Author Topic: 60 minutes: LHC  (Read 16995 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #75 on: September 07, 2016, 01:15:18 pm »
Actually, this whole www / CERN discussion is silly: justifying huuuuuge CERN expenditures on the basis of www/berner is like justifying huge expenditures on the patent office because of relativity / Einstein.

It just sounds desperate.
who is doing that? Didn't read that here.
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #76 on: September 07, 2016, 01:34:54 pm »
Quote
What's wrong with inventions that have been made by people that are not from the U.S.?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web


also states that

The World Wide Web was invented by English scientist Tim Berners-Lee in 1989. He wrote the first web browser in 1990 while employed at CERN in Switzerland.[2][3] It has become known simply as the Web.

you are barking off the wrong tree.

here is how much off you are: on this particular matter, i am in complete agreement with you, as well as the wiki that CERN invented the ***WWW*** (more precisely, html).

The dispute is on if CERN invented the ***internet***.

I firmly believe that Mr. Gore, ***not*** CERN, invented the internet.


:)
Good point, I should have read that string in this thread more thoroughly before posting. But then I disagree with both of you. Neither Al Gore nor CERN had invented the internet, although they both were certainly great contributors of helping it lift off the ground. Afaik the design and construction of the first network was a collaborative action.
« Last Edit: September 07, 2016, 02:36:17 pm by tatus1969 »
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 

Offline alexanderbrevig

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 590
  • Country: no
  • Musician, programmer and EE hobbyist
    • alexanderbrevig.com
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #77 on: September 07, 2016, 03:49:27 pm »
The fact that this can even be a discussion is proof enough for me that way too little money is spent on research and the propagation of it.

I had no idea anyone was in doubt as to whether the CERN is for good or for worse.  \$\Omega\$d
 
The following users thanked this post: daqq

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #78 on: September 07, 2016, 10:22:29 pm »
"I had no idea anyone was in doubt as to whether the CERN is for good or for worse.  \$\Omega\$d"

That's how learning works. Hopefully you get wiser, one tiny bit at a time.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #79 on: September 08, 2016, 12:22:36 am »
BTW, the Japanese are now thinking about a linear collider, having learned from the LHC.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline VulcanBB18

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 40
  • Country: au
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #80 on: September 08, 2016, 02:35:58 am »
I saw the 60 minutes piece on the large hadron collider and failed to understand its motivation...

That is your failure, not ours.  Basing your opinion on that example of "journalism" is another failure.

I'm sure you posted this to get a reaction, and you did, congratulations. 

How do you propose we should investigate the fundamental properties of matter? 

 
The following users thanked this post: daqq

Offline NottheDan

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Country: gb
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #81 on: September 08, 2016, 04:12:33 am »
BTW, the Japanese are now thinking about a linear collider, having learned from the LHC.
And?
 

Offline daqq

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1809
  • Country: sk
    • My site
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #82 on: September 08, 2016, 04:37:15 am »
Quote
BTW, the Japanese are now thinking about a linear collider, having learned from the LHC.
You probably mean the Chinese: http://www.sciencealert.com/china-s-revealed-plans-to-build-the-world-s-largest-particle-collider-twice-the-size-of-the-lhc

Good for them.
Believe it or not, pointy haired people do exist!
+++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
 

Offline TerraHertz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3709
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #83 on: September 08, 2016, 05:37:33 am »
One very useful thing that's come from the LHC complex, is https://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud
The CLOUD experiment. An examination of how water droplet nucleation in the upper atmosphere is affected by cosmic rays (mainly) and how they influence cloud formation.

This established a strong link between the strength of the solar wind, and cloud formation on Earth. It's an inverse relation, since the solar wind in the Heliosphere acts as a shield against high energy cosmic rays. More cosmic rays reaching Earth, more clouds. More solar wind, less cosmic rays reaching Earth.

The Warmist crowd actually managed to get the CLOUD experiment shut down when it became clear the results were not going to support AGW. Only strong protest in the science community managed to keep it funded.
So that's at least one thing CERN has done that upset an applecart. Good on them.

As for LHC results, didn't it only recently achieve full designed operating power? Not fair to say 'no breakthrough results' yet.

Btw, does anyone know whether now the LHC can run at full beam energy, is the beam packet train fully populated? Or are they still running with only a very short group of packets, leaving most of the slots unpopulated?
I'm very curious about this. Those who've heard of the fringe (woo-woo?) science field called Scalar Waves will understand.
Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #84 on: September 08, 2016, 06:07:41 am »
One very useful thing that's come from the LHC complex, is https://home.cern/about/experiments/cloud
The CLOUD experiment. An examination of how water droplet nucleation in the upper atmosphere is affected by cosmic rays (mainly) and how they influence cloud formation.
 

Thanks for the link. The embedded video is quite good:




The Warmist crowd actually managed to get the CLOUD experiment shut down when it became clear the results were not going to support AGW. Only strong protest in the science community managed to keep it funded.

Not sure where you came up with that - since it is actually contrary to what the link shows.

If you follow the arguments and the link to the most recent findings as published in Nature - it's quite the opposite:

Quote
Our planet’s pre-industrial climate may have been cloudier than presently thought, shows CERN’s CLOUD experiment in two papers published today in Nature (link is external).
CLOUD shows that organic vapours emitted by trees produce lots of aerosol particles in the atmosphere when there’s no sulphuric acid – a main product of burning fossil fuels.

And:

Quote
CLOUD has also found (link is external)that ions from galactic cosmic rays strongly enhance the production rate of pure biogenic particles – by a factor 10-100 compared with particles without ions. This suggests that cosmic rays may have played a more important role in aerosol and cloud formation in pre-industrial times than in today’s polluted atmosphere.

And from the video below " cosmic rays had a very big effect (on cloud formation) in the clean, pristine pre-industrial atmosphere but less so today"

Cloud 2
« Last Edit: September 08, 2016, 06:20:08 am by mtdoc »
 

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #85 on: September 08, 2016, 06:25:44 am »
The fact that this can even be a discussion is proof enough for me that way too little money is spent on research and the propagation of it.

I had no idea anyone was in doubt as to whether the CERN is for good or for worse.  \$\Omega\$d
:-+
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 

Offline TerraHertz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3709
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #86 on: September 08, 2016, 12:04:31 pm »
Not sure where you came up with that - since it is actually contrary to what the link shows.

From following the history of it. Excerpt from my files: (Which, since I'm slack, don't include ALL the relevant articles I've seen.)
-------------
re CERN CLOUD experiment  (I forgot to save original link for this text. Google phrases, many present.)

UK – Dr Jasper Kirkby(Particle Physicist) is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.

Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.
---
realityreturns on Mar 25th, 2010 at 2:14 pm

"Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders."


Has CERN shut down, TUB? It doesn’t seem Kirkby has. He’s just being more politically correct…lol

Dr. Kirkby, in contrast, now 10 years older and wiser, has changed. In the past, he would unguardedly say: "There is certainly a greenhouse effect. The question is whether it is responsible for all the 0.6C warming in the past century, or two-thirds or a fifth — or what?" Now, to head off attacks, and controversies that might once again derail the CLOUD product, he hides his hopes and downplays the significance of what CLOUD may find: "If there really is an effect, then it would simply be part of the climate-change cocktail," a perhaps less naive, more politic Dr. Kirkby now states.

2009-06-04
Subject category CERN Colloquium
Abstract The current understanding of climate change in the industrial age is that it is predominantly caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases, with relatively small natural contributions due to solar irradiance and volcanoes. However, palaeoclimatic reconstructions show that the climate has frequently varied on 100-year time scales during the Holocene (last 10 kyr) by amounts comparable to the present warming – and yet the mechanism or mechanisms are not understood. Some of these reconstructions show clear associations with solar variability, which is recorded in the light radio-isotope archives that measure past variations of cosmic ray intensity. However, despite the increasing evidence of its importance, solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established. Estimated changes of solar irradiance on these time scales appear to be too small to account for the climate observations. This raises the question of whether cosmic rays may directly affect the climate, providing an effective indirect solar forcing mechanism. Indeed recent satellite observations – although disputed – suggest that cosmic rays may affect clouds. This talk presents an overview of the palaeoclimatic evidence for solar/cosmic ray forcing of the climate, and reviews the possible physical mechanisms. These will be investigated in the CLOUD experiment which begins to take data at the CERN PS later this year.
---
realityreturns on Mar 25th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

Better late than never…

Only this explanatory video dated

Produced by: CERN Video Productions
Director: CERN Video Productions
04:26 min. / 11 November 2009

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088
---
The only thing that will save us is proof that MMGW is the crock that 74% of the population now believe it is. The work started by people such as Henrik Svensmark on clouds and being continued by Jasper Kirkby at CERN with the CLOUD experiment will hopefully nail MMGW for the poor science and political scam that it is:

Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark on clouds
http://www.the-daily-politics.com/home/49-columnists/1364-danish-physicist-henrik-svensmark-on-clouds
---
SwissBob on Mar 25th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Many of us are awaiting the results of the fullscale CERN Cloud Experiment with great interest. Here is Kirksby’s excellent lecture
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/?ln=fr
And guess what, the climate ‘establishment’ wanted to quash it.
http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684


20101218
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/sunny_days_for_cloud_experimen.html
Sunny days for CLOUD experiment
The experiment has a long and bumpy history. The idea is to test the theory that cosmic rays spur the formation of particles in the air that nucleate clouds, in turn making skies cloudier and the planet cooler. Researchers have noted a dearth of sunspots (which is linked to more cosmic rays) during the ‘little ice age’ of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and a peak in sunspots (linked to a drop in cosmic rays) during the late 1980s, when global cloudiness dropped by about 3% (see Nature‘s feature on the project). No one knows how big this effect might be, and the idea that it might account for a big chunk of the warming over the last century is highly controversial.
The short version is that the Carbonazis tried to suppress this experiment, because it posed a threat to their religious doctrine that humans are to blame for all climate shifts. But the experiment is being run and indications are that it confirms cosmic rays significantly influence cloud cover, which in turn significantly influences how much of the sun's heat reaches the Earth's surface.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmwzPexMSkI&feature=youtu.be
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
Mini Ice Age 2015-2035 | 100+ Year Temperature Records Dropping Like Flies & 10.7cm Flux Down 30%
NASA’s own website ( http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml ) states that the F10.7 flux is “an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere.” Decreasing UV radiation, lower solar winds, allow for more cosmic radiation from interstellar space to interact with the upper atmosphere and leads to greater cloud formation. More clouds means more sunlight refracted before hitting the surface of the planet, which leads to more cooling effects.

----------------------------------------------------

>And from the video below " cosmic rays had a very big effect (on cloud formation) in the clean, pristine pre-industrial atmosphere but less so today"

Which leads into the matter of presently declining solar wind as the new Maunder Minimum sets in, and apparently *entirely_coincidental* rising cloud cover and spate of extreme cold records worldwide recently. (You probably don't know about those, since they are almost never reported in MSM.) But this is going way off topic.

Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 

Offline borjam

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 803
  • Country: es
  • EA2EKH
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #87 on: September 08, 2016, 02:53:00 pm »
1. They have not found s trace of evidence to support supersymmetry.
Eventually it might disprove supersymmetry. Disproving a theory is as valuable as proving it.

I think it was Hawking who said that a failure to find the Higgs Boson would make the situation really interesting ;)

Quote
2. They found plenty of support for the standard model, in which gavity doesn't exist.
So, they found that the standard model is very good, even though it's incomplete. Anyway many physicists hope to find new physics, to observe some previously unknown phenomenon. Or maybe they just want to create a massive black hole destroying Earth so that they don't need to keep looking for the M Theory  >:D

Now, seriously. Science is an incremental process, and there is a lot of hard and obscure work between a dramatic discovery and the next.

Quote
So their work supports a notion that we live in a gravity-less world.
Yep. That's why I use special magnetic soles. Since the LHC restarted I just can't stay on a flat surface! :P
 

Offline TerraHertz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3709
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #88 on: September 17, 2016, 01:15:48 am »
This happened to surface. More on clouds and cosmic rays/solar interaction. I hadn't come across this video before. It's interesting.
youtube.com/   watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
Uploaded on Jul 24, 2011
Henrik Svensmark's documentary on climate change and cosmic rays.

Also some good illustrations of how 'non-conforming' climate science gets suppressed. eg around 52:00 on. Background to what went on with the CERN CLOUD experiment.
Worth saving to show around.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2016, 05:34:53 am by TerraHertz »
Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #89 on: September 17, 2016, 02:21:48 am »
Quote
So, they found that the standard model is very good, even though it's incomplete.

That's something many "scientists" have a hard time comprehending. Given all the advances we have made over the last 4 million years, the best theory we have to explain the universe we live in is obviously flawed on the most elementary level, :)

that must hurt.
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline hamster_nz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2287
  • Country: nz
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #90 on: September 17, 2016, 02:39:02 am »
Quote
So, they found that the standard model is very good, even though it's incomplete.

That's something many "scientists" have a hard time comprehending. Given all the advances we have made over the last 4 million years, the best theory we have to explain the universe we live in is obviously flawed on the most elementary level, :)

that must hurt.
Life should be full of mystery and wonder, why shouldn't an elementary particle physicist's world have a little bit of that too?

This is no worse than mathematics, where it is known that there are things that are true but cannot be proven as such, or in computing where the halting problem is unsolvable.   Neither of which diminish the values of maths or computing.  I really don't think that mathematicians or computer scientists feel pain because of it....
Gaze not into the abyss, lest you become recognized as an abyss domain expert, and they expect you keep gazing into the damn thing.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #91 on: September 17, 2016, 04:07:42 am »
Quote
So, they found that the standard model is very good, even though it's incomplete.

That's something many "scientists" have a hard time comprehending. Given all the advances we have made over the last 4 million years, the best theory we have to explain the universe we live in is obviously flawed on the most elementary level, :)

that must hurt.
Life should be full of mystery and wonder, why shouldn't an elementary particle physicist's world have a little bit of that too?

This is no worse than mathematics, where it is known that there are things that are true but cannot be proven as such, or in computing where the halting problem is unsolvable.   Neither of which diminish the values of maths or computing.  I really don't think that mathematicians or computer scientists feel pain because of it....

And it is no different in any of the sciences. Scientists understand that all models are always incomplete, flawed and subject to revision.  Claiming otherwise only demonstrates a misunderstanding of science.

Viva le mystère !
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #92 on: September 17, 2016, 04:46:06 am »
And it is no different in any of the sciences. Scientists understand that all models are always incomplete, flawed and subject to revision.  Claiming otherwise only demonstrates a misunderstanding of science.

Except for the settled one.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #93 on: September 17, 2016, 07:26:44 am »
That's something many "scientists" have a hard time comprehending.
I also have the impression that quite some "scientists" seem to have problems comprehending this fundamental idea of how human research works. But it is good to know that every scientist understands it well.

About the Higgs: yes they have proven that it really is there, which tightens the Standard Model. But there still was a "problem" with it as "scientists" would say.

There were a lot of different Theories of Everything around at that time, all of them making a prediction of the Higgs boson's energy. Basically you could separate them into low and high energy groups. The LHC measured an energy that is almost exactly in the middle between, disproving all of them.

You may now say that all those Theoretical physicists had been sad and disappointed, losing themself in grief and whiskey. At first thought maybe, but the much more important result is to know now what to exclude. Now knowing exactly which energy a new theory must predict is an exciting sensation for them!

My mantra as an engineer when troubleshooting:
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
Arthur Conan Doyle
« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 07:29:55 am by tatus1969 »
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 

Offline dannyf

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 8229
  • Country: 00
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #94 on: September 17, 2016, 11:11:50 am »
Quote
Except for the settled one.

To be fair, even the faithfuls there know only to commit you and your money to fight their cause: You don't see Al Gore selling his beachfront properties to move inland, do you?
================================
https://dannyelectronics.wordpress.com/
 

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #95 on: September 17, 2016, 11:48:58 am »
Except for the settled one.
Which model would that be that we can consider settled?
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #96 on: September 17, 2016, 01:06:08 pm »
Except for the settled one.
Which model would that be that we can consider settled?
You must be new here :).

It's the model whose name should not be mentioned here, for thread longevity.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #97 on: September 17, 2016, 01:42:12 pm »
Except for the settled one.
Which model would that be that we can consider settled?
You must be new here :).

It's the model whose name should not be mentioned here, for thread longevity.
:o Must be like that. Currently I recognize only one He Who Cannot Be Named...

« Last Edit: September 17, 2016, 01:44:09 pm by tatus1969 »
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 

Offline NottheDan

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 276
  • Country: gb
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #98 on: September 17, 2016, 01:56:55 pm »

 :o Must be like that. Currently I recognize only one He Who Cannot Be Named...
Hastur?
 

Offline tatus1969

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1248
  • Country: de
  • Resistance is futile - We Are The Watt.
    • keenlab
Re: 60 minutes: LHC
« Reply #99 on: September 17, 2016, 03:17:18 pm »

 :o Must be like that. Currently I recognize only one He Who Cannot Be Named...
Hastur?
close  8)
We Are The Watt - Resistance Is Futile!
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf