Large Hadron Collider

Stoat,
I didn't want to close the thread, just tone down some of the language and tangents some. No problems otherwise.

Mark Vitrone

Hi Mark, I would say that any debate about something at the edge of our understanding, is bound to appear tangential. I'd worry if it wasn't, as that would mean that there had to be hidden assumptions to it.

Anyway, on this meson. Half the energy of the two quarks is the spatial energy of the two. Now, this cannot be in the shadow tube, so we have to consider it as two flattened spheres of "atmosphere," forced together by ftl particles. Very close to the shadow tube the aether density would be immense.

Then the question becomes one of considering the momentum transfer of an ftl particle hitting this atmosphere at different points. It's my hunch, that all matter particles are "dipped" in the "luxon wall." The speed of gravity, the speed of light and absolute zero, all meet near that le sage shadow. The physics of that region would have to be pretty strange.

Mark,

I suggested something similar back when we were trying to get Noneta to support what he was saying. It is so easy to start a new thread that it seems unreasonable to not do so when you change topics.

However,

Stoat,

You have good point, too. It is not unusual for discussion like this to evolve rather than change. Or rather, the change in topic can be slow and subtle enough that by the time said change is obvious it has become a part of the overall discussion.

Where do we draw the line?

===

We could come up with some formal rules / guidelines for when to start a new thread. But remenbering them (or learning them as a new commer, and then remembering them) would be a hassle. Enforcing them, as I have pointed out in many of my past enforcement actions, can be arbitrary to some extent. And that usually leads to ruffled feathers. It is not a fun thing to do, and I'm sure it is not a fun thing to have done to you.

Sigh.

One thing I remember from my recent attempt at controlling "thread creep"[1] that might actually work, however, was my suggestion that the original author of a thread has a legitamate claim of "ownership"[1], and thus ought to have the "right"[1] to ask others to either stick to the official title subject, or start a new thread. (One of the things I really like about this approach is that it takes some of the burden off of the moderators.)

===

Comments, anyone?

LB

[1] I reserve the right to provide exact definitions for these words at a later date. For now the dictionary definitions can be considered close approximations of my intent.

I don't even think that their is some creep going on, mostly I was commenting on some language. The tone has been conversational at some points and I guess people will alway comment if I say something. Why then do I? Tom has asked me to help direct conversations along professional lines and so I do that. I try to be laissez-faire in this, to the point that I don't participate in some conversations as I would like to in the hope of staying objective. Stoat, I am enjoying your discourse, it gets a little strange at times, but perhaps using direct, descriptive language, versus analogy, will help others to understand your arguments.

Cheers,

Mark Vitrone

To sum it up. A le Sage model of quarks ends up with a shadow h long by about a billionth of h in radius. Nothing to do with light can get in there. The people at CERN would say that this a one dimensional string.

The people at CERN want to use Lorentzian relativistic notions, rather than Einstein's. This because gauge theory doesn't work otherwise.

The people at CERN talk about the higgs. This is a tachyon condensation. The field is produced by the speed of light suddenly falling from the speed of gravity to something much less.

It all sounds a lot like what this board is about. I think they've just disguised it in a lot of political spin.

We still need to address the question of whether this experiment is dangerous. I can think of a Le Sage shadow as being one dimensional, in that its radius is much smaller than h. if I were to walk into the cantteen at CERN and have a chat about it, I'd say, "if i want to twang this string, I'm actually twanging the aether on either side of it. To this aether the string is a tube, it's thinner at one end than the other." i don't believe they'd bat an eyelid at that.

However, they are still thinking of the string as"real." Now, the two models will produce the same maths but the underlying assumptions differ. That in itself can be dangerous.

Look at that guys experiment in the link I gave above. He's looking for "exotic" gluons. Fire electrons at a very thin diamond. They slow down and emit light. Light that is going faster than light in that medium.

Think about it. The guys at CERN are after breaking gravitational symmetry. They are coy about what they are after but the Chinese are very open about the same thing. In the nucleus we can have wild accelerations but we seem to have few impulses. The decay of a pi meson looks a good contender for a much faster than light impulse. 300 million times c.

Is it dangerous? I honestly don't know.