Large Hadron Collider

Someday, a blue eyed boy, or girl, will come onto this board and say, "here's the speed of gravity, and this is how its done." This won't mean that all the quantum mechanics will top themselves, or that electrons and photons have to spend their lives on welfare cheques. The periodic table will survive, it has to be up there with fire and the wheel as the greatest inventions of the human mind. We'll simply have a new world veiw.

While we wait for this to happen, we cannot simply say that the whole shooting match is simply wrong. The periodic table is a human construct but then so is geometry. Hawking's views and Bohr's might sound a little alike but Hawking is a positivist and Bohr, most likely, a kantian. They are not saying the same thing. In fact the quote from Bohr is a paraphrase of his words by Aarle Peterson.

(Edited) On quantum numbers, if beans only come in tins, where's the problem in having a whole number multiple of them when one gets back from shopping? It's hardly "farcical." What is very odd, is the idea that an electron doesn't know what it is untill we look at it. Why should the universe obey the rules of probability? Now, it looks as though there's been a bit of a brakthrough in regard to this from quantum computing.

Preserving "entanglement" had been a thorny problem. Now it's believed that doctors have been doing quantum computing everytime they do an mri scan. Liquids preserve regional entanglements. The idea that the universe "observes" itself might sound a bit metaphysical but why not [] Subjective consciousness exists in the universe, why not objective consciousness [8D]

Experiments are being done with chloroform, from which logic gates can be created in a magnetic field. That got me thinking about an old thread I posted here, about how a plant might crack water at low energy. Magnesium atoms force water to take on an ice configuration. The surface hydrogen atoms can be made to act as a protonic semiconductor. There are logic gates in there.

Plants use water for the hydrogen they need to transform carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons-they don't crack water but use simple reactions getting the engery of reaction from sunlight.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by MarkVitrone</i>
<br />Isn't irresponsible to discount the body of work leading to the fundamental particles? I have always contended that the use of quantum numbers seems farcical. Elysium interactions and pushing forces can still define what we call charge.

Mark Vitrone
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you include gravitons and <b>protons</b> - and <b>they</b> don't have to do anything but <b>be in the way!</b> - then I agree that a collection of elysons can constiture "charge". Or "23 skidoo" for all I care. But I suggest <b>pushing forces only</b> and all particles are <b>totally dead</b> and all of their behavior is <b>passive.</b>

Presumably, this is a board for inquiry. So, if my critical thinking somehow "insults" dead scientists, that is too bad. A very, very strange ethic, in my opinion.

I am not aware of discounting all thinking on fundamental particles. I do accept this board's proposal of a gravitational flux and a light carrying medium. You might keep in mind that many presumptions about other fundamental particles were made with the intellectual absence of gravitons and elysons. This inevitably lead to the mental creation of many particles which do not actually exist.

Metascience has recognized 2/3rds of <b>our</b> Universe. Why not critically examine the last 1/3 - the realm of protons? Keep Occam's Razor in mind.

Another thought: the dimension of scale. Would this not also apply to time, in addition to the three linear scales? There is no apparent <b>need or evidence </b>that individual gravitons or elysons or protons fall apart within our time frame needed to "create" planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, etc. And that is apparently far less than 10E^34 years.

Gregg Wilson

To alleviate the impression that I have an insulting attitude toward prior physicists, I well remember the Feynman Lectures from the early 1960s. Those of us taking physics courses at that time remember him as the only person who explained phenomena in physics in an understanble way. We ranked him as the best educator on the subject.

Gregg Wilson

On the Monday, a lecturer gives a lesson on how the sodium lamp works. He explains its spectrum in terms of the quantum states of electrons. The very next day, our whizzkid comes onto the board and totally rewrites the book on gravity. The next term's lecture will explain the sodium lamp, with electrons used for heuristic purposes. Twenty years down the line, our lecturer pops hi clogs. our whizzkid is the only authority still alive, so he's giving the lectures, sans electrons. He/she does have to explain why it was believed that electrons "existed,"

The thing is, if someone had ran up to Niels Bohr and told him that electrons don't exist, he would have simply shrugged. He might have said, "spheres don't exist, triangles don't exist, protons don't exist. So what!" Bohr is concerned with the Kantian categories, which don't exist but are real. A concern of his, would be the Kantian notion of a "thing in itself." The idea that there is an unknowable.

Then say to him, that the proton "exists" but that it's totally dead, passive. Then I think he would argue, emphatically against ,such a notion. A step too far, it's actually a dualistic idea. Bohr was not a dualistic natural philosopher.

Hi Jim, I'm sorry but plants do crack water. I had been looking at how the protonic current would rotate the ice configuration of water at the magnesium's surface, and also make the whole configuration move at a diagonal. Now the plant has tiles of magnesium, about 17 atoms on a side, and one atom thick. if one tile among thousands rotates its section of water configured as ice, through 360 degrees, then it's creating a quantum entangled domain. it would be building a quantum computer, that on a trigger event, cracks a water molecule.

Getting back to the hadron accelerator. Let's say that a mass particle at the speed of light, outside of the Earth's "space," does not increase in mass but its internal frequency fall to zero. Is it a Higgs boson? I would argue that its not but it would look like its got zero spin.

This machine is on and working at the moment. It needs to be on to callibrate the multitude of very complex detectors round the beast. Let's call it a hunch, and say that they've got the Higgs. After all there does seem to be a certain, "cat that's got the cream," smile about them of late.