I'm trying to get CERN to use the LHC for a modern particle physics equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Sent it to the Council Secretariat earlier this week, haven't heard anything yet so may need the publication route.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
And I've been brewing on some ideas concerning black holes for a few years.
Still, it would be great to do something like this at the LHC and some of the reasons are explained below.
I'm going to write this proposal in a more scholarly form for publication.
As it should be of great interest for the philosophy of physics. Not to mention the relevance for philosophy of science and mathematics.
That an agenda with promise of a zero result is a good test
for the integrity and methods -- any unknowns that may be hidden by
bias given the nature of building a system that primarily studies noise. Systematic errors is one thing --- systematic human errors another.
And so is the complications from adhering to working theories with
so much unknown.
There is a myriad of theories that deal with space as a variable.
Any form of direction or a experimental zero-proof would settle
many arguments revolving fundamental premises of particle physics.
By actively saying one should do PbPb for one year, and specifically:
That our orientation around the sun related to milky way is the focus of study to look for any space-time effect on any particle. This is not a narrow search in any one area of interest to physics. PbPb as the best option for the amount of tracks and chances for increasing accuracy with more particles of the same type per event. It should be of interest to look at other physics opportunities that would
fit within these run parameters.
It would requires careful consideration of velocity and distance in an angular trajectory for all types of particles over a long period of time.
The influence could be very faint and the more accurately measured to zero, the better an argument theoreticians have for venues in mathematical physics.
In addition to being a good calibration test for the experiments involved.
Of utmost interest is if force carriers may be influenced, and if it will be an expected zero result or if folds or pockets in space discussed for the very small also applies to the very large as is expected.
I've worked at CERN full time in the past, and part time until Desc. 2016.
Sort of dropped out of cognitive sciences with a desire for a philosophy specialisation in 2010.
View 22 previous comments
And I'm just deleting confused statements about temperature, energy and matter. Not interested in speculating about particles in either a low or high energy state specifically out of the general and larger context of space-time and relativity and fundamental concepts in physics.2d
An increase of paraphrasing and picking sentences out of context and calling them statements, block and reporting a few more. This thread is within Philosophy of Physics, have posted in places where more people are passionate about the minutia of mechanics in particle physics. Been close to a storm of self-declared experts with no business of asking questions out of context without providing premises.2d
I'll update with a comment posted with physicists as an intended audience, more interested in this than some individuals expressing their porley thought through understanding of relativity:
Taking this towards a publication, and stuck between doing this and appealing miscarriage of justice and police brutality and abuse of power.
Relativity is respected in the dark water rotating within a black hole.
There is however a lot of energy consumed in moving space, not matter. Analogous to moving space and a soup of matter faster than allowed for matter interacting with it due to the length of the object which must be seen as a coherent object from the outside and inside. For particle interaction most likely through force carriers.
There is an energy potential in the difference over the speed of light
by moving the interaction in space-time before collapsing.
Thereof, it is warranted to ask if Higgs-field and particle belong in the standard model. And should rather be moved to a model of space-time and particle interactions over the two respectively.
Edit: If nothing else, useful to write here as to get feedback as to why nobody is interested and what to explain. Bit wasted time however, as It's hard to guess these things, having nothing in common; especially background and training.2d
And a term I'm proposing for a possible observable effect in real-space:
I'd like to offer "banking" as a term for pushing to a side
when "lensing" may deal with fields with a direction, current or drag.
I ask for some tolerance as far as terminology is concerned.
Also, they key element to try and measure to zero for the sake
of trying to falsify the notion, and why it requires a full year.
Is to look for "banking" effects in relation to the sun and the milky-way. Initially put this in quantum field theory as it may be prudent to discuss if this concept could include the Higgs-field and be moved together with zero-point energy and field where force carriers is a special case with interaction of the proposed mechanism, and former a special case of space-time interaction.
Edit: Cleaned up a bit. However, let it be clear that the whole context is a model of space-time alongside the standard model. In which case certain assumptions regarding particles, zero-point field and energy may need changing, specifically the Higgs-field as a property of the zero-point field. As relevant for the standard model due to "quantum vacuum". I'd prefer lay people not interested in philosophy of science or physics refrain from trolling on elementary concepts as this is complicated.2d
+Eric Bright Leaving this to make it clear there was a dialogue and something was moved onto a new thread/post in Philosophy community to keep this philosophy of physics, keeping this to philosophy of physics as much as possible. Where things like Democritus's atom en thoughts on space and movement, as well as zeno's paradox which I think of as philosophically solved by Einstein.
Edit: deleted reference to egypt, brings baggage to only one sun and one black hole nonsense, equally not interested in one big bang. :)23h
So sort of promised to keep particle physics out of this, forgive this transgression!
Actually, think i found what I was looking for:
arxiv.org - [1707.07305] Long-distance effects in $B\to K^*\ell\ell$ from Analyticity
https://www.sciencealert.com/large-hadron-collider-beauty-meson-charm-loop-decay-new-physics
Dark matter adding charge to anti bottom quark?
That would, if I'm not mistaken entirely changes that quark, making it no longer a B-meson! Curious as to what! (edits, time for some minutia)
w00000t! :D
Ok, wondering if it's weak isospin i should look at. But should be electric charged added, where zero is likely illegal. Thinking about it makes it hurt a bit. Possibly making there be an anti-photon in QGP, mass and no energy to make a pushover for soup interaction, i joke... maybe....
Edit, might as well put this here also:
[quote]
Based on my ideas aforementioned.
I think whats going on is dark matter adding charge
to to heavier quarks, changing electric charge and weak isospin.
Turning the decay modes towards the more common b-mesons.
I propose if not already done, adding the exact time of each event
discovered in analysis in relation to LHCb's orientation to
the orbit around the milky-way. Increasing the searchable parameter
space to answer this question more quickly.
I've read upon B-meson decay modes and related particles for less
than a day, conversations concerning this with a particle physicists
would be useful but I intend on publishing my theory as it relates
to zero-point field, zero-point energy, Higgs field/particle and general reactivity as quickly as possible. And would greatly appreciate
collaboration on the particle physics especially.
Don't have to point out what this result could actually mean.
And hope I the impression I have from the few papers I've read so
far isn't faulty. The instability of B-meson might be lending itself
to first evidence and indication that this theory is correct.
Hope this adds to the parameter space for look-elsewhere effect
as I'm hoping.
Balder
[/quote]41m