Large Hadron Collider

Stoat, sounds plausible

Thinking about this a bit more. What we are trying to do with our alpha particle, is balance a south pole magnet on a south pole magnet. It doesn't want to know []

So, let's think about a rubber sheet through which we push a thin rod, the gold nucleus. Our alpha particle heads towards this, and because it's really belting along, it runs straight up this sheet spike. It loses kinetic energy as it nears the top and gains potential energy, remember this is a repulsion.

Very close to the "point" we hit the strong atomic force radius zone. So, we get another thin rod and push this down to that radius. Our alpha particle rides up over the edge and orbits, it has to change its high potential energy to kinetic energy, then bounce out of the "dimple" and back in the same direction as it entered the system [8D] That's some trick to pull off.

(Edited) When the alpha particle is stuck on this rim, we know where it is. So, we cannot know its momentum.

I did a check to see if anyone had tried a fine screen made from terbium, and they had. However the pdf had to be bought and the abstract stated it was pretty inconclusive. prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v125/i2/p584_1

Terbium can be worked like gold or silver but it's a rare earth metal, so it has two electrons in its outer orbital shell. It's also thought to have an aspherical nucleus, taking the shape of a rugby ball/American football.

Now, that experiment was done a long time ago, and the terbium used must have been a tiny speck and impure. We can get the stuff now to high quality but it's still expensive.

Why is it that the rare earths have odd shaped nuclei? That got me thinking about the stacking of an alpha particle. Two cue balls and two reds.

Form a triangle and stick one on top. Then make it tumble very fast and we have what looks like a sphere. But suppose we have a cue ball on top, and it's a little heavier than the red balls. Then get it to "mase" between the base three balls, to invert our little pyramid.

It could bounce up and down between the three and it could be made to bounce up and down to look more like a rugby ball than a soccer ball. It would also rotate as a unit because of the mass difference between the two red balls and one cue ball in the base.

Any nucleus of an atom is likely to be made up up of stacked alpha particles. The rare earths, when being made in a sun, have to go through a rather complicated build process of fusion and decay. That might give a clues as to why they stack as a problate sphere.

This primer on the strange world of quarks is worth a read. www.leptonica.com/particle-primer.html

I think these guys are saying one thing for public consumption and thinking something entirely different. This guy gives an explanation of the strong atomic force. Then goes on to describe time travel. A positron for example, is an electron going backwards through time.

A lot of stuff on Lorentz but then all the credit is given to Einstein.

So, the strong atomic force increases with distance but has a very short range. That has to be a time reversed force but they won't come out and say that's how they see it. Now anti matter doesn't travel backwards in time but negative mass would be able to do the trick. A negative refractive index for the space round a particle could also do this without the need for negative mass.

I believe that these guys would go for the time travelling 15' shell idea, of how it's done. I also think that on the quiet, they are thinking in terms of ftl gravitons.

To Mark Vitrone and anyone else:

What is the <b>hard evidence </b>that the "electron" orbits the nucleus?

Gregg Wilson

Gregg, It seems to me the electron is a part of a model having little or nothing to do with real events. Science likes models more that real events because they can be controlled. The model is faulty but so what as they say-so long as its funded.