Re: Large Hadron Collider produces results
Y.Porat
> Large Hadron Collider produces results
>
> http://www.labnews.co.uk/printer_friendly.php/5299/large-hadron-colli...
>
> "A team of researchers have analysed the number of particles produced in
> the aftermath of high-energy collisions at 1.18 tera electron volts
> (TeV), and found an unexpectedly high number of mesons.
>
> "The LHC smashes together counter-circulating high-energy beams of
> protons, and when they collide their energy is transformed into mesons
> subatomic particles consisting of a quark and anti-quark. The
> researchers from MIT, CERN and the KFKI Research Institute for
> Particle and Nuclear Physics also found that the number of mesons
> increased faster with collision energy than was predicted by models.
>
> This is the very first step in a long road to performing extremely
> sensitive analyses that can detect particles produced only in one in a
> billion collisions, said Gunther Roland, MIT associate professor of
> physics and member of the CSM experiment.
>
> "The scientists believe the presence of these mesons will have to be
> taken into account when looking for the Higgs boson and other rare
> particles.
-----------------------
the probability of finding the Higgs
must be defined *by theory*
before the experiment is done!!
not after that!
and not **fiddled in **
only according
**and after ***to the experimental results
2
if you find it by the probability of one to a billion
and ***ignore** all the**other ** garbage
product !!!
you can find there your* mother *in law as well !!
3
instead
my suggestion is to look (as well)
for physicl entities that move
IN A CIRCULAR curved PATH MOVEMENT ---
---UNEXPLAIND UNTIL NOW
-------------------------
If we re looking for rare particles later on, these mesons
> will be in the background, Roland said, These results show us that our
> expectations were not completely wrong, but we have to modify things a bit.
--------------------
modify things A BIT EH ...A BIT !!(:-)
-----------
ATB
Y.Porat
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
God created energy at the beginning of the Big Bang after he created
the hypersphere.
Mitch Raemsch
Inertial
"Y.Porat" <y.y....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c59dd792-a25d-4483...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 4, 2:34 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Large Hadron Collider produces results
>>
>> http://www.labnews.co.uk/printer_friendly.php/5299/large-hadron-colli...
>>
>> "A team of researchers have analysed the number of particles produced in
>> the aftermath of high-energy collisions at 1.18 tera electron volts
>> (TeV), and found an unexpectedly high number of mesons.
>>
>> "The LHC smashes together counter-circulating high-energy beams of
>> protons, and when they collide their energy is transformed into mesons
>> subatomic particles consisting of a quark and anti-quark. The
>> researchers from MIT, CERN and the KFKI Research Institute for
>> Particle and Nuclear Physics also found that the number of mesons
>> increased faster with collision energy than was predicted by models.
>>
>> This is the very first step in a long road to performing extremely
>> sensitive analyses that can detect particles produced only in one in a
>> billion collisions, said Gunther Roland, MIT associate professor of
>> physics and member of the CSM experiment.
>>
>> "The scientists believe the presence of these mesons will have to be
>> taken into account when looking for the Higgs boson and other rare
>> particles.
> -----------------------
> the probability of finding the Higgs
That is not the sole purpose of the LHC
> must be defined *by theory*
> before the experiment is done!!
I'm sure some analysis has been done. But then, if we were already
ABSOLUTELY SURE it existed, there would be no point looking for it. And
nothing short of 100% probability of finding will mean it must be found.
It is interesting that they have found things that were not previously
expected to be found (the large number of mesons).
> not after that!
You have to analyses date afterwards and adjust probabilities based on what
you find.
> and not **fiddled in **
Who said anything was being fiddled?
> only according
> **and after ***to the experimental results
> 2
> if you find it by the probability of one to a billion
> and ***ignore** all the**other ** garbage
> product !!!
> you can find there your* mother *in law as well !!
Utter nonsense, Porat.
> 3
> instead
> my suggestion is to look (as well)
> for physicl entities that move
> IN A CIRCULAR curved PATH MOVEMENT ---
Why do that .. there is no valid theory that predicts it. What a waste of
money looking for things that no theory at all predicts .. when there are
things that theories predict SHOUL exist and have not yet been found to look
for.
Of course, if such a strange thing as you are suggesting is found (like the
unexpectedly large number of mesons) then that would provide a challenge.
> ---UNEXPLAIND UNTIL NOW
Never explained .. you have a load of nonsense you htink is a physics theory
.. it isn't
> -------------------------
>
> If we re looking for rare particles later on, these mesons
>> will be in the background, Roland said, These results show us that our
>> expectations were not completely wrong, but we have to modify things a
>> bit.
> --------------------
> modify things A BIT EH ...A BIT !!(:-)
Of course .. why do you think that is funny?
Igor
They're still calibrating the instrument, Borat. You're hopeless.
Y.Porat
> "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...@gmail.com> wrote in message
i wil answer:
Mau tze Tung said once
' A march of thousand lilles
starts with one single step'
(line one singlo ephoton (:-)
-----------
th every fsct that i predisct it
and explain how it can explain
any attarction force
without using 'curved space time'
is worth testing
not to menstion that waht i suggested
does not need any special effort
or investment!!
iow
the investment is minimal
the potential gain is enormous !
so i suggest that **you*
or another great scientist will suggest -
exactly the same thing
and you will see that all the scientific community
will open wide its ears !!!...
---
Y.Porat
----------------------
Y.Porat
-----------------
calibrating the instruments ?
or calibrating the theory ?? (:-)
BTW Igor
supose they wil accept my suggestion and find something like that
what wil be your reaction for that?
will you give me credit for it (:-)...
ie giving credit to your private enemy ?? (:-)
are you able *emotionally* for such a thing ??? (:-)
Y.P
----------------------
-------------------
Inertial
'lilles'?
> (line one singlo ephoton (:-)
> -----------
>
> th every fsct that i predisct it
You predict nothing .. you make wild guesses that fly in the face of physics
and experimental evidence.
> and explain how it can explain
> any attarction force
Nope
> without using 'curved space time'
> is worth testing
Nope
> not to menstion that waht i suggested
> does not need any special effort
> or investment!!
> iow
> the investment is minimal
> the potential gain is enormous !
No potential gain
> so i suggest that **you*
> or another great scientist will suggest -
I'm glad you think I am a great scientist
> exactly the same thing
Nope. Not without experimental evidence and sound physics theory (not wild
unsubstantiated guess) that does not contradict well supported existing
physics and clash with known experimental evidence.
Inertial
Not going to happen
> will you give me credit for it (:-)...
> ie giving credit to your private enemy ?? (:-)
You are the one who declares people to be your enemies. And you encourage
that by posting insult after instul instead of valid physics. You are an
evil, nasty, deranged old man with anger management issues. Get help (or
just wait for senilty to kick in completely so it won't matter).
> are you able *emotionally* for such a thing ??? (:-)
> Y.P
Eh? You do write gibberish.
Igor
Maybe you should attempt to pretend that you at least have a
rudimentary understanding of what I'm talking about. Mark Twain once
said "'Tis better to shut one's mouth and be thought a fool than to
open it and remove all doubt."
> BTW Igor
> supose they wil accept my suggestion and find something like that
> what wil be your reaction for that?
> will you give me credit for it (:-)...
> ie giving credit to your private enemy ?? (:-)
>
> are you able *emotionally* for such a thing ??? (:-)
Can you find me some high level translator software that can explain
what the hell you are trying to say here?