Hadron Collider on verge of breakthrough ?

To start with we would find out if matter is just static energy as supposed or if there is another yet unknown component. That would be a revolution just as when it was discovered that molecules are composed of atoms. It gave chemistry a totally new possibility. The next thing that it could lead to is a direct conversion of matter into energy and last, but not least, it could lead to tailor made atoms to make the elements we need without the drawbacks we have to incur now, such as radioactivity. On the other hand, the minimum it will give us is knowledge, which is the most important resource i... [More]

*sign* "Tear in the space-time continuum". Right. Ok. People just need to stop thinking they know what they're talking about. Its no more right to say that than to say, hundreds of years ago "I dont think Gallileo should drop two objects of different mass from the tower of Pisa. He says the kinetic energy transferred to the Earth is still much too low to break the Earth appart or 'tear' a hole in the space-time continuum... but he cant say that with any certainty!" Buddy, why dont you look into what youre talking about before embarassing yourself. This isnt the first time scientists have creat... [More]

Pair production is bending the rules. Pair production requires a photon. Officially a photon is a massless particle, but it does have momentum. Explain to me how something can have momentum but no mass. Just what rules are being bent. Youre right, pair production does require a photon. A photon is not considered to be matter, yet the electron and the positron are. Explain to you how something can have momentum but not mass? Explain to me why, according to you, momentum requires mass! My professor suggested a photon is a electron positron pair, so in this case nothing is created, they are just ... [More]

To start with we would find out if matter is just static energy as supposed or if there is another yet unknown component. That would be a revolution just as when it was discovered that molecules are composed of atoms. It gave chemistry a totally new possibility. The next thing that it could lead to is a direct conversion of matter into energy and last, but not least, it could lead to tailor made atoms to make the elements we need without the drawbacks we have to incur now, such as radioactivity. On the other hand, the minimum it will give us is knowledge, which is the most important resource i... [More]

So basically knowledge to do what? New form of fuels for example? There must be some use after all the money they have spent! Not only, imagine being able to compose any material you need just from "replacement parts" taken from whatever you have in abundance. It would naturally screw all those who are hedging in gold big time, but hey, if stopping research because of that becomes the norm I'll open an oil lamp business and sue every electric company.

Just what rules are being bent. Youre right, pair production does require a photon. A photon is not considered to be matter, yet the electron and the positron are. Explain to you how something can have momentum but not mass? Explain to me why, according to you, momentum requires mass! Well, youre professor was giving you a way of looking at it. A photon is not an electron-positron pair at all in reality. Electrons and positrons have mass and are considered matter, while a photon is not. Furthermore, you require 2 photons of 0.511 MeV, for example, to collide to create an electron and a positro... [More]

There is a difference between what the media portray as ``Scientific controversy'' and what actual scientists consider ``controversial''. So you repeated the issues with alot of abusive language. What is your point? I said it was controversial. You want to call me "a misinformed brat with a poor understanding", I'm quoting my professor. Where do you lecture? What do you have a Ph.d in? Professor in physics (I assume)... what sub-discipline? Listen, a few decades ago people were wondering on the exact subject we are discussing. The argument over whether light is a particle or pure wave is an ol... [More]

There is a difference between what the media portray as ``Scientific controversy'' and what actual scientists consider ``controversial''. Professor in physics (I assume)... what sub-discipline? No it doesn't. There is no meaningful debate over whether light is a ``particle'' or a ``wave''. It is clearly measurement dependent. There is meaningful debate on the philosophical ramifications of various particular interpretations of wave-particle duality, but the effective duality itself is has not been a topic of legitimate discussion for at least 50 years. Einstein proposed no such thing, and even... [More]

I'm quoting my professor. Where do you lecture? What do you have a Ph.d in? Im studying physics at the University of Ottawa. Graduating next year. What your professor stated is a way of visualizing the process. A photon with 1.022 MeV is comprised of the *energy* of the e- e+ pair. That is an important distinction. Why dont you go ask your prof to elaborate on what he meant and see what he tells you. What are you studying, anyway? Listen, a few decades ago people were wondering on the exact subject we are discussing. The argument over whether light is a particle or pure wave is an old debate, ... [More]

"What are you studying, anyway?" Quantum mechanics. The department chair at the University of California has me attaching a Poisson solver to his existing Schrodinger equation solver. "It indeed is applicable since according to the big bang theory, the universe started off as a singluarity of infinite density. Hence, "in" the singularity, there was something." Where is that singularity then? Is there one in the lab that they are experimenting with? Where is the singularity of infinite density in the experimental setup? If the "singularity with infinite density" isn't in the "lab equipment" sec... [More]