Quantum physics says goodbye to reality ["hidden variables"]
Sam Wormley
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14/1
20 April 2007
Some physicists are uncomfortable with the idea that all individual
quantum events are innately random. This is why many have proposed
more complete theories, which suggest that events are at least
partially governed by extra "hidden variables". Now physicists from
Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad
class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism -- giving
the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not
observing it (Nature 446 871).
Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many
hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain
experimental inequality were violated -- known as "Bell's
inequality". In his thought experiment, a source fires entangled
pairs of linearly-polarized photons in opposite directions towards
two polarizers, which can be changed in orientation. Quantum
mechanics says that there should be a high correlation between
results at the polarizers because the photons instantaneously
"decide" together which polarization to assume at the moment of
measurement, even though they are separated in space. Hidden
variables, however, says that such instantaneous decisions are not
necessary, because the same strong correlation could be achieved if
the photons were somehow informed of the orientation of the
polarizers beforehand.
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <tIeWh.6213$n_.2446@attbi_s21>:
>Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
> http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14/1
< S N I P >
> 20 April 2007
> Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many
> hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain
> experimental inequality were violated --
Only valid if you start out assuming everything has speed < c.
'Wake'Up.
Marty Muon.
Huang Xien Chen
> the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not
> observing it (Nature 446 871).
Gott gebe mir die Gelassenheit, Dinge hinzunehmen, die ich nicht ändern
kann, den Mut Dinge zu ändern, die ich ändern kann und die Weisheit das Eine
vom Anderen zu unterscheiden.
And now, I am going to ignore that you said such a silly thing and just HOPE
it GOES AWAY.
Sam Wormley
Got evidence?
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <OFoWh.68485$_c5.62523@attbi_s22>:
Evidence of what?
If evidence that current physics assumes < c, you must have noted Einstein
and his critics.
If something can move faster then c, as for example the Muon can (see other posts)
then info can be exchanged long before the coupled polarised photons reach
their destination.
It is the current Einsteinonion thinking of < c that is not only an assumption,
but the wild haired retard even disagreed with the experimenters (as Michelson
Morley) it is JUST AN ASSUMPTION.
He could not step back as he got a Nobel, and would lose face.
But he was intelligent enough to have seen it, as is 'photon', he must have
seen he was wrong, but to lose face over a Nobel? No rather have physics stuck
for his lifetime at least.
What a shit scientist Einstein was - an ego maniac.
I want to state something here: If indeed Muon moves faster then c towards earth after
it is created in collision in the upper atmosphere, there is a simple
explanation why it (AND THE NEUTRINO) can penetrate so far through matter (Muon is even
charged, so it should hit a brick wall near any atom).
The reason it is not stopped is simple: It _cannot_ lock in electromagnetically,
because EM is a 2 way process (likely something streaming), and the return process
cannot catch up with the particle if moves > c.
Simple.
So it even penetrates deep into the earth, _until_ it has lost enough speed so it drops
below c, and then is stopped by interaction with matter (and its electrons).
Think about it.
Uncle Al
That's a fair criticism. Give an empirical example of superluminal
propagation that fulfills two criteria:
1) It can carry information.
2) It does not contradict prior observations validating causality.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
malibu
> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:51:42 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
>
>
>
> >Jan Panteltje wrote:
> >> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:31:53 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
no, it can't lock in because the dipole of which
it is made is never in line with the direction it is
travelling.
photons have their dipole line up with
the direction of travel twice per cycle.
neutrinos do not, mostly.
yes, Virginia, photons (and neutrinos)
are made 'from two complementary particles'
(Dirac), and these correspond to your basic
virtual particles- get one of these with enough
energy and swing it sharply around a big nucleus
and it will splash into an electron and a positron-
whence the charge? it was (is) always there.
John
malibu
oops, it was De Broglie- and it was 'complementary
corpuscles'- but, whatever
Traveler
wrote:
>Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>
>> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:31:53 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
>> <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <tIeWh.6213$n_.2446@attbi_s21>:
>>
>> >Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
>> > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14/1
>>
>> < S N I P >
>>
>> > 20 April 2007
>> > Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many
>> > hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain
>> > experimental inequality were violated --
>>
>> Only valid if you start out assuming everything has speed < c.
>
>That's a fair criticism. Give an empirical example of superluminal
>propagation that fulfills two criteria:
>
> 1) It can carry information.
> 2) It does not contradict prior observations validating causality.
There is no propagation from one correlated particle to another, Uncle
Shfartz, superluminal or otherwise. Nonlocal simply means that nature
is nonspatial, meaning that there is no space or distance between
particles. Distance, like time is abstract. It's all an illusion.
Capeesh?
Now, knowing that it won't do your brain any good, go pack the above
up your ass, you uneducable moron. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
Physics From the Bible!
Shaking the Foundations of Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm
Sam Wormley
You don't understand relativity, do you, Jan?
pant...@yahoo.com
> Jan Panteltje wrote:
>
> > On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Apr 2007 02:31:53 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
>
> > >Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
> > > http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14/1
>
> > < S N I P >
>
> > > 20 April 2007
> > > Some 40 years ago the physicist John Bell predicted that many
> > > hidden-variables theories would be ruled out if a certain
> > > experimental inequality were violated --
>
> > Only valid if you start out assuming everything has speed < c.
>
> That's a fair criticism. Give an empirical example of superluminal
> propagation that fulfills two criteria:
>
> 1) It can carry information.
> 2) It does not contradict prior observations validating causality.
I am under the impression that a simpler explanation for the Muon
making its trip within 2.2 u seconds from the upper atmosphere to say
600 meters below earth surface is simpler explained by a Muon speed >
c
then a Muon speed < c and 'time deletion' (where the Muon sees a
shorter time happening).
This high Muon speed caused by super fast interstellar particles
(perhaps protons)
colliding in the upper atmosphere.
In such a case for sure the Muon could carry information (say in
number of ticks)
or absence / presence if we could only create a way to 'modulate' the
collision process, and reliably detect it.
This is very much related to the c+v experiment I always wanted to do
with
chopping light from a star that approaches or leaves us at a fraction
of c, and
then have to distant detectors measure the speed,as described here
before by me
(google) (with no glass or lenses as those re-emit the EM).
So that would answer your first question.
As to 'violate causality', I never get this idea.
Sure from a mathematics POV based on an accepted max speed <= c, such
an
idea may perhaps surface.
I work with nano seconds and even less, both in simulation in and
reality, in electronics and really, if c was 10% higher tomorrow
nothing would change :-)
If we find a particle that moves at >c and use it to transfer info,
then _nothing_ would be violated accept some concepts of some people.
To put it even simpler:
If particle A travels at 2 c, and i send one over 1 km, it will arrive
before a light
signal emitted at the same time.
No violation of anything happens.
I do not understand where this causality issue comes from.
I do understand that many people see what they have learned to see
(they interpret
things not as they clearly are, but their brain / neural net modifies
the observation to
match the idea opposed by previous or present peers, hypnosis is based
on that,
education system does this to us humans.
It is both a human species + (as to be able to learn without hands on
experience),
as a species - as it clouds perception and leads to parroting).
So after eduction hypnotized the child by nothing > c, he will see and
interpret everything that way.
Same with flat earth, earth at center and sun orbits around it,
etc....
This is hard to fight, and it will take more then a generation to get
rid of the Einsteinian brainwash likely.
So for me, in this case I clearly remember my reading about Einstein
when I was very young, and it was hot news then, and then later at
school, and I remember the discussion I had with a schoolmate, I
parroted (what did I know) ''hey but nothing can go faster then c I
have learned", and he smiled and said: 'Look up De Broglie" (he was in
next class up).
I did eventually...
Maybe something stuck, as to not trust what I was teached all the
time...
So maybe you can give me that simple example where a particle > c
would violate
causality.
pant...@yahoo.com
Maybe you could explain in some more detail what you want to say?
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <%FrWh.68860$_c5.55873@attbi_s22>:
> You don't understand relativity, do you, Jan?
It is not a good idea to try to understand nonsense.
The assumption nothing > c is just that much: an assumption.
The math we did in school for that, many years ago, and any 5 year old can do.
The application of math is slightly harder.
And to understand what you are applying it too even more so.
There is nothing to 'understand' in relativity, it is a math model,
it does _not_ provide an explanation or even mechanism, and as such is
worth nopes.
It reminds me of that joke of the 3 idiots, where the guy gives the right
answer based on the wrong reasoning.
Dead and street.
The Ghost In The Machine
<pNaonSt...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:57:13 GMT
<f0dja1$vbl$1...@news.datemas.de>:
Explain then why the operational beam revolution frequency
of the Large Hadron Collider is not several megahertz,
but only 11.245 kHz, despite the proton energy being many
many times more than 1 1/2 m_p c^2.
Table 2.4 in
https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
fortune: not found
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Autymn D. C.
galathaea
> Quantum physics says goodbye to realityhttp://physicsweb.org/articles/news/11/4/14/1
sam
this is a very poor article for you
realism has never been invalidated by experiment
because their are realistic theories with isomorphic predictions
to standard quantum theory
these aspect-like experiments test bell's inequality
which is a fine validation of quantum predictions
but does nothing to settle questions of realism
j s bell himself promoted many realist theories
over the classic interpretations of quantum mechanics
this article is full of misstatements
and is really very poor quality
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
Jeff…Relf
You can't map _ Apparently _ random territory without observation.
Nothing is ever truly random, that's why time is a spatial dimension.
If you want the opinion of leading scientists
on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
see the quotes and links at " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
" Cosmic Energy " is the fifth spatial dimension, I posit.
For example, the known Universe was 3 kilokelvins 13.7 gigayears ago,
today it's just 3 kelvins. Energy_Time_Space is static and immutable.
Cosmic Energy spontaneously, irrevocably dissipates.
That's Pseudo_Entropy, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It's what creates and destroys " life ", Pseudo_Entropy is Pseudo_God.
Jan Panteltje
Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
<9i3qf4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>:
Because you cannot move something to faster then c relative to you, by an EM
field related to you, as the EM moves itself at c..
No matter how high the waves are, the surfer cannot move faster then the
wave front, but will seem to arrive a little bit earlier on a steep wavefront.
Anyways the whole thing (collider) is calculated with <c in mind, and as such
will never do anything for physics except create jobs and suck energy, heat up
the earth, cause global flooding and kill ye all ;-)
As to understanding nonsense, if somebody came up to Sam and
stated: 2 + 2 = 5, and Sam would say: I cannot understand this...
Then the person would show him a box, throw in 4 balls and out came 5...
and *IF* Sam was to wake up the next morning and say to himself :
'OK now I understand this, 2 + 2 = 5, I have seen proof',
he would need help.
You buy all that stuff, look a bit deeper then the show, and look for the magicians trick.
Eric Gisse
> " reality does not exist when we are not observing it " ?
> You can't map _ Apparently _ random territory without observation.
>
> Nothing is ever truly random, that's why time is a spatial dimension.
The sky is blue, that's why Jeff Relf is an idiot.
See - I can use non-sequiturs too.
[snip crap]
Eric Gisse
> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Apr 2007 11:59:53 -0700) it happened The Ghost In The
> <9i3qf4-cnb....@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>:
>
>
>
> >In sci.physics, Jan Panteltje
> ><pNaonStpealm...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote
> >on Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:57:13 GMT
> >> On a sunny day (Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:16:43 GMT) it happened Sam Wormley
>
> >>> You don't understand relativity, do you, Jan?
>
> >> It is not a good idea to try to understand nonsense.
> >> The assumption nothing > c is just that much: an assumption.
> >> The math we did in school for that, many years ago, and any 5 year old can do.
> >> The application of math is slightly harder.
> >> And to understand what you are applying it too even more so.
>
> >> There is nothing to 'understand' in relativity, it is a math model,
> >> it does _not_ provide an explanation or even mechanism, and as such is
> >> worth nopes.
> >> It reminds me of that joke of the 3 idiots, where the guy gives the right
> >> answer based on the wrong reasoning.
> >> Dead and street.
>
> >Explain then why the operational beam revolution frequency
> >of the Large Hadron Collider is not several megahertz,
> >but only 11.245 kHz, despite the proton energy being many
> >many times more than 1 1/2 m_p c^2.
>
> >Table 2.4 in
> >https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf
>
> Because you cannot move something to faster then c relative to you, by an EM
> field related to you, as the EM moves itself at c..
> No matter how high the waves are, the surfer cannot move faster then the
> wave front, but will seem to arrive a little bit earlier on a steep wavefront.
Then why do neutral particles obey special relativity?
>
> Anyways the whole thing (collider) is calculated with <c in mind, and as such
> will never do anything for physics except create jobs and suck energy, heat up
> the earth, cause global flooding and kill ye all ;-)
Of COURSE it is - there has never been a deviation from special
relativity to date.
>
> As to understanding nonsense, if somebody came up to Sam and
> stated: 2 + 2 = 5, and Sam would say: I cannot understand this...
> Then the person would show him a box, throw in 4 balls and out came 5...
> and *IF* Sam was to wake up the next morning and say to himself :
> 'OK now I understand this, 2 + 2 = 5, I have seen proof',
> he would need help.
It isn't physics' fault that you are incapable of recognizing the
validity and self-consistency of special relativity.
>
> You buy all that stuff, look a bit deeper then the show, and look for the magicians trick.
You found what you wanted to find, and never looked further.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
>
> Nothing is ever truly random, that's why time is a spatial dimension.
>
Nonsense which is not even internally logical.
Androcles
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f0fdu4$b91$1...@news.datemas.de...
The possibility exists that Ghost, Blind Poe, Phuckwit Duck and Eric Goose, like
Jan Bielawski, are all Polish. Dork Van de merde is Belgian, of course. Poles are
the butts of American jokes, Belgians the butts of Polish jokes. The Norwegians
invented the paper clip.
Sam Wormley
> As to understanding nonsense, if somebody came up to Sam and
> stated: 2 + 2 = 5, and Sam would say: I cannot understand this...
> Then the person would show him a box, throw in 4 balls and out came 5...
> and *IF* Sam was to wake up the next morning and say to himself :
> 'OK now I understand this, 2 + 2 = 5, I have seen proof',
> he would need help.
>
Actually, Sam would likely respond, "hmmm this is interesting!"
and devise experiments to understand/resolve the discrepancy.
Sam would eventually discover that there was a hidden ball in
the box. And verify that 2 + 2 = 4.
The Ghost In The Machine
<f0fdu4$b91$1...@news.datemas.de>:
An interesting point, though at lightspeed a proton could
at most have about 469 MeV of kinetic energy (Newtonian)
and maybe 1.407 GeV total. This is far below the 7 TeV claimed.
Note that the LHC is only the latest collider with
this problem; the Bevatron also had too much energy per
particle. I wonder why that is ... ?
>
> Anyways the whole thing (collider) is calculated with <c in mind, and as such
> will never do anything for physics except create jobs and suck energy, heat up
> the earth, cause global flooding and kill ye all ;-)
>
> As to understanding nonsense, if somebody came up to Sam and
> stated: 2 + 2 = 5, and Sam would say: I cannot understand this...
> Then the person would show him a box, throw in 4 balls and out came 5...
> and *IF* Sam was to wake up the next morning and say to himself :
> 'OK now I understand this, 2 + 2 = 5, I have seen proof',
> he would need help.
>
> You buy all that stuff, look a bit deeper then the show, and look for the magicians trick.
>
Perhaps you can explain it, then? After all, you're a magician, right?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992381111:
while(bit&BITMASK) ;
Jeff…Relf
The future is just as fixed as the past.
So time is spatial, static and immutable.
_ Apparent _ entropy is our _ Apparent _ God.
T Wake
"Jeff.Relf" <Jeff...@Yahoo.COM> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_20...@Cotse.NET...
> The future is just as fixed as the past.
> So time is spatial, static and immutable.
Nonsense. You dont understand what a spatial dimension is and you are too
stupid to find out.
> _ Apparent _ entropy is our _ Apparent _ God.
Your posts are _ Apparent _ nonsense.
> If you want the opinion of leading scientists
> on the " Time is spatial, falsely directional. " issue,
> see the quotes and links at " news:Jeff_Relf_2...@Cotse.NET ".
Bzzt. That does not show the "opinion" of leading scientists.
galathaea
i should be more specific about the misstatements
because these include some errors
regularly repeated in pop-physics
the two-time inequalities tested
are derived from a realist formulation known as macrorealism
basically that the model assigns observable states
to the system even when not observed
( excluding some allowed discontinuities
if the system has a transition ontology )
and as with all bell-type inequalities
there is an added assumption
legget's added assumption is what he terms
non-invasive measurability at the macroscopic level
that it is in principle possible to observe those macroscopic assigned
states
without altering the macroscopic evolution
this relation doesn't have an immediate connection to locality
so it was assumed by leggett to be directly obvious from the
macrorealism
but it is an independent axiom
and there are actually some derived relationships
relating this axiom with counterfactual realism
which is intimately tied to the local realist formalism
and the axiom means that the ontology would need to
provide measurements these unusual counterfactual means
to account noncommutative operators
like time sequence spin projections
so it is not clear that there is not a closer association
with aspect-like experiments
it has been known since at least around 1992 or 3
that leggett inequalities test more than only macrorealist
assumptions
and macrorealism is pretty strong on its own
and certainly not the only realist formalism
there have been a few leggett tests in the past
and usually someone like ghirardi has to publish something
to point out overstatements on the claims of tests of realism
this is the same thing that happened in the aspect experiments
i really do not understand why the popular physics press
does not find these nuances fascinating
contextuality
counterfactuality
locality
these are the ideas universes are made from
Jan Panteltje
Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
<e5psf4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>:
>>>Explain then why the operational beam revolution frequency
>>>of the Large Hadron Collider is not several megahertz,
>>>but only 11.245 kHz, despite the proton energy being many
>>>many times more than 1 1/2 m_p c^2.
>>>
>>>Table 2.4 in
>>>https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf
>>
>> Because you cannot move something to faster then c relative to you, by an EM
>> field related to you, as the EM moves itself at c..
>> No matter how high the waves are, the surfer cannot move faster then the
>> wave front, but will seem to arrive a little bit earlier on a steep wavefront.
>
>An interesting point, though at lightspeed a proton could
>at most have about 469 MeV of kinetic energy (Newtonian)
>and maybe 1.407 GeV total. This is far below the 7 TeV claimed.
You are contradicting yourself: Are you claiming > light speed NO.
>Note that the LHC is only the latest collider with
>this problem; the Bevatron also had too much energy per
>particle. I wonder why that is ... ?
Yea, and people try to explain that to you.
In fact you have asked the first question in this newsgroup now at least 3 times,
to me, and I gave the same answer 3 times.
From this follows directly that you have one or more of the next problems:
1) Amnesia
2) Reading disability DYSLEXIA
3) Parrot virus
4) No understanding of the implications of the answer I have
5) No understanding of what really happens in an accelerator.
6) Just being boring
So, with one or more of the above true, it is logical you cannot find the answer.
I only replied with that answer for the others who are free of the above 6.
>> You buy all that stuff, look a bit deeper then the show, and look for the magicians trick.
>>
>
>Perhaps you can explain it, then? After all, you're a magician, right?
Nature is the magician, your opportunity is to understand it.
To state : 'Nothing moves faster then C' is an assumption.
Nature does not give a shit about your assumptions.
Your devotion to the ideas of the moron (who possibly became moron after reading
so many fantastic patent applications in his youth, and finally 'understanding' them),
shuts you of from seeing what really happens.
R
Jan Panteltje
<swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in <rFJWh.70104$_c5.31396@attbi_s22>:
You are OK Sam :-)
Now as to Michelson Morley, look again.
The Ghost In The Machine
<f0i33h$l7h$1...@news.datemas.de>:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 22 Apr 2007 12:20:46 -0700) it happened The Ghost In The
> Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> <e5psf4-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>:
>
>>>>Explain then why the operational beam revolution frequency
>>>>of the Large Hadron Collider is not several megahertz,
>>>>but only 11.245 kHz, despite the proton energy being many
>>>>many times more than 1 1/2 m_p c^2.
>>>>
>>>>Table 2.4 in
>>>>https://edms.cern.ch/file/445830/5/Vol_1_Chapter_2.pdf
>>>
>>> Because you cannot move something to faster then c relative to you, by an EM
>>> field related to you, as the EM moves itself at c..
>>> No matter how high the waves are, the surfer cannot move faster then the
>>> wave front, but will seem to arrive a little bit earlier on a steep wavefront.
>>
>>An interesting point, though at lightspeed a proton could
>>at most have about 469 MeV of kinetic energy (Newtonian)
>>and maybe 1.407 GeV total. This is far below the 7 TeV claimed.
>
> You are contradicting yourself: Are you claiming > light speed NO.
I am (and the researchers at LHC are) claiming an
energy far above that required to accelerate a proton to
lightspeed with Newtonian mechanics.
>
>
>>Note that the LHC is only the latest collider with
>>this problem; the Bevatron also had too much energy per
>>particle. I wonder why that is ... ?
>
> Yea, and people try to explain that to you.
> In fact you have asked the first question in this newsgroup now at least 3 times,
> to me, and I gave the same answer 3 times.
> From this follows directly that you have one or more of the next problems:
> 1) Amnesia
> 2) Reading disability DYSLEXIA
> 3) Parrot virus
> 4) No understanding of the implications of the answer I have
> 5) No understanding of what really happens in an accelerator.
> 6) Just being boring
>
> So, with one or more of the above true, it is logical you cannot find the answer.
> I only replied with that answer for the others who are free of the above 6.
>
>>> You buy all that stuff, look a bit deeper then the show, and look for the magicians trick.
>>>
>>
>>Perhaps you can explain it, then? After all, you're a magician, right?
>
> Nature is the magician, your opportunity is to understand it.
> To state : 'Nothing moves faster then C' is an assumption.
> Nature does not give a shit about your assumptions.
> Your devotion to the ideas of the moron (who possibly became moron after reading
> so many fantastic patent applications in his youth, and finally 'understanding' them),
> shuts you of from seeing what really happens.
>
> R
So OK then. Do you have a website where you explain that
the revolution frequency is not in the megahertz range
as it should be? sqrt(7 TeV / 469 MeV) = about 122;
the proton should be moving at 122 c.
But it's not.
There is the possibility that they're lying like rugs,
and claiming 7 TeV when in fact they're only getting 469
MeV. However, the tau lepton -- which was created by the
collision of two electrons going slower than light but had
way more energy than they should [*] -- is an interesting issue
in an earlier accelerator (SLAC, if I'm not mistaken).
Its mass is more than three times that of an electron
-- which is about the maximum one would expect smashing
two electrons together at lightspeed, assuming that the
electrons were vaporized in the process E = mc^2,
and KE = 1/2 m c^2.
In fact, the tau's mass is more than
three *thousand* times that of an electron.
(http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mtausme suggests
the value m_tau / m_e = 3477.48 .)
So how could it have been created by smashing two
electrons going at less than lightspeed (relative to the
accelerator)?
SR provides a straightforward, consistent answer.
For his work, Martin L. Perl got 1/2 of the Nobel Prize
for Physics in 1995 (the other half went to Frederick
Reines for the detection of the neutrino).
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1995/index.html
Odd decision by the Stockholm committee, apparently,
to give out a prize for a particle that couldn't possibly
have been created.
[*] actually, the tau was probably created by a fair number
of such collisions, and Martin Perl probably had to pore
over many many pages of sensor results.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Does anyone else remember the 1802?