Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Weitter Duckss

Atom & Why did CERN fail?

83 posts in this topic

The Atoms - what are they?

This is a subject about which everything is known. The atom (of hydrogen, H) is a nucleus, consisting of a proton, as well as an electron which circles around the nucleus, thus creating an electron cloud.

Look on the Internet: The atom of hydrogen between powerful magnets (quantum physics US)

The protons and neutrons, as well as the electrons, which can all exist independently under certain conditions, have been isolated in laboratories. So, where is the problem?

It has been concluded by splitting the protons (as well as neutrons and electrons) in the particle colliders that a proton consists of the smaller particles, named quarks (three quarks for Muster Mark). The first problems appeared at this point. A proton would not split into three quarks, practically without an exception (only a few exceptions out of the billions of events have occurred). When a proton is bombarded by an electron in the particle colliders, the three peaks appear (+, - and 0) and these are the quarks. I will now deliberately evade the discussions about the entire series of the so-called particles, which have a very short life span (Lambda-Hyperion, 2.51 x 10-10 sec., sigma-hyperion +0.81, - 1.65 x 10-10 sec., and 0 ~10-14 sec., and so on – only the muons have a somewhat longer existence, 2,2 x 10-6 sec.). The reasons are obviously clear, here we don’t talk about the independently-occurring particles and therefore they can’t join the interrelations in nature.

The most important fact obtained by the colliders is the existence of the stable particles (neutrino, electron, proton with a variation of neutron and photon-energy) and that they participate in the processes of creation. The proton charge can, with the help of muons, be interpreted as bipolar, because the positive charge of Earth attracts only those muons occurring in the collisions of radiation waves with the particles inside the atmosphere of Earth (the disintegration of particles).

The next important fact is that they (protons and neutrons) at the end always split, after a few pauses, into electrons, neutrinos and photons (energy) and the electrons into neutrinos.

Bipolarity of particles (I will not go further from hydrogen here) is discovered through the non-existence of the free particles – they only exist joined into pairs (H2). A particle that has only a positive (or negative) charge – or in other words, a single charge – can not attract another particle with a similar value. Only the opposite (different) charges attract: the positive part of a hydrogen particle attracts the negative part of another hydrogen particle and then they exist as a pair. Why are these not the electrons? In that case, the joining would end as proton (nucleus) with an electron, or more of them, and there would not be the need to join together proton with another proton.

Since a proton is by its mass 1 836 times bigger than an electron, it is obvious that they join together to create a larger quantity of the negative charge – that value is above the mass (or charge) of 90 electrons.

By observing the split of proton we can conclude that it consists of a series of neutrinos, with energy as a carrier. It represents a thread made by a few million of these particles and a large number of electrons. That thread is huddled up because of its length and the imbalance of charges at its ends. It has a dominantly positive charge, with an insignificant negative charge. Namely this imbalance is a basis of the particle joining inside the visible matter. The electrons and neutrinos constantly circle around it, because of its dominantly positive charge. By joining of a proton with these particles (two electrons and two neutrinos, with some energy), a neutron is created. It is not permanently stable – only for some 17 minutes. The next round of joining is the opening of the threads of neutrons and protons and in that way forming the structures of the following, more complex atoms.

The forming of neutrino itself (a matter with charge) occurs as a result of different speeds of energy movement in the rotation of the universe. The speeds increase from the center of universe towards its surface. A friction is caused by the work of particles, which is similar to the ionization of particles inside the atmosphere of Earth, occurring at the times of turbulences and different drifts.

The joining (growing) is constant and it has an upper level of sustainability in a natural surrounding (from polonium to uranium). Even though the joining occurs continuously, the particles can not achieve the higher value than this. That the joining occurs continuously, we can tell by the radiation (dispersal) of the biggest atoms. It is a process of balancing, achieved by discharging the surplus, made by the new incoming matter (smaller particles).

The age of some celestial objects (planets, satellites, asteroids…) is measured by the higher representation of the upper elements, those with higher quantities of protons and neutrons inside the atoms. That is only one factor, though. Therefore, we can with certainty expect that these elements don’t occur in significant quantities (related to the mass of an object) on the Moon, on Mars, on the asteroids, on the comets…

Why did CERN fail?

Nothing was standing on their way. They were alone, independent; about ten billion of euro were invested in their work; they employed the best scientists of the world. Success was guaranteed to them; the road to it had been opened and covered with rose petals, thrown before them by mass media. They felt themselves omnipotent and unstoppable on their way to the greatest glory on Earth and self-presentation.

They believed in success so hard that they ignored the warnings received from Zadar, that everything had been founded on the wrong basis. All the books of the world, except for that of Zadar, supported their work and competed one against the other in sucking up to them, hoping at least some of the future glory would be bestowed upon them, too. What went wrong?

The problem had existed already since the time of the formation of quantum physics. A number of laboratory successes followed one after the other, but the presentations of those successes, through explaining the meaning of the achieved results, had been ending up disasters.

At first, Bohr model appeared, as a misfortunate presentation. It was upgraded by having copied the model of Solar system onto the world of atoms. That way, the heliocentric system of atoms was founded and, as such, it remained unchanged as a greatest truth and achievement. The atom core consisted of proton and neutron little spheres, which were surrounded by the belt of electrons, the speed of which was 30 000 km/sec. At the end of the previous millennium they even started to destroy the chemistry by imposing the idea that the electrons, instead of valence bond, connected the atoms and molecules. (Valence bond is not true either, but it explains chemical processes well.)

Interpreting the events from colliders, they moved themselves even more away from the field of reality. They wished for the impossible by convincing themselves and the others that a broken-down particle, as a consequence of using high energies, could be able to accrete again and thus create a new, unforeseen kind of matter. That was set as an absolute truth and a basis of experiments, even though there was not a single pause (which they proclaimed particles) that was stable for more than a millionth part of a second. The further they continued with particle collisions, these pauses were ever shorter and shorter.

Generally speaking, from that time till today, a number of pathetic conclusions entered science, like for example: Universe hatched out from an egg (it was an attempt to please the Church – even the idea itself was brought about by a priest); some of the theory of relativity’s suggestions introduced black holes and singularity (Einstein himself was against such ideas); then they introduced the Hubble constant of spreading the Universe; then, instead of rotation, they introduced the fourth dimension – instead of making three dimensions more complex, the Universe became flat and lost its volume. Entropy dominated the Universe; it was suddenly forced to be the same from its origin or at least from the period when “visible matter prevailed over the dark matter”…

All doubts soon disappeared, because all who were trying to think differently were gone or marginalized. Under such conditions, nothing else could have even been expected in CERN. Peter Higgs himself said: “If this was not physics, I would not know what it was then?” He was convinced in its correctness, even though there were completely opposing evidence in the experiment.

Instead of sobering up, there is only silence; only some Russian scientific magazines gloat over the situation. Nevertheless, all who have contributed to this failure, continue to receive fabulous salaries. Their colleagues in our country (Croatia) continue to transfer millions to “poor” Swiss and their “underpaid” scientists for membership in that failed project. Even more, they are amazed that some scientists in Italy and Russia are facing trials for wrong estimations and, except payments from us and the Swiss, do not get paid anymore to spend billions of tax payers’ money in vain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Atoms - what are they?

This is a subject about which everything is known.

I respectfully disagree, as would scientists who work on atoms and subatomic particles.

Also -- your conclusions don't seem to match your evidence.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

By observing the split of proton we can conclude that it consists of a series of neutrinos

What is the source of this statement? Neutrinos don't carry a charge.

As astronomy doesn't support your "rotating universe", you've moved on to QM, which doesn't support it either.

Edited by Rlyeh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fail? I thought they discovered the God Particle, didn't they? Admittedly, it seems to have gone rather quiet since then and the discovery of the God Particle doesn't seem to have resulted in a very noticeable paradigm shift in our view of the world, but I'm sure Mr. Higgs or Mr. Boson are satisfied.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the topics I wanted to discuss topics within the Rotation of the universe, including the relationships within the universe.

For neutrinos with almost 100% certainty can be concluded that the particles with charge and mass. Time will tell. The existence of a mass is inseparable from the existence of charge unless it is not "dark matter".

If no charge can not be interest to joining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the topics I wanted to discuss topics within the Rotation of the universe, including the relationships within the universe.

For neutrinos with almost 100% certainty can be concluded that the particles with charge and mass. Time will tell. The existence of a mass is inseparable from the existence of charge unless it is not "dark matter".

If no charge can not be interest to joining.

oh i see, well, yes, can't argue with that.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The existence of a mass is inseparable from the existence of charge unless it is not "dark matter".

If no charge can not be interest to joining.

If you can prove this, please do so... I am certain you will receive a Nobel prize for your efforts.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought electrons could be separated from their charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the topics I wanted to discuss topics within the Rotation of the universe, including the relationships within the universe.

For neutrinos with almost 100% certainty can be concluded that the particles with charge and mass. Time will tell. The existence of a mass is inseparable from the existence of charge unless it is not "dark matter".

If no charge can not be interest to joining.

So do neutrons have a charge ?

Or do they have no mass ?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leave the Nobel, this is a forum, fun. Examines the reality imposed. Do not defend strangers understanding at all costs, including my understanding. We are checking whether we can arrange interpreting evidence in an acceptable manner within framework of physics. This is just my view as a response to all the nonsense stuffed within physics.

Penrose: that there is no censorshipwe would have seen terrible things in the universe. After of this Statement, and you do not want to question some beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and you do not want to question some beliefs?

This is the science section, belief is irrelevant, it is evidence that counts.

Your posts are long winded and make little sense. Worse, from a scientific point of view, they present no supporting evidence at all. They are just full of your beliefs.

And so I repeat, this is the science section, belief is irrelevant.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For neutrinos with almost 100% certainty can be concluded that the particles with charge and mass. Time will tell. The existence of a mass is inseparable from the existence of charge unless it is not "dark matter".

If no charge can not be interest to joining.

What?!

NO.

Do you even science?

Edited by Imaginarynumber1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little fuzzy on what this failure of CERN's is supposed to be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 95% of the processed data not found none acceptable event. When the whole world is given up, they found two

different events for which they say it is. What is this relevant? As to are first time intentional "wrong". Remember: Neutrinos travel faster than light!

What science can with "two" stray different events? What we are smarter after having spent billions €?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 95% of the processed data not found none acceptable event. When the whole world is given up, they found two

different events for which they say it is. What is this relevant? As to are first time intentional "wrong". Remember: Neutrinos travel faster than light!

What science can with "two" stray different events? What we are smarter after having spent billions €?

Perhaps you can supply evidence, or at least a link to this assertion.

I realize that English may not be your first language, but you're making your train of thought exceedingly difficult to follow. I'm sorry.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember: Neutrinos travel faster than light!

This is nonsense.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That neutrinos travel slightly faster was claimed in an important experiment a few months ago; it caused a sensation and turned out to be faulty something-or-another. Neutrinos do not travel faster than light.

I also just recently saw a claim that light may travel slower than light over great distances, if it sometimes decays into something else and then decays back, so that it spends part of long trips being something that travels slower. This had to do with the arrival time of the neutrino signal and the light signal from a supernova. The usual explanation is that the neutrinos were emitted at the very beginning of the event and the light signal was generated a little later, but this alternative theory is now in the air.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the science section, belief is irrelevant, it is evidence that counts.

Your posts are long winded and make little sense. Worse, from a scientific point of view, they present no supporting evidence at all. They are just full of your beliefs.

And so I repeat, this is the science section, belief is irrelevant.

Science, but without coverage and results, and without our money.

Collide two protons and for the result expecting a crocodile! Accelerators are used to splitting the atom. That way you can not get some new energy or matter. What you sow it you will to reap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nonsense.

It is not my contention, but the gentlemen from CERN.

It was later withdrawn.

Neutrinos matter and must obey the laws of matter, and not to serve the unseen magic tricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, again, what is the failure you were talking about?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears they collided two protons and expected a crocodile.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us try to check why they are joining the proton and proton (H2)? If the electrons are the cause, why not He2, Ar 2, etc. Why the ISS electrons are not in firm connection with the core?

Why is the ratio of elements in the universe ~ 89 H, 10 -11 He and <1 other elements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, again, what is the failure you were talking about?

It seems they wasted a lot of money building cern, running a few experiments that didn't have the predicted result and then stopped using it.

At least that is what I got from the OP. Never mind the equipment is only being rested and it will be back up and running in 2015...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us try to check why they are joining the proton and proton (H2)?

Excellent question! I invite you to study the spin statistics theorem and the so-called exchange force.

If you understand the fundamentals of quantum mechanics, then applying the two principles mentioned above to the potential overlap of the wavefunctions of two hydrogen atoms should give you a satisfactory answer as to why H2 forms.

(Ironically, the H2+ ion is exactly solvable and is arguably the only exact application of quantum mechanics to chemistry, so H2 is one of the least mysterious many-body systems.)

If the electrons are the cause, why not He2, Ar 2, etc.

Excellent question! I invite you to study the quantum mechanical solution to the hydrogen atom.

If you actually understand that system, it should be easy to justify why atoms with multiple electrons should have similar quantum numbers (or at least time-averaged quantum numbers), even if the wavefunctions are different.

And if you refer to the spin-statistics theorem that I linked to earlier, then you should understand why He, Ne, Ar, etc. are not very chemically active.

Why the ISS electrons are not in firm connection with the core?

Excellent question! They are. But the uncertainty principle prevents them from having a singular distribution in the core.

(And of course, if you have been studying the links I have posted you should appreciate by now that the uncertainty principle is a consequence of the canonical commutation relationship which is the essential axiom for deriving the Schrodinger equation.)

Why is the ratio of elements in the universe ~ 89 H, 10 -11 He and <1 other elements?

Excellent question! I invite you to study the standard cosmological model for the reason for the dominance of H and He, and then study stellar nucleosynthesis (and supernova nucleosynthesis as well, I suppose) to understand the relative concentrations of the remaining elements.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems they wasted a lot of money building cern, running a few experiments that didn't have the predicted result and then stopped using it.

At least that is what I got from the OP. Never mind the equipment is only being rested and it will be back up and running in 2015...

You have 300 of engineers who are incorrectly connected cable. OK. They checked and correct the problem. OK. Why, then, has been a "rushed" disinformation to the public? Accidentally or intentionally? Defective happens to everyone, lightheadedness or laity, or a third something comes to?

It is the same with God's particle.

If there are events, they must be represented within each 5%.

The U.S. stopped in time and stopped the construction of the accelerator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.