The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier than expected
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Economics is one of the "Soft Sciences," and who'll win the "Nobel" for BP's cap&trade nostrum (circa Waxman's '91 bill) ??
Next: Climate skeptics are looking at BP's cap&trade bailout of Wall St. and "the City" -- the next & biggest!
From: Jacko on 23 Jul 2010 15:16 Given the higgs boson has an eV rating, It should be within the bounds to get a 95% confidence interval of how long a discovery will take. Now if someone wants to forward themselves for on the line 99.9% confidence interval then what collateral will be on the line? Personally I think the Muon experiment will be the most useful, and possibly worth the whole cost of the lot of them.
From: Y.Porat on 24 Jul 2010 10:15 On Jul 23, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 6:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 11:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > NATURE: Large Hadron Collider gets yet more exotic "to-do" list > > > The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier > > > than expectedhttp://links.email.scientificamerican.com/ctt?kn=16&m=35619630&r=NTM5... > > > ------------------ > > dont you see from heir high talking about should in a cople of yere > > etc etc > > THAT THEY ARE IN BIG TROUBLE ??... > > Why? From the very *design* of the accelerator, long before it was > built, it was known that it would take a couple years of data taking > to get at some of the desired physics results. > > Why would running as planned be considered trouble? > > Where do you get the idea that an experimental facility that doesn't > give you the answer you're looking for in the first week must be in > trouble? > > > > > i espacially like that quote from them > > (just a littel example > > quote > > ''giving infinite answers for the strength of particle interactions, > > unless physicists fudge the numbers. > > > end of quote > > (:-) > > dont you see the pathetic talking > > > 'INFINITE ANSWERS ''' > > common stupid crooks... > > > WE DONT NED INFINITE ANSWERS !! > > > WE NEED just A FEW GOD ONCE !!! > > we like modest people !!! > > > not to mention that > > 'curved space' is not even in their big mouth !!! > > > with big hands > > > and small mouths !!! > > > ATB > > Y.Porat > > ---------------------- because i know betetr the basic of physics than tose parrots for instance NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE!) NO REAL PHYSICS! and if right wich i am pretty sure no Higgs bosons that delivers particles teir mass a real particle DOES NOT6 NEED ANUYHING TO DELIVER IT ITS MASS because ?? guess what a mattwer of basic intelligence based on the above rule!! 2 NO FORCE MESSENGER CAN BE '!! BIGGER IN ANY ASPECT THAN ITS' MOTHER that is as well basics of physics understandings for instance conservation of momentum !! 3 no ''force messenger'' that moves in a straight line canm be an atttraction force agent there for for instance a photon cannot be any attraction agent !!! etc etc anyone who does not understand those basics and goes on teaching it to the young generation is sinning against advance of science or at least tell them: thjere are scientists that reject those silly questionable paradigms and you young guys dont take the parroting for granted -- just take it is questionable paradigms !! ATB Y.Porat ---------------------------- ATB Y.Porat --------------------------
From: PD on 24 Jul 2010 10:26 On Jul 24, 9:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 6:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 11:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > NATURE: Large Hadron Collider gets yet more exotic "to-do" list > > > > The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier > > > > than expectedhttp://links.email.scientificamerican.com/ctt?kn=16&m=35619630&r=NTM5... > > > > ------------------ > > > dont you see from heir high talking about should in a cople of yere > > > etc etc > > > THAT THEY ARE IN BIG TROUBLE ??... > > > Why? From the very *design* of the accelerator, long before it was > > built, it was known that it would take a couple years of data taking > > to get at some of the desired physics results. > > > Why would running as planned be considered trouble? > > > Where do you get the idea that an experimental facility that doesn't > > give you the answer you're looking for in the first week must be in > > trouble? > > > > i espacially like that quote from them > > > (just a littel example > > > quote > > > ''giving infinite answers for the strength of particle interactions, > > > unless physicists fudge the numbers. > > > > end of quote > > > (:-) > > > dont you see the pathetic talking > > > > 'INFINITE ANSWERS ''' > > > common stupid crooks... > > > > WE DONT NED INFINITE ANSWERS !! > > > > WE NEED just A FEW GOD ONCE !!! > > > we like modest people !!! > > > > not to mention that > > > 'curved space' is not even in their big mouth !!! > > > > with big hands > > > > and small mouths !!! > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------- > > because i know betetr the basic of physics > than tose parrots And there, Porat, you've just shown yourself to be a deluded, arrogant fool. You'd be a fool to tell a surgeon that he's wasting his time with surgical procedures because you understand the basics of medicine better than surgeons. You'd be a fool to tell an aeronautical engineer that he's wasting his time with his designs because you understand the basics of aeronautics better than aeronautical engineers. You'd be a fool to tell a molecular biologist that he's wasting his time with his work on DNA because you understand the basics of biology better than molecular biologists. And you're a fool here. > > for instance > > NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE!) NO REAL PHYSICS! > and if right wich i am pretty sure > no Higgs bosons that delivers particles teir mass > a real particle > DOES NOT6 NEED ANUYHING TO DELIVER IT ITS MASS > because ?? guess what > a mattwer of basic intelligence > based on the above rule!! > 2 > NO FORCE MESSENGER CAN BE '!! > BIGGER IN ANY ASPECT THAN ITS' MOTHER > > that is as well basics of physics understandings > for instance > conservation of momentum !! > 3 > no ''force messenger'' that moves in a straight line > canm be an atttraction force agent > there for for instance > a photon cannot be any attraction agent !!! > etc etc > anyone who does not understand those basics > and goes on teaching it to the young generation > is sinning against advance of science > or > at least tell them: > thjere are scientists that reject those > silly questionable paradigms > > and you young guys > dont take the parroting for granted -- > just take it is questionable paradigms !! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------
From: Robert Higgins on 25 Jul 2010 14:26 On Jul 24, 10:15 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 7:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 23, 6:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 21, 11:11 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > NATURE: Large Hadron Collider gets yet more exotic "to-do" list > > > > The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier > > > > than expectedhttp://links.email.scientificamerican.com/ctt?kn=16&m=35619630&r=NTM5... > > > > ------------------ > > > dont you see from heir high talking about should in a cople of yere > > > etc etc > > > THAT THEY ARE IN BIG TROUBLE ??... > > > Why? From the very *design* of the accelerator, long before it was > > built, it was known that it would take a couple years of data taking > > to get at some of the desired physics results. > > > Why would running as planned be considered trouble? > > > Where do you get the idea that an experimental facility that doesn't > > give you the answer you're looking for in the first week must be in > > trouble? > > > > i espacially like that quote from them > > > (just a littel example > > > quote > > > ''giving infinite answers for the strength of particle interactions, > > > unless physicists fudge the numbers. > > > > end of quote > > > (:-) > > > dont you see the pathetic talking > > > > 'INFINITE ANSWERS ''' > > > common stupid crooks... > > > > WE DONT NED INFINITE ANSWERS !! > > > > WE NEED just A FEW GOD ONCE !!! > > > we like modest people !!! > > > > not to mention that > > > 'curved space' is not even in their big mouth !!! > > > > with big hands > > > > and small mouths !!! > > > > ATB > > > Y.Porat > > > ---------------------- > > because i know betetr the basic of physics > than tose parrots > > for instance > > NO MASS (THE ONLY ONE!) NO REAL PHYSICS! No Mass - No REAL Catholicism! > and if right wich i am pretty sure that you're not. > no Higgs bosons that delivers particles teir mass > a real particle > DOES NOT6 NEED ANUYHING TO DELIVER IT ITS MASS > because ?? guess what > a mattwer of basic intelligence How could you even comment on issues of "basic intelligence", since you have none? > based on the above rule!! > 2 > NO FORCE MESSENGER CAN BE '!! > BIGGER IN ANY ASPECT THAN ITS' MOTHER Are you "bigger" than your mother? > > that is as well basics of physics understandings > for instance > conservation of momentum !! > 3 > no ''force messenger'' that moves in a straight line > canm be an atttraction force agent > there for for instance > a photon cannot be any attraction agent !!! > etc etc > anyone who does not understand those basics > and goes on teaching it to the young generation > is sinning against advance of science "Please bless me father, for I have sinned. It has been three months since my last Confession." > or > at least tell them: > thjere are scientists that reject those > silly questionable paradigms No, there aren't. Lying "engineers" who can't do simple math don't qualify as "scientists". > > and you young guys > dont take the parroting for granted -- > just take it is questionable paradigms !! > > ATB > Y.Porat > ---------------------------- > > ATB > Y.Porat > --------------------------
From: eric gisse on 25 Jul 2010 14:54
artful wrote: [...] > > You really are paranoid and delusional .. get help. I think it is getting worse. |