Dear physicists, I need your help to moderate a post I received a few days ago in my G+ Philosophy community.
==================
The post starts here (verbatim).
==================
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.
==================
The post ends here.
==================
I Believe that the gentleman who has authored that post also posted it in this community as well and he is probably reading this post too.
For the life of me, I cannot make sense of what was said in that post. I wonder if any of you can kindly show me the right direction and, if possible, answer a few of the following questions;
1- What does it say, for Zeus’ sake? Can someone translate the relevant parts into English?
2- Is it really physics or a word-salad?
3- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of physics or philosophy of science?
4- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of anything?
5- How would you, particle physicists, have commented had it been posted in this community?
The author of the post seems to suggest that this is philosophy because he has not formulated it into a mathematical language yet. I disagree with that argument. If that was a valid criterion, then anything that is not mathematics should be labelled as philosophy, which is simply false.
To me, it sounds like one of those machine-generated essays created by mischievous journalists to pull scientific journals’ legs. I cannot understand a word of it.
The author also suggested that it is too complicated for us to understand, unless we are particle physicists, so he asked us, philosophers, to stay clear of the discussion in the comments if we cannot comprehend the contents.
Well, if it is posted in a philosophy community, shouldn’t philosophers understand at least a few sentences out of the main claims?
What are your thoughts?
==================
The post starts here (verbatim).
==================
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.
==================
The post ends here.
==================
I Believe that the gentleman who has authored that post also posted it in this community as well and he is probably reading this post too.
For the life of me, I cannot make sense of what was said in that post. I wonder if any of you can kindly show me the right direction and, if possible, answer a few of the following questions;
1- What does it say, for Zeus’ sake? Can someone translate the relevant parts into English?
2- Is it really physics or a word-salad?
3- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of physics or philosophy of science?
4- Does this have anything to do with philosophy of anything?
5- How would you, particle physicists, have commented had it been posted in this community?
The author of the post seems to suggest that this is philosophy because he has not formulated it into a mathematical language yet. I disagree with that argument. If that was a valid criterion, then anything that is not mathematics should be labelled as philosophy, which is simply false.
To me, it sounds like one of those machine-generated essays created by mischievous journalists to pull scientific journals’ legs. I cannot understand a word of it.
The author also suggested that it is too complicated for us to understand, unless we are particle physicists, so he asked us, philosophers, to stay clear of the discussion in the comments if we cannot comprehend the contents.
Well, if it is posted in a philosophy community, shouldn’t philosophers understand at least a few sentences out of the main claims?
What are your thoughts?
Partagé en mode public
The way that I, for one, cannot understand the above-mentioned post is quite different from the way that I don’t understand something from a physics journal. The following is the abstract of an article published in an actual journal that I don’t understand either, but for a totally different reason:
=========================
Article starts here.
=========================
The production of Z bosons is studied in the dimuon and dielectron decay channels in PbPb and pp collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV, using data collected by the CMS experiment at the LHC. The PbPb data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of about 150 inverse microbarns, while the pp data sample collected in 2013 at the same nucleon-nucleon centre-of-mass energy has an integrated luminosity of 5.4 inverse picobarns. The Z boson yield is measured as a function of rapidity, transverse momentum, and collision centrality. The ratio of PbPb to pp yields, scaled by the number of inelastic nucleon-nucleon collisions, is found to be 1.06 +/- 0.05 (stat) +/- 0.08 (syst) in the dimuon channel and 1.02 +/- 0.08 (stat) +/- 0.15 (syst) in the dielectron channel, for centrality-integrated Z boson production. This binary collision scaling is seen to hold in the entire kinematic region studied, as expected for a colourless probe that is unaffected by the hot and dense QCD medium produced in heavy ion collisions.
=========================
Article ends here. Source: arxiv.org - [1410.4825] Study of Z production in PbPb and pp collisions at sqrt(s[NN]) = 2.76 TeV in the dimuon and dielectron decay channels
=========================
I don’t understand several concepts, units, math, and jargon in that abstract. However, it does not sound like a word-salad to me. I can clearly see fine relationships between the concepts in those sentences. I can clearly see meaningful patterns and such. That does not make the abstract true or false for me, because I do not know the methodology nor do I have access to the data upon which the article is constructed. Nevertheless, I understand why I do not understand it.
Whereas, with the post in question, I cannot understand why I cannot understand a word of it. To me, most statements do not make any sense and are not related to anything else in the context of the post. It seems almost random to me with no significant correlation between the claims.
I am sure I am missing something in here, but have no idea what that might be.1 j
