LARGE HADRON COLLIDER AND EINSTEIN 1954 CONFESSION
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
http://www.astrofind.net/documents/the-composition-and-essence-of-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this
one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."
The question is: If Einstein 1954 suggestion was correct, that is, if,
as far as the speed of light is concerned, light behaves as
discontinuous particles, not as continuous field, which part of
"contemporary physics" will the Large Hadron Collider be able to
confirm? Will contemporary physicists find a way to give the many
billions wasted back to taxpayers?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
understanding of time to Einstein's zombie world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
One of the reasons why Einsteinians do not take Einstein's 1954
confession seriously:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/29/dead.celebrities/
"The business magazine has been compiling its annual list of departed
celebrities' earnings since 2001. Since 2003, the feature has
coincided with Halloween.....Physicist Albert Einstein, best known for
his theory of relativity, is fourth on the list. It is his third
consecutive year making the Forbes rankings. Though he died in 1955, a
franchise bearing his name -- Baby Einstein -- made big bucks last
year selling educational books, DVDs, CDs, toys and other products. It
plans to expand into the young-adult market this year."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> The Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox explains Einstein's
> understanding of time to Einstein's zombie world:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
Now the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox shows the effects
of time dilation to Einstein zombie world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
Einstein zombie world is so excited that, if Brian Cox wants to waste
a few more billions, taxpayers would readily give him the money.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.nouse.co.uk/2008/10/30/step-into-the-god-machine/
"What if the worst were to happen, and the LHC, after it gets going
again, doesn’t find anything at all? Tom Whyntie, who works on the CMS
detector at CERN on behalf of Imperial College, doesn’t see this as an
option. “The physics we’ve got at the moment basically says there has
to be something we can see with the LHC, so physicists are pretty
optimistic that something will be found”. Optimism aside though, what
if the project really discovers nothing? “A null result from the LHC
would present irrefutable evidence that we really need to go back to
the drawing board and fundamentally change the way we do physics and
think about the universe we’re in – which one could argue would be the
most exciting result of all.” The LHC seems to become more astonishing
with every revelation. The most exciting result would be… nothing?
Whyntie explains that this has happened before in the history of
physics, and it simply forces us to rethink our theories until we get
them right. “At the turn of the last century, people believed that
light had to be transmitted through a medium, but an experiment put
together famously found nothing at all. Fortunately, a little-known
German physicist called Albert Einstein had an idea that explained the
result… a fundamental change in the way we look at the universe”."
Obviously LHC money wasters have not seen this:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://io9.com/5091007/will-the-global-economic-crisis-kill-the-large-hadron-collider
""Is the LHC really worth it?"
Assume Einstein's 1954 prediction (see below) is correct whereas John
Stachel's laughter is hysterical and stupid. Would then the LHC really
be worth it?
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Professor Brian Cox's performances express his deep gratitude to
taxpayers but the gratitude demonstrated by other LHC money wasters is
even deeper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4
"Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government
grant to help me develop it....I think that with Government backing I
could make it very silly....Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of
money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer
getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social
Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all
supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on
the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence! Now we
get 348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our
available products....I'm going to offer you a Research Fellowship on
the Anglo-French Silly Walk....La Marche Futile?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
LHC intellects continue to demonstrate their deep gratitude to
taxpayers:
http://www.kotaku.com.au/games/2008/11/large_hadron_collider_guys_get_theatrical_with_halflife_street_theatre-2.html
"Back when we thought the Large Hadron Collider was going to kill us
all, instead of just hum for a few days then break down, we learned
that an emergency package had been sent to the site. Within,
everything that Gordon Freeman needed to save us from the horrors of
an alien-spewing vortex. At the time, it was a cute joke, but there
was always the lingering understanding that nobody at the LHC would
actually get it. The package, or the joke. Turns out they did! Sandro
Bonacini, who works there, got the joke, and eventually the package as
well. He's Gordon. Stefano Michelis also got the joke, and for his
troubles, is about to get whacked. Oh, those wacky scientists."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://scienceline.org/2008/11/26/blog-bond-eureka-discovery-lhc-malaria-palin/
"There are two kinds of people: those who think that physics’ biggest
experiment, the Large Hadron Collider, is a waste of money, and those
who don’t."
European taxpayers must have been cruel to Silly Walker Stephen
Hawking so he now thinks the Large Hadron Collider is a waste of money
and is starting work at the Silly Walk Headquarters:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=543e9b45-2945-4e9a-b5f1-e55ede157038
"Premier Dalton McGuinty called Hawking's decision to work in Waterloo
"dramatic news" and that it is an indication of the quality research
conducted at the institute. "We are convinced at some point in time
some wonderful discovery is going to take place because of the work
that is being done there," the premier said in Pickering, Ont.
According to the institute Hawking, who is almost totally paralysed by
Lou Gehrig's disease, seeks to better understand the basic laws which
govern the universe. With Roger Penrose he showed that Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity implied space and time would have a
beginning in the Big Bang and an end in black holes. Another
conjecture is that the universe has no edge or boundary in imaginary
time. This would imply that the way the universe began was completely
determined by the laws of science. There have been rumours this year
that Hawking would spend more time abroad. Earlier this year he
criticized the British government's merging of two science funding
bodies, the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council and the
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, into the
Science and Technology Facilities Council. In a letter to British
Cabinet ministers, he said a "bookkeeping error" had created a $160-
million shortfall. Scientists fear 600 jobs are at risk."
There is a growing suspicion at the Headquarters (Lee Smolin, Joao
Magueijo) that Einstein's 1905 light postulate might be false but
Hawking is going to restore faith in this postulate immediately:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
"The Large Hadron Collider will come back online in late summer 2009
at the earliest, and not in June as previously expected."
LHC money wasters may have decided to ignore John Stachel's
carelessness and analyse Einstein's 1954 confession very seriously:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
LHC money wasters may also have decided to analyse (very seriously)
important discoveries made at the Perimeter Institute, Einsteiniana's
Headquarters:
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
Lee Smolin: "Then, about 30 years ago, something changed. The last
time there was a definitive advance in our knowledge of fundamental
physics was the construction ofthe theory we call the standard model
of particle physics in 1973. The last time a fundamental theory was
proposed that has since gotten any support from experiment was a
theory about the very early universe called inflation, which was
proposed in 1981....A growing number of theoretical physicists, myself
among them, see the present situation as a crisis that requires us to
reexamine the assumptions behind our so-far unsuccessful theories. I
should emphasize that this crisis involves only fundamental physics
that part of physics concerned with discovering the laws of nature."
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered
Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his
own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's
insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative
motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same,
no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences
of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-
legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are
relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS
OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."
Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
"La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
(...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
soit plus constante."
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
"The accelerator operations group at CERN came up with two possible
plans to restart the LHC, details of which are included in a CERN
presentation. According to the document, written by Jorg Weninger, a
member of the operations group, "Plan A" called for a restart of the
experiment in late summer 2009, with the beam energy and intensity
limited to minimize the risk of another accident. "Plan B" delayed
switching on the beam until there had been a complete upgrade to the
pressure-relief system, which would mean the LHC would be restarted in
2010 at the earliest."
In the meantime, Professor Brian Cox will be explaining time dilation
to Einstein zombie world and even demonstrating, in a breathtaking
way, the effects of this prediction of the No1 daddy of physics'
theory:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/real_life/article1985696.ece
"They call me the Liam Gallagher of physics.....But now consider
Professor Brian Cox, the 40-year-old who’s turning the image of
physics on its head. He’s the bloke who used to play keyboards in
D:Ream, the dance-rock band behind New Labour’s anthem Things Can Only
Get Better. He cites Einstein as his inspiration, the No1 daddy of
physics who was actually a bit cooler than we think.....He says:
"Close to the speed of light, you can go anywhere you want in the
future. You can get as far into the future as you want. That’s just
orthodox. It was known in 1905." And get this . . . "If you go on a
flight to New York then come back again, you’ll have aged slightly
less than the people who stayed here because you’ve gone into the
future slower!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Stephen Hawking is also going to entertain taxpayers while his LHC
brothers are wasting more and more millions:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24323841-5014239,00.html
"Stephen Hawking bets Large Hadron Collider won't work...."The LHC
will increase the energy at which we can study particle interactions
by a factor of four. According to present thinking, this should be
enough to discover the Higgs particle," Professor Hawking said on BBC
radio. "I think it will be much more exciting if we don't find the
Higgs. That will show something is wrong, and we need to think again.
I have a bet of 100 dollars that we won't find the Higgs," said Prof
Hawking, whose books including A Brief History of Time have sought to
popularise study of stellar physics."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i45480
"Large Hadron Collider Responsible for Global Financial
Crisis.....Critics of the LHC had campaigned against the initial
startup of the machine, claiming that switching it on could cause
unknown effects, including the formation of a black hole. Now, it can
be revealed that their worst fears had in fact come true almost
immediately, and a small, yet terrifyingly significant black hole had
formed, forcing the hasty shutdown for repairs. The site of the
tunnels which house the LHC, run beneath both France and Switzerland,
and it is in Switzerland that the problems have manifested themselves
most drastically. It appears that a Financial Black Hole opened up in
Geneva, directly beneath the city's famous banking centre. Several big
players on the global financial stage, had their Geneva branches
swallowed whole within the 9 day period that the LHC ran. It was hoped
that switching off the LHC would have halted the process but with
internet, ethernet and intranet connections still active on either
side of the Financial Black Hole (FBH), cash continues to be swallowed
on a massive scale."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
A rhetorical question:
http://physics.about.com/b/2009/01/07/was-lhc-a-waste-of-time-and-money.htm
"Was the Large Hadron Collider a Waste of Time (and Money)?"
In seems The Large Hadron Collider is both sillier and more expensive
walk than La Marche Futile:
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=i5Jyu6eioZ4
"Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to obtain a Government
grant to help me develop it....I think that with Government backing I
could make it very silly....Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of
money. I'm afraid that the Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer
getting the kind of support it needs. You see there's Defence, Social
Security, Health, Housing, Education, Silly Walks ... they're all
supposed to get the same. But last year, the Government spent less on
the Ministry of Silly Walks than it did on National Defence! Now we
get 348,000,000 a year, which is supposed to be spent on all our
available products....I'm going to offer you a Research Fellowship on
the Anglo-French Silly Walk....La Marche Futile?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ukastronomy
<Endlessly repeated variations on the same old theme deleted>
1) Valev cannot identify a single main-stream astronomer or physicist
who has changed their views based on his work.
2) Valev cannot explain why peer reviewed publication of his views
has not taken place.
3) Valev cannot explain why he feels that multiple postings each and
every day to groups where there is zero appreciation of his efforts
constitutes a good use of his time.
4) There are many areas of astronomical thinking and current practice
needing review far more urgently than Valev's current obsession.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40853/113/
"Alternate collision method suggests LHC may have been total waste of
$9 billion"
Still the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox will continue to
explain Einstein's understanding of time to taxpayers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
Here the Large Hadron Collider's superstar Brian Cox shows the effects
of time dilation to taxpayers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
Professor Brian Cox's performances express his deep gratitude to
taxpayers but the gratitude demonstrated by other LHC money wasters is
even deeper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
ukastronomy
Pentcho Valev
Fermilab's scientists are much more beautiful than Professor Brian Cox
and their songs are more fundamental than LHC money wasters' songs:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10173538-71.html
"Why the LHC may be beaten to the Bang.....The Big Bang was supposed
to have happened last year. Then the Large Hadron Collider blew a fuse
that had been wired by a couple of teenagers from Turkmenistan (I'm
kidding. They were actually from the backstreets of Vilnius.) and had
to be shut down for major repairs. Meanwhile, it seems, physicists at
the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill., have been
tinkering with their Tevatron. The Tevatron doesn't have the scale of
the Large Hadron Collider. But it does seem to have one small
advantage: it's actually working....The best (or worst, depending on
your bent), appears to be this video, called "Accelerating Science"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SARsKlcDza8 . It does have more than a
smidgen of early rap about it. And there is a very difficult moment
when a yellow boot gives a purple beam a kick. However, I think we can
be more forgiving of this movie. It was made in 1992. And the fact
that Fermilab attempted some rap beats all those years ago suggests
that these are people who keep the curve behind them and never pretend
they are Lot's Wife. It might also suggest to some that the Large
Hadron Collider rappers were not exactly original."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article5870853.ece
"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which was supposed to isolate a
hitherto unobserved sub-atomic particle known as the Higgs Boson,
remains closed for repairs in its tunnel under Geneva. But a gigantic
computer grid that was supposed to analyse the collider's output has
found another purpose. It is being used to guess what sort of sounds
Ancient Greek musical instruments might have made. This may be a waste
of money but it should not be a surprise."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Divine Theories that are sucking billions is getting more and more
popular:
http://mondialisation.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12761
"Science d’aujourd’hui : Les trous noirs engloutissent des milliards
de dollars...De plus en plus d'argent étant exigé pour des expériences
scientifiques de plus en plus alambiquées, il devient de plus en plus
important d’essayer d'expliquer la théorie de base sous-tendant ce
travail à ceux qui, en fiThe idea that Einsteinians should explain to
taxpayers why Einsteiniana is wasting n de compte, payent la facture,
à TOI, le grand public. Beaucoup sont impressionnés et émerveillés
lorsqu’on parle du Grand Colisionneur de Hadrons. Ils ont en réalité
peu idée de ce que c’est et de ce qu’espèrent en tirer les
responsables, mais sont emportés sur la vague d’enthousiasme fort
probablement sincère de ceux qui sont concernés. Les lacunes
scientifiques sont toutefois mises en relief par une véritable crainte
ressentie par certains, qui pensent que, lors de sa mise en marche,
cette puissante machine pourrait produire un trou noir qui
engloutirait la Terre. Aussi ridicule que cela puisse sembler, des
gens pensaient ça et étaient véritablement stressés le jour de la mise
sous tension. Le coût de cette machine, ainsi que les énormes dépenses
de fonctionnement et d'entretien, sont quasiment au-delà de la
compréhension du simple quidam. Ensuite, il y a LISA, le Light
Interferometer Space Antenna (antenne spatiale d’interférométrie
lumineuse) ; un autre projet coûtant un immense tas d'argent et,
encore une fois, un projet financé en fin de compte par un public qui
ne comprend pas. La question de savoir s'il s'agit d'une position
éthique ou non doit être posée. Il semblerait aussi juste et
convenable à tous ceux qui paient la facture d’avoir quelque idée du
contexte général de chacun de ces grands projets. La nécessité de
franchise totale, accentuée quand le sort de tant de malheureux
souffrant d'une grave pénurie de nourriture ou en proie à quelque
maladie ou affection incurable actuellement, est aussi considérée. Il
est très probable qu'il serait extrêmement difficile, voire inutile,
d’expliquer en détail au grand public le point de vue sous-tendant
certains de ces nouveaux projets, dans le domaine général de la
cosmologie, par exemple. Ce n’est pas pour paraître élitiste ; c’est
plutôt que le gros de l'arrière-plan théorique est si complexe que
relativement peu de spécialistes en comprennent toutes les
ramifications. Comment par conséquent expliquer le contexte à des gens
peu au fait du monde scientifique ? Ce n'est pas tâche facile, mais
elle doit être tentée et entreprise en toute honnêteté. Honnêteté est
censée vouloir dire nécessité d'expliquer TOUT le contexte. Ça
implique, dans le cas où elles existeraient, de mettre tout le monde
au courant des théories et des explications alternatives aux effets et
observations. Ce n’est malheureusement pas le cas actuellement (...)
Il est bien établi que nombre de scientifiques éminents ont nourri dès
le début des doutes sur la validité de la théorie de la relativité
restreinte et générale. Certains, comme Herbert Dingle, devenu très
embarrassé par les aspects du fameux paradoxe des jumeaux, a conçu des
doutes après avoir été au début un ardent défenseur de la théorie.
Malheureusement, si le récit des événements décrits dans son livre
Science at the Crossroads (1) est exact, il semble qu’après
l’apparition de ces doutes, les écarter devienne de plus en plus
difficile. Pas grand chose ne semble avoir changé depuis ces débuts,
et il reste apparemment toujours vrai que, contester la validité des
théories de la relativité n'est pas un choix de carrière raisonnable.
En fait, même montrer que le fameux test de la relativité générale
peut s'expliquer autrement (2) est considéré par certains comme une
attaque voilée contre la validité de la théorie d'Einstein."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Don Stockbauer
erect penises? They called it the
LARGE HARD-ON COLLIDER!!!!!!!