Atom & Why did CERN fail?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

That the atom is similar to solar systems

Who says that atoms are similar to the solar system? Not anyone with an understanding of atoms more advanced than that taught at school.

You are looking for solution when you don't understand the question.

You are claiming that scientific understanding is wrong without even considering the possibility that your understanding is wrong.

[aquatus1]

Looking from a distance, is nothing to. Poles remain unchanged. Rotation does not affect them, the atoms remain static and do not show signs of wavering. That the atom is similar to solar systems and associated electrons there would be changes. Connecting electrons can not replace a valence bond.

I'm afraid we have a severe language barrier going here. What you are proposing doesn't make sense to me, in the way I understand it (then again, I might be understanding it correctly, and you are simply doing the experiment wrong).

There is no similarity between an atom and the universe. You are thinking of the pictures with an atom in the middle and electrons orbiting around it. That's not how real atoms work. The "orbits" of electrons aren't orbits; they are a visual representation of a mathematical probability. The number of electrons per level isn't an actual number, but the valence force. You can sort of understand an atom using a physical drawing, but don't mistake the drawing for what an atom actually is.

[Weitter Duckss]

Description atoms from the lab and explains why some process flows in a certain way. In this part do not go.

An atom is a-valent, but with a 6 to 8 simultaneously 2,3,4-valent. In the process it is ok, but to observe atoms, an important part of the universe is not. There is an atom looks separated from the manufacturing process and the outside space bodies. 89-11-tracks, says that until the hydrogen comes relatively easy to helium and heavier elements to others outside the body by no means. Only the bodies begin to processes that create other elements. Bodies without hot cores are mainly carbon atoms and lower order. Earth and similar bodies are nurseries of all atoms sustainable in nature. Stars less hot atoms still have no higher rank highest, while an increase in temperature leads to higher natural decomposition of carbon atoms in a hydrogen-helium and other trace.

Atom makes a steady process of connecting. For H2 is evident that it is not an electron. Size 1836 are not satisfied with one electron, but other proton. That the electron sheath would cause the proton and the required number of electrons. But particles without imbalances have no interest in joining, because after helium chasm and void.

If the atoms are identical and of the same or a neutral half they refuse to not join.

Here the ISS is essential only for loose connections protons with electrons.

[questionmark]

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.

It was not a faulty something or other, it was a loose connector... which tells you something about the quality of some "scientific" experiments.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

It was not a faulty something or other, it was a loose connector... which tells you something about the quality of some "scientific" experiments.

Yes, it tells you that the quality of this particular scientific experiment was mind bogglingly high.

Despite the LHC being one of the most complex machines ever conceived and constructed they were still able to locate a single loose connection and determine that was the cause of spurious results.

It shows that the CERN staff who were working on the LHC did not jump to conclusions as to the cause of their results. They left no stone unturned in trying to explain the results and they had the integrity to announce to the world what the cause was. That really is the best of science in action.

Sadly some people just don't understand how science works well enough and will incorrectly jump to the conclusion that this proves that the experimental quality was poor... but I'm sure you weren't doing that were you questionmark?

Edited July 12, 2014 by Waspie_Dwarf

[toast]

*snip*

Edited July 11, 2014 by toast

[Weitter Duckss]

Agree.

Should introduce censorship and prohibition in favor of single-mindedness and uniformity.

What are they talking out planned and given to guidelines!

[aquatus1]

Welp, I've done my best to understand, but it just isn't getting anywhere. I'm out.

[questionmark]

Yes, it tells you that the quality of this particular scientific experiment was mind bogglingly high.

Despite the LHC being one of the most complex machines ever conceived and constructed they were still able to locate a single loose connection and determine that was the cause of spurious results.

It shows that the CERN staff who were working on the LHC did not jump to conclusions as to the cause of their results. They left no stone unturned in trying to explain the results and they had the integrity to announce to the world what the cause was. That really is the best of science in action.

Sadly some people just don't understand how science works well enough and will incorrectly jump to the conclusion that this proves that the experimental quality was poor... but I'm sure you weren't doing that were you questionmark?

As a good friend of mine (former theoretical physics prof) said about this: "In my day we did not have that money to waste, so we used to send a few people through to check and double check that everything was set up as it was supposed to be."

We can't say that for those who set up that experiment, But you are right, the beauty of science is that it is self correcting so once an inverosimile result was achieved a few people not related to the original experiment went through and double checked it... finding a loose connector.

Yes, that experiment was conducted way below scientific standards, but that does reflects on those who conducted it, not on science. And the most unscientific thing done there is to publish impossible results before it was replicated or verified independently.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Yes, that experiment was conducted way below scientific standards, but that does reflects on those who conducted it, not on science. And the most unscientific thing done there is to publish impossible results before it was replicated or verified independently.

That's not exactly what happened. They published raw data and asked for help in explaining it.

[questionmark]

That's not exactly what happened. They published raw data and asked for help in explaining it.

They could have saved the embarrassment by just checking their equipment.

[toast]

They could have saved the embarrassment by just checking their equipment.

No its not that easy as CERN isn`t a lawn-mower, it`s a technical monster.

Edited July 12, 2014 by toast

[Waspie_Dwarf]

They could have saved the embarrassment by just checking their equipment.

Which they did, how do you think they found the loose connectors?

You can try and spin it anyway you like but you will not change the fact that CERN were open and honest in their behaviour.

[questionmark]

No its not that easy as CERN isn`t a lawn-mower, it`s a technical monster.

Well, guess what, on the second round they found it within hours. About as fast as Reuters published the "results" after the experiment.

Which they did, how do you think they found the loose connectors?

You can try and spin it anyway you like but you will not change the fact that CERN were open and honest in their behaviour.

Afterwards by a second team, yes, and about two weeks after Reuters published the story.

[aquatus1]

It's within hours for Toast, but two weeks later for Waspie?

In all cases, we had threads in this forum about that, and I recall the universal sentiment being pretty much "Not likely; Let's wait on the double-checking."

[questionmark]

It's within hours for Toast, but two weeks later for Waspie?

In all cases, we had threads in this forum about that, and I recall the universal sentiment being pretty much "Not likely; Let's wait on the double-checking."

And that is due to the laws by Newton: CERN does not consume enough power to accelerate anything known with any mass to anywhere near 90% of the speed of light.

[toast]

And that is due to the laws by Newton: CERN does not consume enough power to accelerate anything known with any mass to anywhere near 90% of the speed of light.

Source?

CERN says 99,99999991% of the speed of light get reached there.

Page 9:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/1165534/files/CERN-Brochure-2009-003-Eng.pdf

Edited July 12, 2014 by toast

[questionmark]

Source?

Laws of motion + the consumption of 22 MW. Guess we don't have to do the math, do we?

[toast]

Laws of motion + the consumption of 22 MW. Guess we don't have to do the math, do we?

Yes pls.

Update: Newtons law not relevant here, Einstein is doing the trick.

Page 8:

http://cds.cern.ch/record/1165534/files/CERN-Brochure-2009-003-Eng.pdf

Edited July 12, 2014 by toast

[sepulchrave]

Well, guess what, on the second round they found it within hours. About as fast as Reuters published the "results" after the experiment.

[Emphasis mine.] This is derailing the thread a bit, but I wanted to comment on this.

I think it is entirely unfair to the scientists involved in any experiment to judge their performance/success/mistakes/etc. based on an article in the media.

If you want to know what the scientists think about their work, read the paper that they have published on the subject. If they have not published a paper, then that tells you something as well.

If you want to know what the administrators, media liaisons, or journalists think about the work that some scientists performed, then read the media report.

[questionmark]

[Emphasis mine.] This is derailing the thread a bit, but I wanted to comment on this.

I think it is entirely unfair to the scientists involved in any experiment to judge their performance/success/mistakes/etc. based on an article in the media.

If you want to know what the scientists think about their work, read the paper that they have published on the subject. If they have not published a paper, then that tells you something as well.

If you want to know what the administrators, media liaisons, or journalists think about the work that some scientists performed, then read the media report.

Which is why I, when asked by my team what to write about it, went first to see that physicist friend of mine, who sitting at a cafe on the islands harbor took out a pen, started calculating and said:"Most probably not, they would have needed much more energy".

My instructions to my writers then was to write about it but to consider it an error.

[taniwha]

Which is why I, when asked by my team what to write about it, went first to see that physicist friend of mine, who sitting at a cafe on the islands harbor took out a pen, started calculating and said:"Most probably not, they would have needed much more energy".

My instructions to my writers then was to write about it but to consider it an error.

Was it a scientist that was quoted/misquoted about CERN creating a blackhole or time portal i cant remember but the fact that the media gave it any sort of credence shows how sensationalist and irresponsible reporters can be.

[questionmark]

Was it a scientist that was quoted/misquoted about CERN creating a blackhole or time portal i cant remember but the fact that the media gave it any sort of credence shows how sensationalist and irresponsible reporters can be.

Quite wrong, the CERN black hole was not created by journalists but by some pretending to be one with a website.

[Weitter Duckss]

Science does not flirt with the media before the processed results, knowing that the results do not always respect our wishes. You must be careful with release "test the balloons" especially if you could produce more negative effects.

CERN is has not adhered to it, but is allow and fueled the public as that it is fun spectacle. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss about "God's particle" and the speed of neutrinos, that would not be repeated similar scenarios that are well-harm science in general. First results and bragging, although not even then it is not necessary because this is regular job for which scientists have already paid.

[questionmark]

Science does not flirt with the media before the processed results, knowing that the results do not always respect our wishes. You must be careful with release "test the balloons" especially if you could produce more negative effects.

CERN is has not adhered to it, but is allow and fueled the public as that it is fun spectacle. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss about "God's particle" and the speed of neutrinos, that would not be repeated similar scenarios that are well-harm science in general. First results and bragging, although not even then it is not necessary because this is regular job for which scientists have already paid.

Why is it necessary to "discuss" a fact? Facts are accepted. And it is not only that the experiment has shown that there is a "God particle" (which is a pretty unscientific name for the Higgs bossom and was not created by involved scientists as far as I remember) but all theoretical calculations have shown that there must be something like that else all atoms just would fall apart... or better said: Would have never formed.