 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Discovery of Higgs at Large Hadron Collider might not... |
|
Page 1 of 20 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 18, 19, 20 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Sam Wormley... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:31 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 7:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]Discovery of Higgs at Large Hadron Collider might not make all physicists happyhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48578/title/Discovery_of_H....
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests many would be horrified if all the LHC discovers
is its prime target, the Higgs boson. Tom Siegfried and others blog from the 47th annual
New Horizons in Science meeting sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science
Writing in Austin, Texas.
[/quote]
This is the part that many outsiders do not get.
They hear that the LHC was designed for one purpose: to find the
Higgs, and if it does not do that then it is to be considered a
failure and a waste of money.
If it were certain that the Higgs will be found, then there would be
no reason to build a machine to test whether it is really there -- we
would already know it. There is no value in producing something that
we know ahead of time exists.
The purpose of the LHC is, among other things, to answer questions.
One of those questions is whether the Higgs is where we think it is.
Either answer, yes or no, is an answer we do not now have. The
investment in the LHC is to get those answers, not to get the answer
"yes".
Secondly, outsiders believe that the only theory that is at stake is
the one that involves the Higgs and that if it isn't found, then all
descends into confused disorder because there are no alternatives in
play. That is completely wrong. There are numerous alternatives in
play, and the measurements at LHC -- if no Higgs is found -- will be
able to pick out which of these alternatives are favored and which
ones are not.
Unfortunately, newspapers and popular magazines and coffee-table books
do not present the project in this fashion.
PD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 9:58 am, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 7:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Discovery of Higgs at Large Hadron Collider might not make all physicists happyhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48578/title/Discovery_of_H...
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests many would be horrified if all the LHC discovers
is its prime target, the Higgs boson. Tom Siegfried and others blog from the 47th annual
New Horizons in Science meeting sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science
Writing in Austin, Texas.
This is the part that many outsiders do not get.
They hear that the LHC was designed for one purpose: to find the
Higgs, and if it does not do that then it is to be considered a
failure and a waste of money.
If it were certain that the Higgs will be found, then there would be
no reason to build a machine to test whether it is really there -- we
would already know it. There is no value in producing something that
we know ahead of time exists.
The purpose of the LHC is, among other things, to answer questions.
One of those questions is whether the Higgs is where we think it is.
Either answer, yes or no, is an answer we do not now have. The
investment in the LHC is to get those answers, not to get the answer
"yes".
Secondly, outsiders believe that the only theory that is at stake is
the one that involves the Higgs and that if it isn't found, then all
descends into confused disorder because there are no alternatives in
play. That is completely wrong. There are numerous alternatives in
play, and the measurements at LHC -- if no Higgs is found -- will be
able to pick out which of these alternatives are favored and which
ones are not.
Unfortunately, newspapers and popular magazines and coffee-table books
do not present the project in this fashion.
PD
[/quote]
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
Theories are great, but, as they say,
'garbage in, garbage out'.
If you start with the wrong precepts, your theory
is automatically going to be wrong.
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]john wrote:
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
And you know this how?
Because size is a *relative* concept, dude.[/quote]
Treating it as absolute leads to nonsensical
conclusions (which QMers love to wave about
as confirmation of their stupidity- "QM is even weirder than
we thought- woo-hoo!!)
[quote]
Theories are great, but, as they say,
'garbage in, garbage out'.
If you start with the wrong precepts, your theory
is automatically going to be wrong.
john- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 1:34 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:> john wrote:
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
And you know this how?
Because size is a *relative* concept, dude.
Treating it as absolute leads to nonsensical
conclusions (which QMers love to wave about
as confirmation of their stupidity- "QM is even weirder than
we thought- woo-hoo!!)
[/quote]
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
[quote]
Theories are great, but, as they say,
'garbage in, garbage out'.
If you start with the wrong precepts, your theory
is automatically going to be wrong.
john- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 1:34 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:> john wrote:
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
And you know this how?
Because size is a *relative* concept, dude.
Treating it as absolute leads to nonsensical
conclusions (which QMers love to wave about
as confirmation of their stupidity- "QM is even weirder than
we thought- woo-hoo!!)
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to[/quote]
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
Man, oh man, for smart people
you sure are stupid.
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 3:03 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:34 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:> john wrote:
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
And you know this how?
Because size is a *relative* concept, dude.
Treating it as absolute leads to nonsensical
conclusions (which QMers love to wave about
as confirmation of their stupidity- "QM is even weirder than
we thought- woo-hoo!!)
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
[/quote]
And what do you think that is limited by? The word "small"?
[quote]Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
[/quote]
And what do you think that is limited by? The word "large"?
[quote]
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
[/quote]
What on earth gives you the idea that if something has a measurable
property, then it is necessarily composed of parts? Please explain the
logic of that statement.
[quote]
Man, oh man, for smart people
you sure are stupid.
john[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john wrote:
[quote]
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
[/quote]
And you know this how?
[quote]
Theories are great, but, as they say,
'garbage in, garbage out'.
If you start with the wrong precepts, your theory
is automatically going to be wrong.
john[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 3:03 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:34 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:> john wrote:
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
And you know this how?
Because size is a *relative* concept, dude.
Treating it as absolute leads to nonsensical
conclusions (which QMers love to wave about
as confirmation of their stupidity- "QM is even weirder than
we thought- woo-hoo!!)
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
And what do you think that is limited by? The word "small"?
Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
And what do you think that is limited by? The word "large"?
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
What on earth gives you the idea that if something has a measurable
property, then it is necessarily composed of parts? Please explain the
logic of that statement.
We live in a fractal universe, PD; evry pattern is made up of[/quote]
patterns similar to itself, who are each made of patterns
similar to themselves.
You can't do it with your Legos.
Sorry.
john |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
Man, oh man, for smart people
you sure are stupid.
john
[/quote]
John, smaller than the smallest allowed by nature does no exist. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| john... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
[quote]john wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
Man, oh man, for smart people
you sure are stupid.
john
John, smaller than the smallest allowed by nature does no exist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
True.
But how small does nature allow?
I'll tell you what atoms absorb that causes
gravity, Sam.
The very same thing that atoms emit.
Electron waves.
Electron waves are given off by the billions
of tiny suns that make up the electron.
They are to these bits of the electron
as photons are to suns.
Gravitational energy is from matter, all right,
but in the form of mini-photons coming at an exactly
constant rate from every electron.
Gravitational energy is caused by electron radiation.
john
galaxy model |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Y.Porat... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 7:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Discovery of Higgs at Large Hadron Collider might not make all physicists happyhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48578/title/Discovery_of_H...
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests many would be horrified if all the LHC discovers
is its prime target, the Higgs boson. Tom Siegfried and others blog from the 47th annual
New Horizons in Science meeting sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science
Writing in Austin, Texas.
This is the part that many outsiders do not get.
They hear that the LHC was designed for one purpose: to find the
Higgs, and if it does not do that then it is to be considered a
failure and a waste of money.
If it were certain that the Higgs will be found, then there would be
no reason to build a machine to test whether it is really there -- we
would already know it. There is no value in producing something that
we know ahead of time exists.
The purpose of the LHC is, among other things, to answer questions.
One of those questions is whether the Higgs is where we think it is.
Either answer, yes or no, is an answer we do not now have. The
investment in the LHC is to get those answers, not to get the answer
"yes".
Secondly, outsiders believe that the only theory that is at stake is
the one that involves the Higgs and that if it isn't found, then all
descends into confused disorder because there are no alternatives in
play. That is completely wrong. There are numerous alternatives in
play, and the measurements at LHC -- if no Higgs is found -- will be
able to pick out which of these alternatives are favored and which
ones are not.
Unfortunately, newspapers and popular magazines and coffee-table books
do not present the project in this fashion.
PD
[/quote]
-------------------
so all the parrots prepare now a
RESPECTFUL RETREAT ??? (
as we said many times ago
QM "
is a supermarket of possibilities""
it is intentially right from beginning built in a way
tobe extremely **abstract **
so abstarct that you can by it
toturn a mice to a cat
and if you like
to turn the same cat into a mice !!
but all theose 'smarties that produced it
forgot (or waht others toforget that
THE MORE ABSTACT YOU ARE-
THE LESS CHANCES YOU HAVE TO BE WRONG BUT
HERE COMES THE BIG 'BUT'
IN THAT CASE
IT HAS LESS CHANCES TO BE
***USEFUL **
AGAIN
**USEFUL**
and fit to reality !!!
i as an outsider moron could tell you right from the beginning
(and i did it many times )
the Higges Boson should be dead by arrival !!
even theoretically !!!
because ::::
NO FORCE MESSENGER CAN BE
BIGGER THAN ITS 'MOTHER'!!
similarly as a scientist while born
cannot be bigger than his mother !! (:-)
2
instead of looking for the Higgs
better look for a very basic particle
**THAT MOVES IN A CIRCULAR (UNEXPLAINED YET)- PATH !!
which i called
the 'Circlon ' !!!!
that might be one (as PD says)
of
many other beneficial uses of the LHC!!
that will justify its enormous expenses !!
and might open a new era in physics
ATB
Y.Porat
------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sam Wormley... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
john wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 3:42 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
john wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
Man, oh man, for smart people
you sure are stupid.
john
John, smaller than the smallest allowed by nature does no exist.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
True.
But how small does nature allow?
I'll tell you what atoms absorb that causes
gravity, Sam.
The very same thing that atoms emit.
Electron waves.
Electron waves are given off by the billions
of tiny suns that make up the electron.
They are to these bits of the electron
as photons are to suns.
Gravitational energy is from matter, all right,
but in the form of mini-photons coming at an exactly
constant rate from every electron.
Gravitational energy is caused by electron radiation.
john
galaxy model
[/quote]
Cite Evidence please. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 21, 7:44 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 3:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:03 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:34 pm, john <vega... at (no spam) accesscomm.ca> wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:16 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:> john wrote:
Any theory that proposes a "smallest"
is in error.
There is no smallest, because smaller is smaller.
And you know this how?
Because size is a *relative* concept, dude.
Treating it as absolute leads to nonsensical
conclusions (which QMers love to wave about
as confirmation of their stupidity- "QM is even weirder than
we thought- woo-hoo!!)
Interesting that you would let the semantics of human-generated words
drive you to ridiculous conclusions about what nature can and cannot
do.
Let's see: according to you, there cannot be a smallest living cell,
because "small" is a relative term, and so there should be cells of
arbitrarily small size. Likewise, there cannot be a largest living
elephant, because "large" is a relative term, and so there should be
an elephant the size of the John Hancock Building.
Hmmm....
You don't seem to be able to
understand words.
This must hinder you constantly.
Yes, there is a smallest 'cell'.
(Until a smaller one is made.)
And what do you think that is limited by? The word "small"?
Yes there is a largest elephant.
(Until a larger one is born.)
And what do you think that is limited by? The word "large"?
No!! There is no smallest 'particle'-
because by definition if it can be
measured, then it, too, is composed of
parts.
What on earth gives you the idea that if something has a measurable
property, then it is necessarily composed of parts? Please explain the
logic of that statement.
We live in a fractal universe, PD; evry pattern is made up of
patterns similar to itself, who are each made of patterns
similar to themselves.
[/quote]
You didn't answer my question, John.
[quote]
You can't do it with your Legos.
Sorry.
john[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 22, 12:37 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 5:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml... at (no spam) mchsi.com> wrote:
Discovery of Higgs at Large Hadron Collider might not make all physicists happyhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/48578/title/Discovery_of_H...
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests many would be horrified if all the LHC discovers
is its prime target, the Higgs boson. Tom Siegfried and others blog from the 47th annual
New Horizons in Science meeting sponsored by the Council for the Advancement of Science
Writing in Austin, Texas.
This is the part that many outsiders do not get.
They hear that the LHC was designed for one purpose: to find the
Higgs, and if it does not do that then it is to be considered a
failure and a waste of money.
If it were certain that the Higgs will be found, then there would be
no reason to build a machine to test whether it is really there -- we
would already know it. There is no value in producing something that
we know ahead of time exists.
The purpose of the LHC is, among other things, to answer questions.
One of those questions is whether the Higgs is where we think it is.
Either answer, yes or no, is an answer we do not now have. The
investment in the LHC is to get those answers, not to get the answer
"yes".
Secondly, outsiders believe that the only theory that is at stake is
the one that involves the Higgs and that if it isn't found, then all
descends into confused disorder because there are no alternatives in
play. That is completely wrong. There are numerous alternatives in
play, and the measurements at LHC -- if no Higgs is found -- will be
able to pick out which of these alternatives are favored and which
ones are not.
Unfortunately, newspapers and popular magazines and coffee-table books
do not present the project in this fashion.
PD
-------------------
so all the parrots prepare now a
RESPECTFUL RETREAT ??? (
[/quote]
Um, no. Everything that I said above is what has been the case since
onset of the LHC project.
[quote]as we said many times ago
QM "
is a supermarket of possibilities""
it is intentially right from beginning built in a way
tobe extremely **abstract **
[/quote]
Not really. It's pretty straightforward.
[quote]so abstarct that you can by it
toturn a mice to a cat
and if you like
to turn the same cat into a mice !!
but all theose 'smarties that produced it
forgot (or waht others toforget that
THE MORE ABSTACT YOU ARE-
THE LESS CHANCES YOU HAVE TO BE WRONG BUT
HERE COMES THE BIG 'BUT'
IN THAT CASE
IT HAS LESS CHANCES TO BE
***USEFUL **
AGAIN
**USEFUL**
and fit to reality !!!
[/quote]
Your computer that you are using to post your comment makes use of
quantum mechanics.
[quote]i as an outsider moron could tell you right from the beginning
(and i did it many times )
the Higges Boson should be dead by arrival !!
even theoretically !!!
because ::::
NO FORCE MESSENGER CAN BE
BIGGER THAN ITS 'MOTHER'!!
similarly as a scientist while born
cannot be bigger than his mother !! (:-)
2
instead of looking for the Higgs
better look for a very basic particle
**THAT MOVES IN A CIRCULAR (UNEXPLAINED YET)- PATH !!
which i called
the 'Circlon ' !!!!
that might be one (as PD says)
of
many other beneficial uses of the LHC!!
that will justify its enormous expenses !!
and might open a new era in physics
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 6:57 am
|
|