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.
==================
The gentleman who has authored that post might have also posted/shared it in this community as well, I am not sure.
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.
==================
The gentleman who has authored that post might have also posted/shared it in this community as well, I am not sure.
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?
Ce post a une pièce jointe.
Learn what technological advances behind Large Hadron Collider and particle accelerators has led us to and how is the physics helping us to understand not only to understand the universe but also helping us to improve the cancer treatment , Grid computing and what not .....
Learn what LHC can tell us ?? - What physics can tell us ??
whatphysicscantellus.weebly.com
Ce post a une pièce jointe.
In particle physics, an elementary particle or fundamental particle is a particle whose substructure (domain of the bigger structure which shares the similar characteristics of the domain) is unknown, thus it is unknown whether it is composed of other particles. Known elementary particles include the fundamental fermions (quarks, leptons, antiquarks, and antileptons), which generally are "matter particles" and "antimatter particles", as well as the fundamental bosons (gauge bosons and Higgs boson), which generally are "force particles" that mediate interactions among fermions. A particle containing two or more elementary particles is a composite particle.
Everyday matter is composed of atoms, once presumed to be matter's elementary particles—atom meaning "indivisible" in Greek—although the atom's existence remained controversial until about 1910, as some leading physicists regarded molecules as mathematical illusions, and matter as ultimately composed of energy.Soon, subatomic constituents of the atom were identified. As the 1930s opened, the electron and the proton had been observed, along with the photon, the particle of electromagnetic radiation.At that time, the recent advent of quantum mechanics was radically altering the conception of particles, as a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation.
Via quantum theory, protons and neutrons were found to contain quarks—up quarks and down quarks—now considered elementary particles And within a molecule, the electron's three degrees of freedom (charge, spin, orbital) can separate via wavefunction into three quasiparticles (holon, spinon, orbiton). Yet a free electron—which, not orbiting an atomic nucleus, lacks orbital motion—appears unsplittable and remains regarded as an elementary particle.
Around 1980, an elementary particle's status as indeed elementary—an ultimate constituent of substance—was mostly discarded for a more practical outlook, embodied in particle physics' Standard Model, science's most experimentally successful theory. Many elaborations upon and theories beyond the Standard Model, including the extremely popular supersymmetry, double the number of elementary particles by hypothesizing that each known particle associates with a "shadow" partner far more massive, although all such superpartners remain undiscovered.Meanwhile, an elementary boson mediating gravitation—the graviton—is generally presumed, but remains hypothetical.
For More Info :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
Everyday matter is composed of atoms, once presumed to be matter's elementary particles—atom meaning "indivisible" in Greek—although the atom's existence remained controversial until about 1910, as some leading physicists regarded molecules as mathematical illusions, and matter as ultimately composed of energy.Soon, subatomic constituents of the atom were identified. As the 1930s opened, the electron and the proton had been observed, along with the photon, the particle of electromagnetic radiation.At that time, the recent advent of quantum mechanics was radically altering the conception of particles, as a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation.
Via quantum theory, protons and neutrons were found to contain quarks—up quarks and down quarks—now considered elementary particles And within a molecule, the electron's three degrees of freedom (charge, spin, orbital) can separate via wavefunction into three quasiparticles (holon, spinon, orbiton). Yet a free electron—which, not orbiting an atomic nucleus, lacks orbital motion—appears unsplittable and remains regarded as an elementary particle.
Around 1980, an elementary particle's status as indeed elementary—an ultimate constituent of substance—was mostly discarded for a more practical outlook, embodied in particle physics' Standard Model, science's most experimentally successful theory. Many elaborations upon and theories beyond the Standard Model, including the extremely popular supersymmetry, double the number of elementary particles by hypothesizing that each known particle associates with a "shadow" partner far more massive, although all such superpartners remain undiscovered.Meanwhile, an elementary boson mediating gravitation—the graviton—is generally presumed, but remains hypothetical.
For More Info :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle
Veuillez patienter pendant le chargement des autres posts.
