LHC danger, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news10589.html

There's a much more thorough treatise by Gary Oas, here: link

Anyway, I’m all too familiar with this sort of conformist thinking. Often, people are so prejudiced into thinking their views are the only logical views, they think anyone who doesn’t think their way is somehow inferior, or lacking (lacking a "proper perspective," to be precise). In my place of work, we call it the "hall monitor mentality." “Scientific fascism” (as an extreme example), also comes to mind.

In this regard, the first question that comes to me is:
100+ years ago, would you have told Albert Einstein that his work wasn't Newtonian enough?

Imagine! If Einstein had been restricted to only using Newtonian concepts and Newtonian math, where would we be today?

See, this is the danger of this sort of thinking. To presume there is only one "correct" way to analyze a problem limits the imagination and one's ability to further the discussion.

Einstein generally used his imagination to formulate and analyze his concepts (leaving Newtonian physics in the dust when it didn’t make sense to him). He verified the viability of his radical, non-Newtonian concepts with math (generally speaking, others would later verify his results experimentally). He then used imagination again, to present his ideas to the broader audience.

No, I stated it. I also stated: "Everything is frame dependent. You have to know the values relative to the frame your examining."

Sure, invariant mass (a.k.a. rest mass, or simply "mass") is invariant. I'm certainly in agreement with that. However, relativistic mass is relative to your reference frame.

You don't like the concept of variable mass, but you have no problem with variable energy. Frankly, I don't see a conflict. Energy and mass are synonymous terms.

Strictly thinking in terms of energy, one loses the concept of energy as mass. Soon, the properties we associate with mass (and not energy) are lost to our consciousness.

The error in thinking this way is readily apparent. If this weren't the case, then the physics community would have long ago lambasted the CERN safety analysis for the same reasons I have. "Professional physicists" are discouraged from this point of view, so they all missed the obvious mistakes.

Although I clearly hadn't thought this one through to begin with, in my defense, I clearly hadn't suggested the rest frame is inertial either.

I'll get back to you on your Hawking radiation paper, later.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 15 2008, 10:41 PM

I have to hand it to you. You are very good at using emotive words that don't really say anything but create the feeling in the reader that you want. You can call me prejudiced if you like but theres nothing wrong with being prejudiced if you are right. Here, I have shown that mass has to be invariant for relativity to make mathematical sense. I don't quite know how you can disagre about this. It's akin to saying 1+1 isn't 2. Mathematically and logically inconsistent.

You quite clearly don't understand what you're talking about. Einstein noticed the inconsistency between Maxwell's electromagnetism and classical mechanics (and he wasn't the first to notice either.) That is why he invented relativity. We're in the same boat today since people noticed that QM and GR don't agree with each other, so people have invented string theory and other theories of gravity to reconcile them.

We also have the Coleman Mandula theorem now which is relevant and I'm sure you know all about.[/sarcasm]

Einstein's first approach was maths. His great genius was the ability to interpret the results physically and. like you've said, dispense with Newton when he needed to. I don't quite see the point in "explaining things" to the broader audience if you explain them wrongly though.

What you stated was this:
"E=mc² is not only valid for particles at rest. If that were the case it'd be completely invalid, because nothing is ever at rest!"
which indicates to me quite clearly that you've not understood this:
"Because if a body is moving at a constant speed (which is the only thing we consider in special relativity) then you can always choose a reference frame such that the object is at rest."
You're wriggling. It would do a lot for your integrity if you would simply admit that you were wrong and stop being so slippery.

I'm glad we're making progress. The next step is so say that relativistic mass is really not a mass at all, but a correction made by relativity to the kinetic energy of a particle.

When you say that you introduce a serious problem into your thinking. It's true that mass is a form of energy, but it's not generally true that energy is a form of mass. For example, photons have no mass, but do have energy. Just because they have energy does not give them a mass, because then they couldn't move at c.

As you are finding out, This is quite subtle and very deep. See my comment above and puzzle for a while. I'll freely admit it took me at least 2 years before I grasped it fully.

You're making an extremely dubious link here. While relativistic mass introduces a lot of problems with the formalism of the theory, it doesn't produce different predictions (as long as you're extremely careful about validity issues) from proper relativity. In fact, if you're getting some result that is not predicted by the geometric formulation I suspect you have stepped outside your realm of validity.

Do I take this as you excusing my "inexcusably bad" reply then?

You'll find that is a little longer and more detailed (and a bit more technical). Don't hesitate to ask if you want something clarified.

This post has been edited by prometheus on Jun 15 2008, 11:50 PM

aaaaaaaaand there we have it.

Congratulations, your true coloursare showing, we all knew you had it in you.

Well done.

Wrong. For the last 30~70 years the world of QFT has been freely available (the large time frame is to account for continued development from QFT to the SM) to anyone who wants it. Textbooks can be bought or loaned, lecture notes (particularly since the internet's invention by CERN!) are freely available.

The formalism of QFT is manifestly Lorentz invariant. Has been all along. Infact, it's one of the most important constraining factors of the theory, that the Lagrangian (and thus all physical dynamics) are Lorentz scalars.

If you'd ever opened a book on the topics rather than simply making claims about a theory you have NEVER done, you'd know that. One of the first exercises expected of QFT students is to compute something physical like electron+positron->electron+positron scattering. This is precisely the kind of interaction which occured at CERN in it's previous collider.

When my supervisor was a student, she did her PhD on computing interactions at the CERN collider. Freely published work. Now, a PhD generation later, large numbers of PhD students are computing interactions at the new LHC collider. Even easier to obtain work. All based on manifestly Lorentz invariant Lagrangians.

If they are so wrong, I assume you can do the maths and point out the error? For instance, Lorentz invariance is treated in 'QFT : Volume 1' by Weinberg (who got a Nobel Prize for electroweak theory). Go through that and point out the mathematical error and then show how it should have been done. I bet you don't because I know you don't know any QFT. You don't even know any quantum mechanics or special relativity. All you can do is arm wave. Go on, prove me wrong. I bet you won't. And I'm willing to put money on that. Are you?

The particle physics community isn't a cohesive whole. No large group of people agree on everything. For decades now people have been working on the SM. We had a check of it all with LEP. Perfect agreement. We continue to have checks at Fermilab. More agreement. Fermilab has already done collisions above the turn on energy of CERN. That's a worry at CERN they could find the Higgs first!

If there were a conspiracy of silence, don't you think that someone somewhere would have blown the whistle? Every year easily more than 10,000 people are educated in QFT methods at universities. Thousands become researchers in QFT. And in 70+ years noone has come along with "It's all a lie, there's a conspiracy of silence to suppress the truth, that at 3TeV the SM breaks down!! Noone wants you to know!". Entire university departments are focused on finding evidence for SM breakdown. The problem is there isn't any evidence yet.

By your logic, I'm part of the conspiracy. The talks I attend on finding evidence for 'beyond the SM physics' are nothing but 'keeping up appearances' and everyone in the room knows we are only there to fool the public. Not that anyone from the public ever comes.

Your paranoid and delusions must allow for a conspiracy beyond the scale of even proposed conspiracies involving 9/11 or the JFK assasination. They only propose a US inside job. You're proposing a conspiracy across international borders, which survives passing into ideologies and countries completely oppose to the West.

Wow, you really are delusional.

This post has been edited by AlphaNumeric on Jun 16 2008, 06:52 AM

This is the epitome of bad science! In science, it's never okay to be so blatantly prejudiced.

You're mistaking a fancy for a fact!

Rest mass is invariant. It's always been considered invariant.

Relativistic mass is nothing more than an examination of the kinetic energy from a different point of view. The only thing I'm doing mathematically that you're not is assigning a mass value to the kinetic energy. Why is this so difficult for you? Are you saying the kinetic energy can't vary mathematically?

Why didn't you answer the question? Avoidance, much?

Besides, I too noticed inconsistencies. The CERN safety analysis is inconsistent with theory.

"Fools act on imagination without knowledge, pedants act on knowledge without imagination." -Alfred N. Whitehead

You are a pedant ("A pedant is a person who is overly concerned with formalism and precision, or who makes a show of learning." -Wikipedia).

Not according to him it wasn't:

"A new idea comes suddenly and in a rather intuitive way. That means it is not reached by conscious logical conclusions. But, thinking it through afterwards, you can always discover the reasons which have led you unconsciously to your guess and you will find a logical way to justify it. Intuition is nothing but the outcome of earlier intellectual experience." -A. Einstein

Which is the problem I've been talking about! Be consistent. Choose a reference frame and describe what happens relevant to that reference frame only!

You're squirming. It would do a lot for your integrity if you would simply admit that you were wrong.

Mass and energy are synonymous! Didn't you understand the part where I talked about figuring it out on my toes? It's nothing more than another way to look at the kinetic energy.

They don't have rest mass. They have relativistic mass. It's not the same thing. It's just another way of considering the energy and its mass-like effects (like its momentum).

I doubt that. If you understood it as well as you claim, why weren't the inconsistencies in the LHC safety analysis readily apparent to you?

I never claimed that. My claim is it's not intuitive enough for people to recognize their own mistakes.

(By "my," I'm presuming you meant my own reply, and not yours) No. It's still bad, just not as bad as I inferred from your reply.

Thanks. If needed, I shall.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 16 2008, 08:00 AM

Alphanumeric: This thread ceartainly has more then its fair share of testiculation, and it's all from the same corner.

You first (not that I think Prometheus is wrong mind you).

This isn't even an argument. What's your point?

Actually, in a sense it is an argument.

It's a general comparison of the quality of your arguments to the quality of many arguments on the forum.

The specific paragraph(s) that I quoted are typical of a certain class of poster, they all pull out the "You would have called Einstein a crank" or "Gallileo was persecuted to" or "You're too narrow-minded too consider my argument".

Congratulations, you managed to pull two of them out in one paragraph. Want to try for the Trifecta?

Where is the documentation of these alleged inconsistencies, Eric? When I wanted to demonstrate that O.E. Rössler was wasting everyone's time with his misunderstanding of physics, I linked to the pre-print and cited just a sample of factual claims and math that simply could not pass review. There is plenty of evidence that Rössler doesn't use or understand GR and worse, confuses terms and numbers between GR and XLD quantum gravity, and worse still, confuses cross-section with radius. He cites source material but doesn't understand it. And he commits a foul -- he seeks a non-critical forum in which to publish.

http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/...NIBLACKHOLE.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0106295
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=335002

Please stop boring us with your vague and unsubstantiated claims. The stop-the-LHC nutcases are becoming increasingly irrelevant as time marches on.
Sancho and Wagner filed their untimely lawsuit and didn't make progress. The would-be-saviors have committed the bonehead error of not even serving the court papers on the National Science Foundation or CERN. They will chat via telephone on June 16 and all of this will go away by June 24, the earliest that the DOE can be compelled to respond.

There are self-taught prisoners who know the Federal courts more competently than these two.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-hid.../case_id-78717/ (Pacer subscription and fee required)

Challenge to Ubavontuba and/or Trippy and/or anyone else: Refute or prove this statement with citations.

Kung-fu Super Agent Luis Sancho has been dispatched to the field?

Sancho did not sign this document. Trouble in paradise!?
(Since then, Brian C. Toth has traded this case to another attorney, so don't bother him.)

Is it because they exist only in head due to your failure to comphrehend physics? As such they would be too nebulous to actually describe these alleged inconsistencies because at the detailed explaination they fall apart like cobwebs.

This post has been edited by rpenner on Jun 16 2008, 05:47 PM

rpenner; are you seriously suggesting uba's simply a brainless deranged fool wobbling on the shoulders of boneheaded midgits?

If so, I totally concur.

You call it prejudice. I've shown that my position is consistent.

I've proved what I'm saying with mathematics. It's certainly not "fancy."

It's an inconsistent viewpoint. You can't consistently call energy mass. Kinetic energy can increase (obv.). Mass cannot.

There was no question. Go and look if you don't believe me.

As rpenner says, lets have a chapter and verse quote from published work please.

I don't claim to be a genius, but I do understand what I'm talking about here.

Relativity is a very mathematical theory. You simply cannot get an understanding for it if you don't understand the maths.

I've got a good example of this: Think of a cone, like an ice cream cornet. Would you say that the surface of the cone is curved?

It's not, If you calculate the curvature of a cone you'll find it is flat apart from the tip which is singular. This is a case where intuition fails. There is no other option but to resort to the mathematics.

I'm losing track of your position. You said before that nothing can be at rest. Now you are claiming I am being inconsistent?! What's it to be? Can a particle be at rest or not?

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

No they aren't. This is at the heart of your misunderstanding of relativity. Photons have energy but no mass. The must have m = 0 otherwise they would not travel at c. mass is a form of energy, but energy is not a form of mass in general.

Not a logically consistent way, as I've shown.

Photons don't have any sort of mass. Massive particles cannot move at the speed of light so photons must have zero mass. You don't have this problem with the statement "Photons have energy."

Still waiting for chapter and verse on that.

Errors are found by checking the maths. Do you think people looked at Maxwell's prediction that light traveled at c and had the imagination to say that time slows down the faster you go? The results of relativity had largely been derived by Lorentz and others before Einstein came along. His genius was to take Lorentz's work and interpret it physically.

You called my explanation of the lack of rest frame for the photon "inexcusably bad" previously and now you apparently agree with me. I'll repeat: Your credibility would increase vastly if you'd admit you're wrong when you are wrong.

Not to belittle you, but I suspect you will. We haven't even gotten onto the topics relevant to the LHC, QFT and GR and as far as I'm concerned you're showing no more ability than a first year undergraduate. To put that in context, one of the members of staff in the department where I work teaches a class on QFT in curved space that is targeted at first and second year postgraduates. The thesis on Hawking radiation was written as my final year project for my undergraduate degree. I suspect that you'll have trouble with it unless you've taken classes on quantum mechanics and GR at the very least.

What does that have to do with anything I've said?

It seems apparent you still just hit upon and match from keywords. Obviously your programmers still can't make you actually understand the context. So much for artificial intelligence...

So? Again, relevance?

Which is relevant because...?

Again, what's the relevance?

You obviously have no idea which error(s) I'm discussing!

How much money have you?

So? How's that relevant?

Which is relevant to the discussion, how?

By your logic... wait... you don't have any logic! Worse, you can't follow a conversation!

What "conspiracy" are you talking about? Are you really so stupid that you think I was seriously stating there's a conspiracy? Give me a break!

And you're really a mindless chatbot.

This post has been edited by ubavontuba on Jun 17 2008, 03:37 AM

Get real. You guys are the one's who're always arguing the terminology instead of the content.

And the mindless arguing continues.

*Grabs popcorn.*