explain this?

QUOTE
If you knew physics you wouldn't use the word "classical" like this because classical in physics means not quantum.

Idiot. If you knew English at all you'd be able to differentiate the use of a single word versus the use of a common phrase which includes the word. Maybe you think "classical" must always mean "classical physics," but then you'd miss out on classical music, classical guitar, Classical Gas (a great instrumental) classical art, classical architecture, classical theatre, classical wine making, classical ...whatever.

QUOTE
Yes, and you didn't answer my question. Do you understand enough to carry a conversation about Hawking radiation?

Obviously. You, on the other hand, seem to be having some difficulty.

QUOTE
Yes it does. It's not my fault you don't understand it.

No, it doesn't. I suppose you simply failed to understand the question. Really though, I don't see how I could express it more clearly.

How do Hawking radiation particles get on shell? Why do they get on shell and virtual particles elsewhere do not?

QUOTE
What bonding is this then? There's nothing other than the usual forces that causes virtual particles to attract each other.

How do they escape these "usual forces?"

QUOTE
QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 13 2008 @  08:22 AM)
You've yet to explain why/how vacuum polarization is relevant.  Are you asserting the black hole is charged?  Is Hawking radiation strictly dependent on electron/positron pair production?  Or, are you suggesting that gravity itself is a quantum field?

It's not a dodge. You stated that Hawking radiation can only happen in charged black holes. I showed that you were wrong because your assumption of virtual particles being only electrons and positrons was wrong.

I didn't state any such thing. I was asking questions. You've failed to answer them.

QUOTE
You don't understand that "curves towards the singularity," and "cannot move away from the singularity," are not the same thing. A particle can have a curved path towards the singularity and still move away from if. I suspect this comes from your lack of knowledge of curvature.

Uh, are you claiming that within the event horizon it can move away from the singularity? Didn't you see my reference where even hypothetical tachyons couldn't do this?

QUOTE
So you don't know what a vector is then?

Oh brother.

QUOTE
But we aren't talking about pair production by a photon ( photon -> electron + positron -> photon), we're talking about polarisation of the vacuum : nothing -> photon + electron + positron -> nothing. How is momentum not conserved here? (I must admit I don't hold much hope that you'll get this, given your track record on conservation laws.  ref ref

Nice deflection. Why didn't you respond to the point that pair production can't get on shell in a vacuum?

Your references are meaningless. Conservation has long been suspected of not always being true, hence the existence of the universe.

QUOTE
I will. I'm attending a conference he's giving a talk at in a couple of weeks.

Let me know how that goes.

QUOTE
I repeat, Vacuum polarisation is the source of the particles that make up the radiation. The vacuum is polarised because it's a quantum vacuum. (not polarised in the charge sense, but in the sense that the vacuum contains lots of virtual particles).

You're not making sense. How is the vacuum polarized if you're not talking about background electromagnetic fields and electron-positron pair production? How are the particles getting on shell? What's gravity got to do with it?
    Wikipedia: Vacuum polarization:

    In quantum field theory, and specifically quantum electrodynamics, vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron-positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. It is also sometimes referred to as the self energy of the gauge boson (photon).
    (bold added)


QUOTE
Go on then.

Oh brother. Your asking does not represent a need for me to provide proof that you have trouble with continuity of context, or provide proof that I pointed out a cone could be mapped intrinsically.

QUOTE
It can be experimentally verified.

Yeah, so?

QUOTE
Yes. I've just shown that you do not understand this distinction.

Actually, you have that backwards. Didn't you see me just recently catch you mixing these terms?

QUOTE
You view it as a "career preserving caveat" because you want the paper to say something it doesn't, namely that black holes will be produced at the LHC. You can't read a paper without colouring it with your own bias.

I never said the paper says they will be produced. I only said it suggests it as being plausible (as I've contended all along).

Besides, didn't you see this post: post ...about this reference: reference

QUOTE
Wrong. Mathematics needs to be logically consistent. Theories of physics need to be physically consistent, for example, they must not contradict something we know to be true like conservation of energy.

Oh, you mean like the CP violation? Quick, everyone run! Prometheus just stated the universe can't exist!

QUOTE
Experimental verification is not required to define something as a theory of physics.

Yes it does. Otherwise, it's a hypothesis.

QUOTE
Experimental verification is required to verify a theory of physics is correct. A hypothesis is something that a theory predicts, for example, the theory of quantum mechanics predicts the hypothesis that the energy levels of an atom are quantised.

Oh brother. Now you're confusing the terms prediction and hypothesis. Prediction and hypothesis are synonymous. You don't predict a hypothesis.

    Wikipedia: Hypothesis:

    In due course, a confirmed hypothesis may become part of a theory or occasionally may grow to become a theory itself. Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model.


QUOTE
Black holes at the LHC are excluded by all current theoretical frameworks.

More dodging, eh?

Are you still contending that micro black holes can't be made in the LHC at all?

QUOTE
No it doesn't if the observer is not physical, how is it helping to understand anything?

Uh, 'cause a non physical observer can go places a physical observer can't.

QUOTE
Particles start off infinitesimally within the black hole of mass M (or outside it, but it's easier to conceptualise if they start of within. Both methods are equivalent). The particles have a certain energy e. If the particles tunnel out of the black hole the black hole has a new energy of M - e and hence the horizon of the black hole is now located at 2 G (M - e). The energy e is carried away by the particles and is observed as heat.

Wait just a minute! Now they start from within and without? You don't think there's a difference? The black hole loses energy to the escaping particle exiting from within and loses energy to the entering particle from without? Quick, call Hawking! Black holes evaporate twice as fast as he thought!

No, wait! How does the particle within escape annihilation (assuming there really is a "within")? Why can't the particles from the outside (negative energy) annihilate the particles from the inside (positive energy) and cancel the process altogether? Oh no! That would violate conservation! The black hole radiates the freed exterior particles with no loss to the black hole! Aack!

Wait, even better. The inbound particle annihilates the outgoing particle so the freed interior particle gets on shell and adds mass to the black hole! Double whammy! The black hole grows and it radiates!

Wow. This is really messy!

It looks to me like the process must occur on only one side of the event horizon for Hawking radiation to work. Even then, it's iffy.

QUOTE
I used that word to describe the value of someone's work. You are routinely rude and personal in your attacks on me, not my work.

Give me a break. You're the master of the personal attack.




--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
bm1957
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 08:56 AM


Advanced Member
*****

Group: Power Member
Posts: 1551
Joined: 11-April 07

Positive Feedback: 82.46%
Feedback Score: 106


QUOTE (ubavontuba @ Aug 18 2008, 09:33 AM)
Idiot. If you knew English at all you'd be able to differentiate the use of a single word versus the use of a common phrase which includes the word. Maybe you think "classical" must always mean "classical physics," but then you'd miss out on classical music, classical guitar, Classical Gas (a great instrumental) classical art, classical architecture, classical theatre, classical wine making, classical ...whatever.

This is a discussion about physics (one-sided though it may be). If you use the word 'classical' you must expect it to be interpreted with the 'physics' meaning of the word. If that's not what you intended it to mean the either you used it wrongly or you are way to unfamiliar with basic physics to contemplate arguing about the LHC.

And your retort to someone pointing this out? Calling them an idiot. Well done. Real mature, real intellectual, real ingenuous.

Classical crankism... ba dum cha! laugh.gif
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 08:57 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (rpenner @ Aug 18 2008, 06:26 AM)
Update to timeline of Wagner/Sancho vs. US DOE, NSF and CERN
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=352977
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=357962
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=364904

Here's Physics News you can use. Sheldon Glashow, Frank Wilczek and Richard Wilson want to end Wagner's unscientific scaremongering based on personal ignorance. They seek permission to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief, explaining what Wagner does not and cannot.

Why do they want to file this brief?


emphasis in original.

Nothing but obfuscation.

Bringing up the Manhattan project is simply dumb. There's no correlation between the two projects. You might as well state: The big bad wolf didn't kill me, so there's no way these teeny-tiny Ebola viruses might be dangerous.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Aug 18 2008, 08:59 AM


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top
ubavontuba
Posted: Aug 18 2008, 09:02 AM


Grand Puba
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2290
Joined: 7-September 05

Positive Feedback: 28.57%
Feedback Score: -159


QUOTE (buttershug @ Aug 15 2008, 12:14 PM)
Even when the subject matter is above the heads of the broader audience?
QM and such don't make sense at your level of understanding.
It can not be dumbed down to the level of the ordinary person.
Even most well educated people can't really discuss it well.

If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!


--------------------
Essentially dishonest troll.
Send PM ·
Top

Topic Options Pages: (148) « First ... 110 111 [112] 113 114 ... Last »

Add reply · Start new topic · Start new poll


 

Terms of use