Re: French And CERN Build Massive Particle Accelerator (Black Hole Generator) Unknown Planetary Risk To Create Artificial BIG BANG

On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:33:24 -0700 (PDT), al Guacamole <aet@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On May 15, 9:51 am, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 15 May 2008 09:39:54 -0700 (PDT),alGuacamole<a...@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

IIRC a particle of light represented by a photon is absorbed by an
electron and hence is kicked out of the solid. The explanation of the
electron absorbing the energy from a continuous light wave just does
not work. On a macroscopic level, light is an electromagnetic "force".
On a quantum level it is a photon with momentum and energy.

Yes, but no-one suggests that a photon or an electron are
particles that "cause" the electromagnetic force. That would
be like saying that QM doesn't need "gravitons" because
matter itself is the "cause" of gravity.

I'm not saying that matter itself is necessarily not the cause
of gravity, just that it's tough to reconcile the contrary view of
"gravitons" with gravity. It would help gravitons were very,
very small, but they would have to be very very very very
small to have enough of them for us not to have seen so
far any statistical differences in weight of the same thing
measured at different times.)

photons have no mass (just energy) so a light source can emit
uncountable numbers of photons without violating the conservation of
mass of the emitter and satisfying the energy balance of the emitter.
We have observed individual photons being absorbed in the
photoelectric effect. Similar theories of gravitons can be stated just
as theories of the ether were suggested. But testing by an experiment
has been unsuccessful in discovering the graviton. But common sense
would tell you that since every fundamental force has a quantum
identity, it would be expected that so does gravity. Otherwise, the
distortion of space caused by mass is very very different from the
other fundamental forces of nature.



Photons do have momentum even if they have no mass,
so there would be conservation considerations.

I don't think anyone's suggested that gravitons, or any
particle other than the photon, is massless.

As I mentioned, I think the discrete quantum identity of
apparently continuous fundamental forces is an indication
we don't have the whole story yet.




As I've mentioned, my suspicion is that gravitons, if they
are found, are just artifacts, as I would say is the
"collapsing" of a wave into a proton when a human observes
it. It's a powerful artifact, separating worlds, but I would say
that it separates worlds only from the viewpoint of each
future branch of that human and the world-experience he
carries with him, somewhat as a straw that is swept down
the left rather than the right branch in a delta carries its
experience with it. The delta, or the "multiverse", simply
"is". That's all tied up with my take on many-worlds, of
course. I don't know if many people, or even any people,
agree.

IIRC the weak interactions have been studied in linear electron
accelerators which are used to study particles that do not follow or
observe the rules of interactions of the heavier hadrons like protons
and neutrons. The decay which conserves energy and momentum can only
be balanced by a particle called the neutrino with no mass like the
photon and which conserves energy and momentum of the weak reaction.
Perhaps the graviton will be discovered in a similar fashion where a
decay takes place of a supposedly stable particle which cannot decay
according to the rules of the strong and weak interactions?


The weak force is famous for not behaving symmetrically
with matter versus antimatter. My suspicion is that the matter
in the universe is what was left over after mutual annihilation
following the Big Bang, because that asymmetry created
more matter than antimatter.



The typical explanation of linear momentum experiments are collisions.
It's quite intuitive. but I feel no transfer of angular momentum
through my arms to the spinning wheel so I have a difficult time
seeing how the phenomena is working.

Aargh, "phenomenON" is the singular! Leaving that
aside (please excuse my pedantic annoyance) I think
that ultimately the people who say that the ("a") universe
is a whole will be shown to be right, and we make a
mistake when we think of a human in isolation. But
this is getting too far out even for a college freshman
discussion. I well remember the long harangues I
and others used to have about the nature of
"nothing". Samuel Johnson kicked a stone in
answer to the question how we can know the
universe is not imaginary. That doesn't seem a
completely satisfactory answer to me, but his "I
refute it thus!" may be the best that can be done.

I'll bet you have seen Keanu Reeves in the "Matrix". How indeed do we
know that all we see and experience is an illusion? This is a
philosophical rather than a scientific question. It cannot be answered
except perhaps to say that the theory is logical and consistent.


No. I think Keanu Reeves is hot, or at least he used to be.
I don't know if he still is. I see very few movies. Although I
think I've heard of "The Matrix" and maybe it was some kind
of spy-adventure movie or series, I didn't know Reeves was
in it.

With regard to illusion, I'll have to throw back at you the
comment I hate to have thrown back at me, with apologies,
"How do you know it's not?"

I might have mentioned that Johnson's comment came
after he and Boswell went to a lecture by a guy who
maintained that there was no physical universe, it was all
in our heads. As they were leaving, Boswell commented
to Johnson that although nobody really believed the
speaker, nobody could refute what he said. That was
the point at which Johnson kicked the stone and said
"I refute it thus!"

Here's the memorial to one of Johnson's cats, the most
famous one, "Hodge". The sculpture sits on top of a
pedestal in the courtyard in front of Johnson's house off
Fleet Street.
http://www.purr-n-fur.org.uk/famous/hodge.html


.