Interesting/promising measurements at CERN

formatting link
Looks like they have some interesting results, a disparity between electrons and muons or whatever which was unexpected. Yet to gather the statistics to really confirm it but people taking spectra usually see the peaks coming. (Especially if they use the right spectrometer :-).

====================================================== Dimiter Popoff, TGI

formatting link

Reply to
Dimiter_Popoff
Loading thread data ...

On a sunny day (Wed, 24 Mar 2021 01:12:06 +0200) it happened Dimiter_Popoff snipped-for-privacy@tgi-sci.com wrote in <s3dsk7$ma3$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

They want money for yet an other bigger folly?

Quote me: ' If you cannot do it with those tiny particles on the desktop then you cannot do it with a machine the size of the universe, ' CERN is a money sink, as is ITER. It is just to keep Einstein reciting school kids busy.

Keep some industries running, jobs.

It is all fake :-) news.

What has to happen is: Give CERN 1 year to come up with something useful for humanity that can be USED, piece of paper with theory of everything does not count. if not cut all funds. Use the tunnels as bomb shelter against 'merrica perhaps.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

With the above comment Einstein should have stopped his work and not bothered publishing. After all it was years before anything practical came from his work. Rontgen shouldn't have bothered with his research into X-Rays. Took a few years to be adopted, so a waste of time...

That is why blue-sky science is pursued, not for a cash result, but to extend knowledge so others can make use of it. CERN money is not wasted even if they discover nothing - the money doesn't fall into a black hole - it is spent on electronics, construction, lunches, hotels, roads, electricity, and anything else you can think of and as such generates more money from people solving the associated problems to build the darn thing. The knowledge gained from building it expands through our daily lives.

You think computers and satellites and all the other bits of modern technology simply fall from the sky? OK, some satellites fall, but most stay put...

The US went into the 2nd WW as a 2nd rate country with great potential - it spent its way into becoming a superpower.

Knowledge is power over your evironment!

John :-#)#

Reply to
John Robertson

On a sunny day (Tue, 23 Mar 2021 22:52:41 -0700) it happened John Robertson snipped-for-privacy@flippers.com wrote in snipped-for-privacy@giganews.com:

Much of his stuff came from his wife actually.

Nature already existed, nothing 'practical' came from his work as 'photon' is crap. Fishicks is in a very bad shape and has been stuck in Ein's deliberations now for years. He failed to connect graffiti to the other forces of nature and that makes all his theory a lose end.

Onestone never did an experiment in his entire life,

Does not work.

My history: family member worked at large LINEAC in command, he told me as kid 'they will never find anything useful'. he left there and started a real company / factory. I did not believe him then, serendipity had me end up in the same place, cool.. great electronics, super RF, latest stuff, computers all that, but nothing as result. He was right, Nothing wrong with all the technicians and engineers and their work, but the Einstein reciting tinkerers have not even a clue about the equipment they use someone at CERN even found FTL communication while it was just a wrong cable connection..

Wrong viewpoint.

Warp me to Mars, want a replicator, fusion power, etc etc PollyTickSians use it like a bone in front of a dog to move .. to nowhere.

Personally I am more into a Le Sage theory of gravity, my simulation worked, You can use a rotating super conductor to move those LS particles to create an 'anti-gravity' stream, space is not empty. Explains MOND, internal heating of heavenly bodies et etc. And connects all the forces. we know There is even a simpler experiment to prove that.. Desktop size! Will I have you Humming Beans have that, Or will it violate my prime directive?

Better stop here, Musk is an alien, he says so himself, and who am I?

Was looking at the Mars heli today, it said: we did not use a rad-hard chip but a cheap one like in cellphones to control the heli Any bets it will fly?

formatting link
Kids

90 seconds flight time , liion batteries, as bad as there 500$ electret sound . Looking for life.. in a crater???? Do not hold your breath
Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Jan Panteltje wrote: ==================

** The early work in 1905, yes.

Mileva was better at math than he and checked all his calculations. After bathing their baby and cooking dinner - they argued physics.

The famous four papers ( including e=mc^2 ) were originally submitted for publication in joint names. After meeting resistance, her name was dropped on advice and then they were accepted.

When he won the Nobel Prize - he gave her all the money, as agreed in a prior divorce settlement. Big debt owed to her.

...... Phil

Reply to
Phil Allison

So what is the point of having science, eh? Come on.

Dimiter

Reply to
Dimiter_Popoff

Hmm I only skimmed BBC take. Three-sigma above noise so way to early to tell... though there will be ~1000 theorist papers describing it before the peak goes back into the noise. George (cynic) H.

Reply to
George Herold

CERN has already changed most people's everyday life, arguably for the better. It has destroyed billion dollar industries and replaced them with bigger industries that are more profitable and efficient.

CERN has already created enough wealth to cover its operating costs for the foreseeable future.

Yes, the mechanism was completely unanticipated. That's often the way with basic research.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Einstein didn't have a multi-billion euro budget. Rontgen had a modest lab. A billion euros or so, pocket change, should be invested in laser wake-field accelerators and other alternatives to monster machines.

Big collider physics is awfully expensive and so far useless. Imagine how many smaller, maybe useful, projects could have been funded with all that money.

I wonder how much energy (with by-product CO2) CERN needs.

The extremes of quantum theory are interesting to some people but so far not useful.

Not much. CERN is big but uses ordinary stuff. You may as well build billions worth of sophisticated things and dump them in the ocean. The money does fall into a black hole. A lot of talent is diverted too.

I made some money designing wire detectors for a big p-p experiment at CERN. We still sell them things now and then. But I don't think it's productive, so we donate the profit to some good causes.

Has collider physics resulted in anything useful? I don't know of any. The Web was a by-product of CERN but unrelated to giant tunnels and magnets.

Quantum physics looks to me like an endless spiral of particles and forces. Every discovery requires a yet bigger machine. And a bigger budget.

Hardly second rate.

Reply to
jlarkin

How? The Web? That was the work of one guy with time on his hands. It had nothing to do with particle physics, and some version was inevitable. ARPAnet was a military spinoff.

Actually, military development has had a lot more useful spinoffs than high-energy physics. That's probably because the military wants stuff that works.

Reply to
jlarkin

Which bit of "Yes, the mechanism was completely unanticipated. That's often the way with basic research" did you miss when scanning at 400wpm? (And then snip because it doesn't fit in with your contention)

There were various other mechanisms (e.g. gopher) at that time, all with big deficiencies.

The key points about the web were simple content creation, processor independence, OS independence, company independence, and made freely available for everybody to use.

UNIX is a comparable example, also an unanticipated result of people having time on their hands and not being required to develop telephone systems.

Reply to
Tom Gardner

Why not collect 10K scientists and engineers and programmers in a nice resort and pay them to do nothing? That would make even more spinoffs and save a lot of money on magnets and detectors.

Or have them work on something potentially useful, like Bell and RCA and HP Labs? Those had serious spinoffs.

Imagine how many hundred small-team, diverse research projects could have been funded for the cost of CERN, or of putting a few bootprints into moon dust.

These big projects are political.

Reply to
jlarkin

Yet another "why do we need science" post. Do you *really* not understand how ridiculously shortsighted your point is. If it were down to people thinking like you say you do we would still be using horses to carry us around.

THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR KNOWLEDGE.

Dimiter

Reply to
Dimiter_Popoff

Please read what I said.

Reply to
jlarkin

Let's not yell. I kinda agree with JL here. How much is knowing the mass of the Higgs Boson (HB) worth? I don't know of any proposals, of things to do with it... besides study the HB in more depth.

I'm sure there are lots of good things and well trained people coming out of CERN. But what else could those people have been doing? What's the opportunity cost of using all those smart minds at CERN rather than someplace else? Put in terms of knowledge what don't we know because we spent so much (talent) on the HB? George H.

Reply to
George Herold

There is a 'politics'/ history of funding inertia that goes into science. peer review can keep the wackos out, but it also reinforces the 'old boy' network. One idea 'wins'. And then the big boys in the field suck up all the money and talent... it's positive feedback. So we get decades of string theory and dark matter searches, while those with alternate ideas languish on the sidelines.. or just leave and go do something else.

I'm not sure what to do about it. But if we all agreed the problem existed that would be a first step.

George H.

Reply to
George Herold

Imagine how many world-class telescopes and virus research labs we could fund for the cost of the next big accelerator or moon landing.

Hundreds.

Reply to
jlarkin

The all caps was not intended as yelling, more like bold - sorry it came across this way.

The thing with the unknown is that is is ... unknown. Can you suggest a better way to find out what a proton can be broken into? No? Neither do I. Why do we need the knowledge? Why did we need the knowledge of fission and fusion? Like I said, there is no replacement for knowledge. And today's science has to do things which are harder to do than the (brilliant & founding) Michelson-Morley experiment so funding is impossible without politics being involved. Of course the vast majority of the scientists on a payroll are useless but there is no other known way to make it statistically possible for someone who can really do something to get to the right place/equipment.

Dimiter

====================================================== Dimiter Popoff, TGI

formatting link

Reply to
Dimiter_Popoff

So you claim you said something other than "what for do we need science". Read your message again and point me to that part of it which says so, I could not locate it. Please help me with that - or just accept you have said something stupid, can happen to everyone.

Reply to
Dimiter_Popoff

Lawrence invented big science. He wanted to build bigger and more expensive cyclotrons, so had to raise enthusiasm and money, and had to invent uses for them.

The bomb program helped.

Reply to
jlarkin

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.