Life Sciences https://scienceblogs.com/ en The Biology Of Why Coronavirus Is So Deadly https://scienceblogs.com/conversation/2020/04/02/biology-why-coronavirus-so-deadly-151447 <span>The Biology Of Why Coronavirus Is So Deadly</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>COVID-19 is caused by a coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. Coronaviruses belong to a group of viruses that infect animals, from peacocks to whales. They’re named for the bulb-tipped spikes that project from the virus’s surface and give the appearance of a corona surrounding it.</p> <p>A coronavirus infection usually plays out one of two ways: as an infection in the lungs that includes some cases of what people would call the common cold, or as an infection in the gut that causes diarrhea. COVID-19 starts out in the lungs like the common cold coronaviruses, but then causes havoc with the immune system that can lead to long-term lung damage or death.</p> <p>SARS-CoV-2 is genetically very similar to other human respiratory coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV. However, the subtle genetic differences translate to significant differences in how readily a coronavirus infects people and how it makes them sick.</p> <p> </p> <figure role="group"><img alt="coronavirus dying cell" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="f3b7eb12-81ba-4ff9-b519-463a5715ac0a" src="/files/inline-images/coronavirus%20biology.jpg" width="700" /><figcaption><em>SARS-CoV-2 virus particles (pink dots) on a dying cell. <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nihgov/49692246187/in/photostream/">National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIH</a></em></figcaption></figure><p> </p> <p>SARS-CoV-2 has all the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&amp;VirusLineage_ss=SARS-CoV-2,%20taxid:2697049">same genetic equipment</a> as <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&amp;VirusLineage_ss=Severe%20acute%20respiratory%20syndrome-related%20coronavirus,%20taxid:694009&amp;CollectionDate_dr=2002-01-01T06:00:00.000Z%20TO%202019-03-28T05:00:00.000Z">the original SARS-CoV</a>, which caused a global outbreak in 2003, but with around 6,000 mutations sprinkled around in the usual places where coronaviruses change. Think whole milk versus skim milk.</p> <p>Compared to other human coronaviruses like <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/virus/vssi/#/virus?SeqType_s=Nucleotide&amp;VirusLineage_ss=Middle%20East%20respiratory%20syndrome-related%20coronavirus%20(MERS-CoV),%20taxid:1335626&amp;CollectionDate_dr=2002-01-01T06:00:00.000Z%20TO%202019-03-28T05:00:00.000Z">MERS-CoV</a>, which emerged in the Middle East in 2012, the new virus has customized versions of the same general equipment for invading cells and copying itself. However, SARS-CoV-2 has a totally different set of genes called accessories, which give this new virus a little advantage in specific situations. For example, MERS has a particular protein that shuts down a cell’s ability to sound the alarm about a viral intruder. SARS-CoV-2 has an unrelated gene with an as-yet unknown function in that position in its genome. Think cow milk versus almond milk.</p> <p> </p> <h2>How the virus infects</h2> <p> </p> <p>Every coronavirus infection starts with a virus particle, <a href="https://viralzone.expasy.org/764?outline=all_by_species">a spherical shell that protects a single long string of genetic material</a> and inserts it into a human cell. The genetic material instructs the cell to make around 30 different parts of the virus, allowing the virus to reproduce. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.058">cells that SARS-CoV-2 prefers to infect</a> have a protein called ACE2 on the outside that is important for regulating blood pressure.</p> <p>The infection begins when the long spike proteins that protrude from the virus particle <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb2762">latch on to the cell’s ACE2 protein</a>. From that point, the spike transforms, unfolding and refolding itself using coiled spring-like parts that start out buried at the core of the spike. The reconfigured spike hooks into the cell and crashes the virus particle and cell together. This forms a channel where the string of viral genetic material can snake its way into the unsuspecting cell.</p> <p><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/324385/original/file-20200331-65522-1p44ugf.png" width="700" /></p> <p><em><span>An illustration of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein shown from the side (left) and top. The protein latches onto human lung cells.</span> </em><span><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:6VSB_spike_protein_SARS-CoV-2_homotrimer.png"><em>5-HT2AR/Wikimed</em>ia</a></span></p> <p>SARS-CoV-2 spreads from person to person by close contact. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/09/opinion/coronavirus-south-korea-church.html">Shincheonji Church outbreak in South Korea</a> in February provides a good demonstration of how and how quickly SARS-CoV-2 spreads. It seems one or two people with the virus sat face to face very close to uninfected people for several minutes at a time in a crowded room. Within two weeks, several thousand people in the country were infected, and more than half of the infections at that point were attributable to the church. The outbreak got to a fast start because public health authorities were unaware of the potential outbreak and were not testing widely at that stage. Since then, authorities have worked hard and the number of <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/how-south-korea-flattened-its-coronavirus-curve-n1167376">new cases in South Korea has been falling steadily</a>.</p> <p> </p> <h2>How the virus makes people sick</h2> <p> </p> <p>SARS-CoV-2 grows in type II lung cells, which secrete a soap-like substance that helps air slip deep into the lungs, and in cells lining the throat. As with SARS, most of the damage in COVID-19, the illness caused by the new coronavirus, is caused by the immune system carrying out a scorched earth defense to stop the virus from spreading. Millions of cells from the immune system invade the infected lung tissue and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.02.017">cause massive amounts of damage</a> in the process of cleaning out the virus and any infected cells.</p> <p>Each COVID-19 lesion ranges from the size of a grape to the size of a grapefruit. The challenge for health care workers treating patients is to support the body and keep the blood oxygenated while the lung is repairing itself.</p> <p><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/BtN-goy9VOY?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440"></iframe></p> <p> </p> <p><strong><span>How SARS-CoV-2 infects, sickens and kills people</span></strong></p> <p> </p> <p>SARS-CoV-2 has a sliding scale of severity. Patients under age 10 seem to clear the virus easily, most people under 40 seem to bounce back quickly, but <a href="https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6912e2">older people suffer from increasingly severe COVID-19</a>. The ACE2 protein that SARS-CoV-2 uses as a door to enter cells is also important for regulating blood pressure, and it does not do its job when the virus gets there first. This is one reason COVID-19 is more severe in people with high blood pressure.</p> <p>SARS-CoV-2 is <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/03/20/815408287/how-the-novel-coronavirus-and-the-flu-are-alike-and-different">more severe than seasonal influenza</a> in part because it has many more ways to stop cells from calling out to the immune system for help. For example, one way that cells try to respond to infection is by making interferon, the alarm signaling protein. SARS-CoV-2 blocks this by a combination of camouflage, snipping off protein markers from the cell that serve as distress beacons and finally shredding any anti-viral instructions that the cell makes before they can be used. As a result, COVID-19 can fester for a month, causing a little damage each day, while most people get over a case of the flu in less than a week.</p> <p>At present, the transmission rate of SARS-CoV-2 is <a href="https://theconversation.com/r0-how-scientists-quantify-the-intensity-of-an-outbreak-like-coronavirus-and-predict-the-pandemics-spread-130777">a little higher than that of the pandemic 2009 H1N1</a> influenza virus, but SARS-CoV-2 is <a href="https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-pandemic-vs-swine-flu.html">at least 10 times as deadly</a>. From the data that is available now, COVID-19 seems a lot like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), though it’s less likely than SARS to be severe.</p> <p> </p> <h2>What isn’t known</h2> <p> </p> <p>There are still many mysteries about this virus and coronaviruses in general – the nuances of how they cause disease, the way they interact with proteins inside the cell, the structure of the proteins that form new viruses and how some of the basic virus-copying machinery works.</p> <p>Another unknown is how COVID-19 will respond to changes in the seasons. The <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/season/flu-season.htm">flu tends to follow cold weather</a>, both in the northern and southern hemispheres. Some other human coronaviruses spread at a low level year-round, but then <a href="https://www.medscape.com/answers/302460-86798/what-are-the-seasonal-patterns-of-rhinoviral-coronaviral-enteroviral-and-adenoviral-upper-respiratory-tract-infections-uris">seem to peak in the spring</a>. But <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0900933106">nobody really knows for sure</a> why these viruses vary with the seasons.</p> <p>What is amazing so far in this outbreak is all the good science that has come out so quickly. The research community learned about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30251-8">structures of the virus spike protein and the ACE2 protein</a> with part of the spike protein attached just a little over a month after the genetic sequence became available. I spent my first 20 or so years working on coronaviruses without the benefit of either. This bodes well for better understanding, preventing and treating COVID-19.</p> <p><span>By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/benjamin-neuman-1005826">Benjamin Neuman</a>, Professor of Biology, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-texarkana-4352">Texas A&amp;M University-Texarkana</a>. This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-the-coronavirus-does-to-your-body-that-makes-it-so-deadly-133856">original article</a>.</em></span></p> <p><em><img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/133856/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" /></em></p></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/conversation" lang="" about="/author/conversation" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">The Conversation</a></span> <span>Thu, 04/02/2020 - 14:02</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> </section> Thu, 02 Apr 2020 18:02:27 +0000 The Conversation 151447 at https://scienceblogs.com Coronavirus Is Not Passed From Mother to Child Late In Pregnancy https://scienceblogs.com/sb-admin/2020/02/12/coronavirus-not-passed-mother-child-late-pregnancy-151442 <span>Coronavirus Is Not Passed From Mother to Child Late In Pregnancy</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>After a newborn (born to a mother infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) testing positive for COVID-19 infection within 36 hours of birth, there were concerns about whether the virus could be contracted in the womb. <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30360-3/fulltext">A new study</a> finds that COVID-19 does not pass to the child while in the womb. The women in the small study were from Wuhan, China, in the third trimester of pregnancy and had pneumonia caused by COVID-19. However, it only included women who were late in their pregnancy and gave birth by caesarean section. <br /><br /> There were two cases of fetal distress but all nine pregnancies resulted in live births. That symptoms from COVID-19 infection in pregnant women were similar to those reported in non-pregnant adults, and no women in the study developed severe pneumonia or died.</p> <p>All mothers in the study were aged between 26-40 years. None of them had underlying health conditions, but one developed gestational hypertension from week 27 of her pregnancy, and another developed pre-eclampsia at week 31. Both patients’ conditions were stable during pregnancy. The nine women in the study had typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection, and were given oxygen support and antibiotics. Six of the women were also given antiviral therapy. In the study, the medical records of nine pregnant women who had pneumonia caused by COVID-19 infection were retrospectively reviewed. Infection was lab-confirmed for all women in the study, and the authors studied the nine women’s symptoms.</p> <figure role="group"><img alt="FigureChest CT scans (transverse plane) of nine patients" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="2f08571f-e38f-490b-a59d-5ffb65f07b3f" src="/files/inline-images/Chest%20CT%20scans%20%28transverse%20plane%29%20of%20nine%20patients.JPG" /><figcaption><em>(A) Patient 1: left-sided patchy consolidation and multiple bilateral ground-glass opacities. (B) Patient 2: subpleural patchy consolidation in the right lung and slightly infiltrated shadows around left bronchus. (C) Patient 3: bilateral multiple ground-glass opacities, prominent on the left. (D) Patient 4: left-sided patchy ground-glass opacity. (E) Patient 5: multiple ground-glass opacities bilaterally. (F) Patient 6: bilateral clear lung fields with no obvious ground-glass opacities. (G) Patient 7: right-sided subpleural patchy consolidation. (H) Patient 8: multiple bilateral ground-glass opacities, prominent on the right. (I) Patient 9: multiple bilateral ground-glass opacities.</em></figcaption></figure><p><br /> In addition, samples of amniotic fluid, cord blood, neonatal throat swabs and breast milk were taken for six of the nine cases [2] and tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Importantly, the samples of amniotic fluid, cord blood, and neonatal throat swabs were collected in the operating room at the time of birth to guarantee that samples were not contaminated and best represented intrauterine conditions. All nine pregnancies resulted in live births, and there were no cases of neonatal asphyxia. Four women had pregnancy complications (two had fetal distress and two had premature rupture of membrane), and four women had preterm labor which was not related to their infection and occurred after 36 gestational weeks. Two of the prematurely born newborns had a low birth weight.<br /><br /> The authors note that their findings are similar to observations of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) virus in pregnant women, where there was no evidence of the virus being passed from mother to child during pregnancy or birth. The findings are based on a limited number of cases, over a short period of time, and the effects of mothers being infected with the virus during the first or second trimester of pregnancy and the subsequent outcomes for their offspring are still unclear, as well as whether the virus can be passed from mother to child during vaginal birth.<br /><br /> Dr Jie Qiao (who was not involved in the study) of Peking University Third Hospital, China,compares the effects of the virus to those of SARS, and says: “Previous studies have shown that SARS during pregnancy is associated with a high incidence of adverse maternal and neonatal complications, such as spontaneous miscarriage, preterm delivery, intrauterine growth restriction, application of endotracheal intubation, admission to the intensive care unit, renal failure, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. However, pregnant women with COVID-19 infection in the present study had fewer adverse maternal and neonatal complications and outcomes than would be anticipated for those with SARS-CoV-1 infection. Although a small number of cases was analysed and the findings should be interpreted with caution, the findings are mostly consistent with the clinical analysis done by Zhu and colleagues of ten neonates born to mothers with COVID-19 pneumonia."</p></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/sb-admin" lang="" about="/author/sb-admin" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">sb admin</a></span> <span>Wed, 02/12/2020 - 13:03</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> </section> Wed, 12 Feb 2020 18:03:41 +0000 sb admin 151442 at https://scienceblogs.com CRISPR Immune Cells Not Only Survive, They Thrive After Infusion Into Cancer Patients https://scienceblogs.com/sb-admin/2020/02/06/crispr-immune-cells-not-only-survive-they-thrive-after-infusion-cancer-patients <span>CRISPR Immune Cells Not Only Survive, They Thrive After Infusion Into Cancer Patients</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In the first-ever (sanctioned) investigational use of multiple edits to the human genome, <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/02/05/science.aba7365.abstract">a study found</a> that cells edited in three specific ways and then removed from patients and brought back into the lab setting were able to kill cancer months after their original manufacturing and infusion.</p> <p>This is the first U.S. clinical trial to test the gene editing approach in humans, and the publication of this new data today follows on the initial report last year that researchers were able to use CRISPR/Cas9 technology to successfully edit three cancer patients' immune cells. The ongoing study is a cooperative between Tmunity Therapeutics, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, and the University of Pennsylvania. </p> <p>Patients on this trial were treated by Edward A. Stadtmauer, MD, section chief of Hematologic Malignancies at Penn, co-lead author on the study. The approach in this study is closely related to CAR T cell therapy, in which patient immune cells are engineered to fight cancer, but it has some key differences. Just like CAR T, researchers in this study began by collecting a patient's T cells from blood. However, instead of arming these cells with a receptor against a protein such as CD19, the team first used CRISPR/Cas9 editing to remove three genes. The first two edits removed a T cell's natural receptors so they can be reprogrammed to express a synthetic T cell receptor, allowing these cells to seek out and destroy tumors. The third edit removed PD-1, a natural checkpoint that sometimes blocks T cells from doing their job. </p> <p>Once the three genes are knocked out, a fourth genetic modification was accomplished using a lentivirus to insert the cancer-specific synthetic T cell receptor, which tells the edited T cells to target an antigen called NY-ESO-1. Previously published data show these cells typically survive for less than a week, but this new analysis shows the edited cells used in this study persisted, with the longest follow up at nine months. </p> <p>Several months after the infusion, researchers drew more blood and isolated the CRISPR-edited cells for study. When brought back into the lab setting, the cells were still able to kill tumors. </p> <p>The CRISPR-edited T cells used in this study are not active on their own like CAR T cells. Instead, they require the cooperation of a molecule known as HLA-A*02:01, which is only expressed in a subset of patients. This means that patients had to be screened ahead of time to make sure they were a match for the approach. Participants who met the requirements received other clinically-indicated therapy as needed while they waited for their cells to be manufactured. Once that process was completed, all three patients received the gene-edited cells in a single infusion after a short course of chemotherapy. Analysis of blood samples revealed that all three participants had the CRISPR-edited T cells take root and thrive in the patients. While none responded to the therapy, there were no treatment-related serious adverse events. </p> <p>CRISPR technology has not previously been tested in humans in the U.S. so the research team had to move through a comprehensive and rigorous series of institutional and federal regulatory approval steps, including approval by the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant DNA Research Advisory Committee and review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as Penn's institutional review board and institutional biosafety committee. The entire process required more than two years.</p> <p> Researchers say these new data will open the door to later stage studies to investigate and extend this approach to a broader field beyond cancer, several of which are already planned at Penn.</p></div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/sb-admin" lang="" about="/author/sb-admin" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">sb admin</a></span> <span>Thu, 02/06/2020 - 14:52</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> </section> Thu, 06 Feb 2020 19:52:53 +0000 sb admin 151438 at https://scienceblogs.com Don't Teach Your Kids to Attack the Planet https://scienceblogs.com/seed/2017/10/17/dont-teach-your-kids-to-attack-the-planet <span>Don&#039;t Teach Your Kids to Attack the Planet</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Life has been growing on Earth for about 4 billion years, and during that time there have been a handful of mass extinctions that have wiped out a large percentage of complex lifeforms.  Asteroid impact, volcanic eruption, climate change, anoxia, and poison have dispatched untold numbers of once-successful species to total oblivion or a few lucky fossils.  Species also die off regularly for much less spectacular reasons, and altogether <a title="Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">about 98% of documented species</a> no longer exist.</p> <p>Cry me a river, you say, without all that death there would have been no gap for vertebrates, for mammals, for primates, for humanity to emerge.  The tyrannosaurus-less world we awoke to find ourselves on had regained an incredible array of plant, animal, fungal, and microbial diversity, exploiting and even celebrating every ecological niche on the planet.  Our ancestors, a small population of soft, slow-moving meatbags, lifted their hands from the ground and set about smashing, shaping, shooting, burning, cutting and consuming their way to the top.  Although human tribes spread to inhabit every continent except Antarctica, the limits of the world remained unknown, no less to tribal cultures than to pre-Columbian Europe.  There was always the promise of more land, more meat, and more resources for the taking—perhaps not within easy reach, but somewhere near the horizon.</p> <p>Even after Europe discovered the "new" world, attitudes of conquest and dominion were rarely given second thought.  Manifest destiny drove United States citizens from sea to shining sea, eradicating all kinds of biodiversity along the way.  We not only disregarded the finity of plants and animals, but of a remarkably diverse race of peoples who lived in equilibrium with a world they recognized as precious. But after the West was won, the global balance of power shifted very quickly.  Industry, technology, and medicine led to unprecedented health and fecundity.  Global population exploded exponentially.  There was nowhere left to go.</p> <p>Now it is humanity that strives toward limitlessness while the world seems to dwindle, inexorably, under our feet.  Like a dark cloud of volcanic ash circling the globe, we stifle and kill species on a massive scale in not much less sudden a fashion.  Even when we keep our hands clean, we contribute to global warming, pollution, and deforestation just by maintaining a modern lifestyle.  We are a mass extinction event, and we are still unfolding.</p> <p>But as we know, mass extinctions are not the end of the world, and on the contrary, they offer new beginnings for life on Earth.  Whether humanity remains a part of that life remains to be seen.  Complex, intelligent life has evolved from rudimentary beginnings before and can do so again.  And as one of the largest biomasses on the planet, humanity could speciate in the wake of ecological collapse and fragmentation.  How we evolve could surpass our wildest dreams.</p> <p>But I like being human, and I consider our world a beautiful place, one worth savoring and not throwing away.  Unlike any natural disaster we have the gift of agency and choice, of intelligence, foresight, and decision.  We are coming to terms with a small world that is getting smaller, and we will surely react and adapt to this knowledge as best we can.  But no outcome is inevitable.  All action and inaction will have an impact.  If we want to remain who we believe ourselves to be, we must choose to respect life, to value and foster diversity, to just take it easy once in a while, to control our primal appetites, and to change our very nature.  Only by choosing to change, rather than having to change, can we truly stay human.</p> <p><em>Reposted from August 13, 2013</em></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/milhayser" lang="" about="/author/milhayser" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">milhayser</a></span> <span>Tue, 10/17/2017 - 06:43</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/misc" hreflang="en">Misc</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/seed/2017/10/17/dont-teach-your-kids-to-attack-the-planet%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 17 Oct 2017 10:43:48 +0000 milhayser 69288 at https://scienceblogs.com The Great Pacific Invasion https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/09/28/the-great-pacific-invasion <span>The Great Pacific Invasion</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>When the big tsunami hit Japan in 2011, many objects were washed out to sea. This flotsam provided for a giant "rafting event." A rafting event is when animals, plants, etc. float across an otherwise uncrossable body of water and end up alive on the other side. With this particular event, I don't think very many terrestrial life forms crossed the Pacific, but a lot of littoral -- shore dwelling and near shore -- animals and plants did. </p> <p>Even though the Pacific ocean is one big puddle and you would think that any organism anywhere in it could just go to any other part of the ocean, like in the movie Finding Nemo, that simply isn't true, and many organisms, most, don't migrate at all and don't disperse that far. </p> <p>This video gives an overview of the dispersal of Japanese marine life forms across the pacific.</p> <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L3QGiPpXaC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe><p> One might assume that this sort of rafting event happens all the time, or at least, every century or so when there is a tsunami. Partly true. But the flotsam that flotsamized the Pacific this time around included a lot of stuff that did not, could not, rot, and had generally more chance of making it all the way before floating.</p> <p>And, of course, this is all being <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/japanese-tsunami-transported-hundreds-species-united-states-and-canada-video-reveals">studied by scientists</a> because it is an amazing opportunity. From the abstract of a paper just out:</p> <blockquote><p>The 2011 East Japan earthquake generated a massive tsunami that launched an extraordinary transoceanic biological rafting event with no known historical precedent. We document 289 living Japanese coastal marine species from 16 phyla transported over 6 years on objects that traveled thousands of kilometers across the Pacific Ocean to the shores of North America and Hawai‘i. Most of this dispersal occurred on nonbiodegradable objects, resulting in the longest documented transoceanic survival and dispersal of coastal species by rafting. Expanding shoreline infrastructure has increased global sources of plastic materials available for biotic colonization and also interacts with climate change–induced storms of increasing severity to eject debris into the oceans. In turn, increased ocean rafting may intensify species invasions.</p></blockquote> <p>Carlton, James, et. al 2017. Tsunami-driven rafting: Transoceanic species dispersal and implications for marine biogeography. <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6358/1402">Science 357:6358(1402-2406)</a></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Thu, 09/28/2017 - 10:30</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/japan-disaster" hreflang="en">Japan Disaster</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/japan-0" hreflang="en">japan</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/rafting" hreflang="en">Rafting</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/tsunami" hreflang="en">tsunami</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1485856" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506609351"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ships from Asia bring nonnatives to North America sometimes.</p> <p>Here in SF Bay, we have invasions of mitten crabs and spartina grass, for example, that push out everything else.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1485856&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="d6RMQmQ6hMbJPMDEEtYsDnO5ZQz2DRMkIlfGLeRgepE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bruce Jensen (not verified)</span> on 28 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1485856">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1485857" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506616380"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a href="http://www.drmichaeljoyner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-life-exp.jpg">http://www.drmichaeljoyner.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-life-e…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1485857&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MqhP4VYkbXN6MUIOH3gTXOIzHbNH6r20oFHTHudYjsI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MikeN (not verified)</span> on 28 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1485857">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1485858" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506652928"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Your point, MikeN? That vaccines did a really good job? That health care expenditure has exploded? What?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1485858&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Pn87NEL5jXVVt8ihNxN18W7oRJ18GzqxgorwJCezRAQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Marco (not verified)</span> on 28 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1485858">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1485859" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1506692209"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>That was supposed to be a comment for another post.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1485859&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="G1BoB9Hr6I1uM2feKRhQ5AR1D6nxmm6pPSeZ2n0oByY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">MikeN (not verified)</span> on 29 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1485859">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2017/09/28/the-great-pacific-invasion%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Thu, 28 Sep 2017 14:30:49 +0000 gregladen 34541 at https://scienceblogs.com Attempts to save Houston's bats https://scienceblogs.com/lifelines/2017/08/30/attempts-to-save-houstons-bats <span>Attempts to save Houston&#039;s bats</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><a class="irc_mil i3597 ifOHA3TJ761c-zixyDjKkw5M" tabindex="0" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=images&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj25dSTmf7VAhWILmMKHZOGCasQjRwIBw&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMexican_free-tailed_bats_exiting_Bracken_Bat_Cave_(8006833815).jpg&amp;psig=AFQjCNEeRSC_m-3lrB1qYN2xreNm8JwG0A&amp;ust=1504156335317525" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-ved="0ahUKEwj25dSTmf7VAhWILmMKHZOGCasQjRwIBw" data-noload="" data-cthref="/url?sa=i&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=images&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=0ahUKEwj25dSTmf7VAhWILmMKHZOGCasQjRwIBw&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AMexican_free-tailed_bats_exiting_Bracken_Bat_Cave_(8006833815).jpg&amp;psig=AFQjCNEeRSC_m-3lrB1qYN2xreNm8JwG0A&amp;ust=1504156335317525" data-ctbtn="2"><img class="irc_mi" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Mexican_free-tailed_bats_exiting_Bracken_Bat_Cave_%288006833815%29.jpg" alt="Image result for mexican free-tailed bat wikimedia" width="473" height="315" /></a></p> <div id="main" data-jiis="cc"> <div id="cnt" class="big"> <div id="rcnt"> <div class="col"> <div id="center_col"> <div id="res" class="med"> <div id="search" data-jiis="uc" data-jibp="h"> <div data-ved="0ahUKEwjVv7qRmf7VAhUB-mMKHaU3B4IQGggj"> <div id="ires" data-async-context="query:mexican%20free-tailed%20bat%20wikimedia"> <div id="rso"> <div id="isr_mc"> <div id="irc_bg" class="irc_bg irc_land"> <div id="_YTc"> <div id="irc_cc"> <div class="irc_c i8187 immersive-container" data-item-id="SY5QRsTkV2-LQM:" data-ved="0ahUKEwj25dSTmf7VAhWILmMKHZOGCasQ-z8IEg" data-hveid="18"> <div class="irc_t i30052" data-ved="0ahUKEwj25dSTmf7VAhWILmMKHZOGCasQ5OoBCBM" data-hveid="19" data-noload=""> <div class="irc_mic r-ifOHA3TJ761c"> <div class="irc_mimg irc_hic ifOHA3TJ761c-lvVgf-rIiHk">By U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters [CC BY 2.0 (<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0</a>) or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons</div> </div> </div> <div class="irc_mimg irc_hic ifOHA3TJ761c-lvVgf-rIiHk"></div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> <p>Got bugs? Get a bat. As many species of bats are insectivores, they help keep insect populations in check. Hurricane Harvey has been devastating to people, animals and property. So it probably comes as no surprise that there are many volunteers dedicating their time to saving animals displaced by Hurricane Harvey as well. From squirrels, cats and dogs to...you guessed it...bats. It turns out that bats are not very good swimmers.  The <a href="http://www.houstontx.gov/parks/bats.html">Waugh Bridge</a> is home to a population of roughly 250,000 Mexican free-tailed bats that became stranded with the rising floodwaters. Witnessing dead and struggling bats in the waters, volunteers worked hard to try to rescue as many bats as possible using any means available including umbrellas, branches, tennis rackets, nets, etc.</p> <p>Each night these bats consume about 2.5 tons of insects. In the aftermath of the flood, insects like mosquitoes are expected to proliferate along with the diseases they carry. With such large appetites, existence without bats would be pretty buggy.</p> <p><strong>Source:</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/volunteers-save-thousands-of-bats-from-drowning-in-houston-floods/">CBS News</a></p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/dr-dolittle" lang="" about="/author/dr-dolittle" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dr. dolittle</a></span> <span>Tue, 08/29/2017 - 19:26</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/life-science-0" hreflang="en">Life Science</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/bat" hreflang="en">bat</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/flood" hreflang="en">flood</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/harvey" hreflang="en">Harvey</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/houston" hreflang="en">Houston</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/pest" hreflang="en">pest</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/lifelines/2017/08/30/attempts-to-save-houstons-bats%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Tue, 29 Aug 2017 23:26:07 +0000 dr. dolittle 150517 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #174: from growing black holes to nuclear bombs https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs <span>Comments of the Week #174: from growing black holes to nuclear bombs</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out.” ―Galadriel, LOTR, J.R.R. Tolkien</p></blockquote> <p>Well, we've been anticipating it for months (or years), but this is our very first time meeting up since the total solar eclipse here at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a> Did you get to see it? Was it as spectacular for you as it was for me? I'm already looking forward to 2024, but you can look forward to a podcast coming this next week from me on just how spectacular it was! (With a judicious dose of physics and astrophysics, of course.) <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang">Patreon supporters</a>, of course, can get it right now; no waiting! With that said, let's move on to the scientific stories we covered this past week:</p> <ul><li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Do black holes grow faster than they evaporate?</a> (for Ask Ethan),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/21/the-hottest-stars-in-the-universe-are-all-missing-one-key-ingredient/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">The hottest stars in the Universe are all missing one key ingredient</a> (for Mostly Mute Monday),</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Ten Surprises For Scientists And Skywatchers During The Total Solar Eclipse</a>,</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/23/beyond-black-holes-could-ligo-have-detected-merging-neutron-stars-for-the-first-time/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Beyond black holes: could LIGO have detected merging neutron stars for the first time?</a>,</li> <li><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/24/afraid-of-aliens-the-science-doesnt-back-you-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Afraid of aliens? The science doesn't back you up</a>, and</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/25/science-knows-if-a-nation-is-testing-nuclear-bombs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Science knows if a nation is testing nuclear bombs</a>.</li> </ul><p>I seriously can't believe that the publication of my latest book, <a href="http://amzn.to/2wX6B3Y">Treknology</a>, is almost upon us. And -- if you didn't catch it -- I actually had <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/we-need-a-dui-test-for-marijuana-1503440821">my first op-ed, cowritten with Alex Berezow, appear in the Wall Street Journal</a>! This year's going to end with a bang, too, I can feel it! And now that we've covered all that, let's dive right into what you had to say for our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/TSE_2016_srd.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36392" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/TSE_2016_srd-600x606.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="606" /></a> 32 images of the 2016 eclipse were combined in order to produce this composite, showcasing not only the corona and the plasma loops above the photosphere with stars in the background, but also with the Moon's surface illuminated by Earthshine. Image credit: Don Sabers, Ron Royer, Miloslav Druckmuller. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse/#comment-581926">Ragtag Media</a> on a good way to celebrate the eclipse: "If’s you want a great souvenir to pass on, the US postal service is selling some cool eclipse stamps:<br /><a href="https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productId=S_475304" rel="nofollow">https://store.usps.com/store/browse/productDetailSingleSku.jsp?productId=S_475304</a>"</p></blockquote> <p>I agree with Ragtag here. I bought a couple of sheets of these and they're wonderful. They look, to be honest, like Miloslav Druckmuller's photos (above), and I've already sent a few off to some lucky folks. Now that I've seen one for the first time, I'm a true believer in their magnificence, and I can't wait for the next one!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/starlightDeflectionFig3.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36525" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/starlightDeflectionFig3-600x565.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="565" /></a> The Newtonian and Einsteinian predictions for gravitational deflection of a distant radio source during the Earth's orbital period (1 year) due to the Sun. The black dots are 2015 data. Image credit: The deflection of light induced by the Sun's gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI; O. Titov, A. Girdiuk (2015). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse/#comment-581930">Anonymous Coward</a> on confirming relativity without waiting for an eclipse: "Thanks Ethan, for the indirect link. That picture and its caption was a big enough clue for me to find the paper by Titov and Girdiuk: “The deflection of light induced by the Sun’s gravitational field and measured with geodetic VLBI.” I’d heard about the radio measurements of light deflection from the sun but didn’t know of any primary sources."</p></blockquote> <p>It is incredible how much amazing, quality science has gone on with regards to confirming relativity. In addition to light-bending by the Sun, we do have confirmation of gravitational redshift, the Shapiro time delay, the precession of not just Mercury's orbit but also Venus', Earth's, and Mars' orbits, the Lens-Thirring effect, geodetic precession, strong and weak gravitational lensing, the Sachs-Wolfe and Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, and many others, not the least of which is the direct detection of gravitational waves by LIGO. General relativity is extraordinarily well-confirmed by a whole slew of independent lines of evidence -- Govert's book <em><a href="http://amzn.to/2gdNuPf">Ripples In Spacetime</a></em> that I <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/08/03/ripples-in-spacetime-from-einstein-to-ligo-and-beyond/#119be2dc351e">reviewed just recently</a> -- does a wonderful job recounting many of the confirmations. The radio VLBI observations are a good, recent one that I'm happy I can point you towards. Interestingly, many people have worked to take observations, independently, good enough to confirm the original Eddington experiment this past Monday. I'll let you know if I come across any robust results.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/03/25848795491_10c9cfe4f2_k.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-34381" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/03/25848795491_10c9cfe4f2_k-600x617.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="617" /></a> Image credit: photograph by Frank Tuttle of King Triton and Ursula the sea witch from the Little Mermaid at MidSouthCon 34. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/20/comments-of-the-week-173-from-quantum-uncertainty-to-earths-final-total-solar-eclipse/#comment-581976">Steve Blackband</a> on who am I: "BTW is the guy in the grey beard and crown you?"</p></blockquote> <p>Updated annually since 2009 with each new Halloween photo. If you missed any, they've been:</p> <ul><li>2016: King Triton,</li> <li>2015: Axe Cop,</li> <li>2014: Man-o-taur,</li> <li>2013: Rainbow Dash,</li> <li>2012: Zangief,</li> <li>2011: Wolverine,</li> <li>2010: Macho Man Randy Savage,</li> <li>2009: Pharaoh Ramses.</li> </ul><p>Keep speculating as to what 2017 might hold!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Illustration_of_a_black_hole_and_its_surrounding_disk-1200x960.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36519" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Illustration_of_a_black_hole_and_its_surrounding_disk-1200x960-600x479.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="479" /></a> As a black hole shrinks in mass and radius, the Hawking radiation emanating from it becomes greater and greater in temperature and power. Once the decay rate exceeds the growth rate, Hawking radiation only increases in temperature and power. Image credit: NASA. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate-synopsis/#comment-581903">Omega Centauri</a> on what Hawking radiation is made of: "Since we have a primordial neutrino background at IIRC 1.75K, do black holes also emit Hawking like neutrino radiation? Or does finite rest mass largely suppress this?"</p></blockquote> <p>We normally think of Hawking radiation as being radiation (photons) only, and to a first approximation, that's very likely correct. Why? Because we don't have enough power in the radiation to -- as you intuit -- create any particles with non-zero rest mass. Even the rest mass of a neutrino, at the low end at around 10^-6 eV/c^2, is far too great to be created by any black holes that exist today. (The CNB is around 1.95 K, FYI, but falling into gravitational wells leads to greater velocity than that temperature would imply.)</p> <p>Give it enough time, though; when the mass of a black holes shrinks to a small enough value so that the temperature of Hawking radiation is above the neutrino rest mass energy, or above a few tens of Kelvin, and you'll start making neutrinos, then electron/positron pairs, and then the really heavy stuff in the last few seconds. What's interesting is that we're still not sure what sort of gravitational waves come out at the event horizon, as we don't have the quantum theory of gravity necessary to go there. Too bad, because gravitons are massless, too!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/LIGOsound.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36276" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/LIGOsound-600x451.jpg" alt="The 30-ish solar mass binary black holes first observed by LIGO are likely from the merger of direct collapse black holes. But a new publication challenges the analysis of the LIGO collaboration, and the very existence of these mergers. Image credit: LIGO, NSF, A. Simonnet (SSU)." width="600" height="451" /></a> The 30-ish solar mass binary black holes first observed by LIGO are likely from the merger of direct collapse black holes. But a new publication challenges the analysis of the LIGO collaboration, and the very existence of these mergers. Image credit: LIGO, NSF, A. Simonnet (SSU). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate-synopsis/#comment-581906">Michael Mooney</a> on an intended insult that's actually a compliment: "Ethan consistently makes statements as established facts even though they are theoretical, without empirical evidence and surrounded by debate in the world of physics."</p></blockquote> <p>Yes, you're very welcome. What you are talking about is called "theoretical physics," in the sense that we have theories which accurately describe the Universe, which in turn we can use to make predictions about new phenomena that haven't yet been observed. It is the best, most straightforward use of theoretical physics, and also my favorite: it's what I built the start of my career on. It's why we were able to predict gravitational waves, including their properties and waveforms, before we had ever detected them. It's why a whole slew of science is able to be done at all.</p> <p>Someday, like many others before you, you may come to appreciate it.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/05/1-JfanY_MplBJ_FX1N0I2StQ-1200x675.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36161" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/05/1-JfanY_MplBJ_FX1N0I2StQ-1200x675-600x337.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="337" /></a> Hawking radiation is what inevitably results from the predictions of quantum physics in the curved spacetime surrounding a black hole's event horizon. Image credit: E. Siegel. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/19/ask-ethan-do-black-holes-grow-faster-than-they-evaporate-synopsis/#comment-581911">klac</a> on what a black hole's event horizon looks like: "Is the “surface” of the event horizon smooth or roiling? If the latter, does this affect the evaporation rate?"</p></blockquote> <p>Smooth, down to the quantum gravity scale. At the scale at which it is imperfect, there will be imperfections in the spectrum of Hawking radiation. If Hawking radiation is ever detectable, the fluctuations will be another 30-something orders of magnitude below that in scale. Good luck.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/WR_31a.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36522" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/WR_31a-600x450.jpg" alt="This Wolf–Rayet star is known as WR 31a, located about 30 000 light-years away in the constellation of Carina. The outer nebula is expelled hydrogen and helium, while the central star burns at over 100,000 K. Image credit: ESA/Hubble &amp; NASA; Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt." width="600" height="450" /></a> This Wolf–Rayet star is known as WR 31a, located about 30 000 light-years away in the constellation of Carina. The outer nebula is expelled hydrogen and helium, while the central star burns at over 100,000 K. Image credit: ESA/Hubble &amp; NASA; Acknowledgement: Judy Schmidt. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/21/the-hottest-stars-in-the-universe-are-all-missing-one-key-ingredient-synopsis/#comment-581937">John</a> on Wolf-Rayet stars: "These Wolf-Rayet stars would make for a pretty inhospitable Solar System!"</p></blockquote> <p>Oh, yes! That is an extremely good point; here are just a few reasons why:</p> <ul><li>They only live for maybe a few million years before they end their lives,</li> <li>They change in luminosity by a factor of many over that time,</li> <li>They blow off many solar masses worth of plasma across any planets present,</li> <li>They are unstable, flaring stars,</li> <li>And their spectra are such that they ought to strip the atmospheres off of any potentially habitable world that ever existed around them.</li> </ul><p>I would say that makes for "pretty inhospitable" indeed.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/06/Oxford_-_Worcester_College_-_garden_tree_sunbeam.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-34760" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/06/Oxford_-_Worcester_College_-_garden_tree_sunbeam-600x450.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> Sunbeams shining through the trees at Oxford, by Wikimedia Commons user Remi Mathis, under a c.c.a.-by-s.a.-3.0 license. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/21/the-hottest-stars-in-the-universe-are-all-missing-one-key-ingredient-synopsis/#comment-581940">CFT</a> on the solar eclipse: "I can get the effect of a complete solar eclipse every time I walk under a leafy tree or enter my house. I call it ‘shade’."</p></blockquote> <p>Walking under a shady tree is to a total solar eclipse what fanning yourself with a folded sheet of paper is to skydiving for the first time. Never seen a total solar eclipse? I highly recommend it; it just might change your outlook on life a little bit.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/960x0.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36549" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/960x0-600x517.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="517" /></a> A shot of the Sun's corona at the moment of totality, during the Great American Eclipse of August 21, 2017, at Casper Collage Wyoming. Image credit: Gene Blevins/AFP/Getty Images. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581952">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on eclipse surprises: "Reading your article it’s clear that you had a blast and that you’re still under emotional experience of it. ? I’m glad and happy that you had good weather and that it was great.<br /> But can’t really understand why points 1, 2, 6 and 9 are surprising, especially for scientists."</p></blockquote> <p>Well, the first one (that it didn't get dark all at once) surprised me, because the Sun is really, really bright, and a penumbral shadow is kind of (no offense to the inanimate objects in the Solar System) garbage compared to the umbral shadow when it falls on the Moon. When total eclipses happen under cloudy conditions -- which is how the people I know experienced the 1979 eclipse -- it does get dark all at once. So that's why #1 surprised me.</p> <p>The second one, as to the size and brightness of the corona, I had only seen photos. Sure, some photos are long-exposure to bring out the detail in the outer corona, but I had expected to see a much smaller corona, akin to what the photo at the very top of the page showed, than what was actually visible to my eye. There's no way to really know these things for sure, that cannot be preserved on film, until you've experienced it for yourself. Being a scientist has very little to do with the human experience you feel with your own body. In more than a theoretical sense alone, we all need to live.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/solar_disk.png"><img class="size-full wp-image-36550" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/solar_disk.png" alt="" width="600" height="422" /></a> The eclipsed Sun, the visible corona, and the surrounding sky, as blown-up by me multiple times over the original image referenced. Image credit: Joe Sexton / Jesse Angle. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581953">Pawel</a> on why the Moon's shadow is so black: "But the question is – why the Moon seems so black during totality? The rest of the sky, beyond the Sun’s corona, is bright because of the light refracted in the atmosphere. Since the Moon is far beyond the atmosphere, shouldn’t it be washed away by the refracted light and appear the same color as the rest of the sky?"</p></blockquote> <p>Optics never fails to disappoint with how interesting it is. Here's a fun thing for you to do: draw yourself a to-scale diagram (it's tough!) of the Sun, the Moon, and the Earth. Now, extend the Sun's radius by, oh, let's say about 40%, just for giggles. Draw those same lines you'd draw for the Corona's shadow -- both umbral and penumbral -- that you'd draw for the Sun's shadow.</p> <p>If you do, you'll see how much <em>less</em> coronal light gets through at the Moon's center than at the surrounding environs. That's the biggest reason why the Moon's disk appears dark in comparison to the region outside the Moon's disk, even when you're away from the visible corona itself.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/eclipse-1200x667.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36551" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/eclipse-1200x667-600x333.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="333" /></a> A simulated picture of the sky as it might have appeared during the total solar eclipse of August 21st. Regulus (next to the Sun), Mars (top) and Mercury (bottom) may all be visible with clear skies and favorable conditions. Image credit: E. Siegel / Stellarium. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581959">Steve Blackband</a> on whether he saw Mars or not: "BTW I was starring hard, but I was pretty sure I saw Mars, close to and to the left of the sun, at about 11 o-clock. Am I deluded?"</p></blockquote> <p>No, but if it was to the <em>left</em> (east?) of the Sun, it was probably Mercury. If it was to the <em>right</em> (west) of the Sun, it could have been Mars. If it was either of those, they should have been about 12 degrees (throw heavy metal horns with your index and pinkie fingers, held at arm's length) off from the Sun. If it was much more than that, it was probably Jupiter (to the left) or Venus (bright, to the right), while if it was only about 1 degree off from the Sun, that was probably Regulus.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Total-solar-eclipse-illustration.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36430" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/07/Total-solar-eclipse-illustration-600x450.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="450" /></a> An illustration of the Sun-Moon-Earth configuration setting up a total solar eclipse. The Earth's non-flatness means that the Moon's shadow gets elongated when it's close to the edge of the Earth. Image credit: Starry Night education software. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/22/ten-surprises-for-scientists-and-skywatchers-during-the-total-solar-eclipse-synopsis/#comment-581963">PJ</a> on eclipse mania: "Welcome to the club, Ethan. You seem to show the signs. More, more! Next eclipse, please! At least the next one will see you better prepared now you have first hand experience of the event."</p></blockquote> <p>2024, totality in the USA, and it should be more than twice as long as what I got to see. (Waco, TX, gets 4:15 of totality, while in Mexico they get to over 4:30.) If I get really ambitious, there's always the 2027 eclipse, just shy of my 50th birthday, which will go over the Iberian Peninsula and then peak near Luxor, Egypt. Maximum totality there is over 6 minutes, and should be among the most spectacularly dark eclipses of the 21st century.</p> <p>Yes, PJ, I've had my first taste and now... well, you know how I teach electric potential energy in college? Bringing in electric charges is like the crack dealer: the first one's free, but the second one costs you, and then subsequent ones cost more and more... and you'll pay it if you want it bad enough!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/merger.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35936" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/merger-600x301.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="301" /></a> As two neutron stars orbit each other, Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts orbital decay, and the emission of gravitational radiation. Image credit: NASA (L), Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy / Michael Kramer. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/23/beyond-black-holes-could-ligo-have-detected-merging-neutron-stars-for-the-first-time-synopsis/#comment-581980">Omega Centauri</a> on the possible types of gravitational wave signals: "I presume expected signals, gravity-wave, optical/X-ray, etc. have been worked out for the different sorts of compact object merger events.<br /> BH v BH<br /> BH v NS<br /> BH v WD<br /> NS v NS<br /> NS v WD"</p></blockquote> <p>Well, here's the thing: the above signal that you see works for all objects as long as they're spherical and not in physical contact with one another. But white dwarfs, about the size of Earth, touch each other (or whatever they're orbiting) way before something like LIGO would be sensitive to them. LIGO will not see white dwarfs.</p> <p>On the other hand, BH-BH mergers, BH-NS mergers, and NS-NS mergers have all been very thoroughly modeled. NS-NS mergers, in particular, are expected to produce gamma-ray bursts and leave the signatures I described to you in the article from this week. Are they correct, these predicted signatures? I have a feeling there will be a lot more to come on this topic as the coming weeks unfold...</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-18-Brightness-Distance.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-32321" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2015/01/1-18-Brightness-Distance-600x295.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="295" /></a> The brightness/distance relation for light, which is not the same as for gravitational waves. Image credit: E. Siegel. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/23/beyond-black-holes-could-ligo-have-detected-merging-neutron-stars-for-the-first-time-synopsis/#comment-581991">Klavs Hansen</a> on the unbearable lack-of-lossiness in gravitational wave astronomy: "A factor ten reduction in energy means that the event needs to be a factor ten closer to be detected?"</p></blockquote> <p>Yup. And it isn't obvious. Light, an electromagnetic effect, is a form of dipole radiation. If you go twice as far away, the brightness dims to one-fourth the original; if you're ten times as far away, the brightness is 1/100th. But gravitational radiation is <em>quadrupolar</em> radiation, not dipole radiation. It doesn't fall off as 1/r^2, but rather as 1/r. If you're ten times as far away, the magnitude is only 1/10th as great. This is good, because that radiation is so weak! It also means, if you wanted to visually detect what was going on with the original merging black holes that LIGO found, they'd need to have merged from within our Solar System, instead of over a billion light years away. There is no good non-technical explanation of this effect that I've yet figured out that's actually still correct.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8298924277_f2f7634ca2_b.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36537" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/8298924277_f2f7634ca2_b-600x400.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></a> Our fear of aliens, and their potential hostility towards humanity, has driven much of our public sentiment and presentation of extraterrestrial life. Image credit: plaits / flickr. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/24/afraid-of-aliens-the-science-doesnt-back-you-up-synopsis/#comment-582006">eric</a> on disagreeing about alien intents: "Consider the species on Earth with reasonably sized brains. most of them can communicate (albeit not like we do). All of them are more closely related to humans in brain structure, instinct, and emotional desires than any alien we will ever meet – hands down, no contest. And yet <i>practically none of them show any interest in wanting to communicate with humans</i>."</p></blockquote> <p>Huh. I suppose we've met different intelligent animals. Dogs, cats, dolphins, monkeys, Orang Utans... I've met <em>lots</em> of animals that not only want to communicate with humans in general (and me in particular), but that want us to play with them. Play is one of the highest forms of communication, IMO, so... my experience doesn't mirror yours, I suppose.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Atomic_cloud_over_Nagasaki_from_Koyagi-jima.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36543" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/08/Atomic_cloud_over_Nagasaki_from_Koyagi-jima-600x464.jpg" alt="The cloud from the atomic bomb over Nagasaki from Koyagi-jima in 1945 was one of the first nuclear detonations to take place on this world. After decades of peace, North Korea is detonating bombs again. Credit: Hiromichi Matsuda." width="600" height="464" /></a> The cloud from the atomic bomb over Nagasaki from Koyagi-jima in 1945 was one of the first nuclear detonations to take place on this world. After decades of peace, North Korea is detonating bombs again. Credit: Hiromichi Matsuda. </div> <p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/08/25/science-knows-if-a-nation-is-testing-nuclear-bombs-synopsis/#comment-582017">Elle H.C.</a> on the nuclear frontier and mass-energy conversion: "Is nuclear energy the last barrier where mass can be turned into energy, no sub-atomic conversion to worry about, anyone have a crystal ball to foresee ‘the future’?"</p></blockquote> <p>Oh no, not at all. You see, even chemical transitions, where electrons hop from one energy level to another, get their energy from mass-energy conversion. It's just 5-6 orders of magnitude less efficient. But in the other direction, matter-antimatter annihilation (or, in the case of boson-boson interaction, pure annihilation with no distinction between matter and antimatter) is 100% efficient, about 2-3 orders of magnitude better than nuclear energy. It's pretty incredible what we've achieved, but there are reminders that nature is both more subtle than we give it credit for and also capable of being more spectacular than anything we've ever yet made come true.</p> <p>Have a wonderful week, and we'll be back here tomorrow with more outstanding science on Starts With A Bang!</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 08/27/2017 - 03:37</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546051" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503821507"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <p>On the mass-energy conversion, so why do they say there's no energy released during particle collisions, like in a fission reaction for instance, or is this something I misunderstood?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546051&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="CyWa8UIYtLdwi99HQ7IE0cH_uNFe0XhhrGvdShQWk8o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546051">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546052" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503823761"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I stated recently that Ethan is very dishonest and self serving.</p> <p>Now he confirms that he is actually proud of it in this week's comment replies:</p> <p>"From Michael Mooney on an intended insult that’s actually a compliment: “Ethan consistently makes statements as established facts even though they are theoretical, without empirical evidence and surrounded by debate in the world of physics.” ("Yes, you’re very welcome.")</p> <p>Presenting speculative theories as established facts is dishonest science, and Ethan not only admits it, he is proud of it.<br /> And he consistently confuses science fiction with real science (the objective kind with supportive evidence.) See his last piece on time travel.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546052&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GeQvjGmPQBaZgJM30EPZ_HEe7qTJnjdHZmJGAm8e6K4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546052">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546053" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503829271"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>my explanation might be very simplistic, but here goes. Of course energy is released in particle collisions, who says it's not? It's precisely that energy released (most of it heat) that makes it possible to create new and exotic particles. New particles (like higgs) are inferred when there is "missing" mass/energy. Meaning, when you count all the new particles created after collision, if the product is less then what you started with, it means that some new particle was created that you didn't know about and account for.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546053&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5h7doSRPJr34VnNs4xFCyNyXM7DKZg2i04IpE31uDJQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546053">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546054" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503839884"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Here's the explanation I got back in the days regarding you know what:</p> <p>Since nuclear fission is possible, due to an assymetrie between the strong-force and the electro/weak-force (for short distances the strong force is stronger for longer distances electro/weak is stronger and for very large distances gravity even exeeed electro/weak). Fission works in that way that Neutrons and Protons in a nucleus are rumbled in a way that their distance overcomes the critical distance where electro/weak- exceeds strong-force thus the repelling electroweak force will tear the nucleus apart.</p> <p>Such an effect is also thinkable for Protons instead of the Nucleus, and Quarks instead of the Protons and Neutrons, since also strong-force holds the quarks together and since the quarks are also charged particles where 2 of them have the same charge there is also a repelling electro/weak-force trying to tear the Proton apart (for the Neutron it even works but also without chainreaction). </p> <p>There are only 2 facts what make such an scensrio very unlikely:</p> <p>1. other then in the Nucleus where there are only positive and neutral charged particles (Protons and Neutrons) in the Protons (and also in the Neutrons) there are positive and negative charged Quarks together only in the Neutron these charges total to 0 units (2/3 + 2*(-1/3)=0) and in the proton they total to +1 unit (2*(2/3)+(-1/3)=3/3=1). Thus there are not only repelling electroweak-forces but always also electro/weak-forces pulling the particles together what in my eyes even without the strong force should be as stable as atoms and ions always containing positive and negative charges in some relationship.</p> <p>2. for fission the energy released by one decaying Atom is far less than the energy contained in the restmass of the Atom (only about 1/1000 of the energy as far as I know), but the energy to trigger the decay of the next atom is also much less than its restmass, so a chain-reaction is possible. There is as stated above no mechanism which releases more energy by any chemicalor physical process than is contained in the restmass of the particles taking part, usually it is rather much less. There is also no known effect to trigger the decay of a Proton or a Neutron in such a way that all its restmassenergy is released using only energies smaller than the restmass of one of these particles, even energies much larger than the restmass of the Proton did not yet trigger a spontanious decay of a Proton. Sure the LHC is build to destroy Protons by their collission, but such a destruction of a Proton up to now never resulted in energies large enough to destruct other protons, even if there is an avalange (like when cosmic particles hit the athmosphere) the energy becoms less in every step and the avalange stops after a very short time.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546054&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vEMlW1B_-2E09n22q55l0o-AH8ONeBvgxBcVYfC5yJ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546054">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546055" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503876865"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>maybe then it was the wording in your first question, since you said "released". Given your #4 you might have meant "created more then what was put in". I think that's what you're thinking about. In fission you get more out because of nucleus splitting, releasing that binding energy, and thus spending fuel (radioactive elements). </p> <p>But IMO particle collisions might be more akin to fusion. But due to very tiny cross-section of protons only a very tiny amount of those millions of protons colliding might actually fuse and create couple of atoms of helium. Given the energy needed to accelerate them and all, you still (i think) put a lot more in then you get surplus from a chance that those couple of atoms of helium being created. It's not sustainable.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546055&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ckLKy0hzcfh2-YS3u70mieNNwECmSYoMOMMBTB6QnJg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546055">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546056" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503885667"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Yeah, you're right.</p> <p>The bottom line is getting more energy out of it than put in, that's what I'm curious about. </p> <p>For nuclear fission a neutron is added and the Atom splits. What's used is enriched uranium which is a type of uranium in which the percent composition of uranium-235 has been increased through the process of isotope separation.</p> <p>For a (chemical) fire there's something similar happening, the wood is first dried out by the Sun and so the flashpoint is much lower, the same for the distillation of gasoline out of crude oil.</p> <p>What I'm saying is that a lot of work/energy has been put into both materials at forehand before the became easily 'combustible'.</p> <p>That's in line with my argument of high frequency and density of particle collisions at the LHC vs Cosmic Rays in nature. A high series of collisions could strain out surrounding Protons like with the glass that bursted due to the sound … and the last drop caused the snapping of the bonds … releasing more energy than (finally) put in.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546056&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-V-EtFiKPxRQAiPCX9sg5AcE_paWA5mZOHTanQbBmSI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546056">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546057" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503885928"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Chelle,<br /> Some of the binding energy between two bound particles shows up as mass. Unbind them, and you can observe a change in the balance of mass and energy in the system. Take two unbound particles and bang them together, and you won't necessarily change the mass of the system. You might, if the collision affects the binding of subatomic particles in either object, but you don't have to.<br /> Note also this binding-energy-as-mass relationship can cause a system to gain *or* lose mass - both are possible. It depends on the thermodynamics of the binding. The ubiquity of mass-energy conversions in nuclear and subatomic reactions is probably the reason physicsts decided long ago to track particle mass energy (MeV) units. :)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546057&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jCxskCqs4CCFmJgUail3aE9z2s3hsp_56cgSkfZAK6o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric (not verified)</span> on 27 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546057">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546058" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503898849"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>Strain how? But never mind. </p> <p>"… releasing more energy than (finally) put in."<br /> Well, that would be wonderful actually, if it was real and doable. Means we would solve world's energy problems. But since you can't focus the proton beam to an arbitrary high precision in order to guarantee that most if not all would actually fuse to make hydrogen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546058&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="d74FwZQAMj9UVWcGyRQhT9aJYri9KW1pNT7tlRQnpsk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546058">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546059" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503900235"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"Note also this binding-energy-as-mass relationship can cause a system to gain *or* lose mass"</i></p> <p>There's also the space filling Higgs field that bonds with Quarks giving them mass, with the Higgs bosons as a result of a vibrations in that field produced by high-energy collisions. </p> <p>So it aren't only GWs. Vibrations in the Higgs field could make surrounding Protons more massive or energetic, or extracting energy/mass like a fan.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546059&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qTL1S49c0DJHrapiAk4MZhnejPwwtGzPhKT2ar2pt64"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546059">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546060" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503900860"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>The question, if possible, is how to contain such a reaction? </p> <p>For nuclear fission you need heavy unstable Atoms, other Atoms are fairly unbreakable; something similar for molecules such as gasoline vs. water for example; but for Protons there's only one kind of them.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546060&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U1KpqMi3exXPFmgkX2lBy6celnfLHtBYlTVg0nz7ix0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546060">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546061" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503901339"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Chelle, your word salad proclamations make it very hard to tell whether you really don't know something, or whether you just don't know the terminology. There are many kinds of nucleons besides protons and neutrons. They are all unstable, but some are less or more unstable than others. Transitions between them all involve changing masses, with consequent absorption or release of energy. Simple radioactive decay involves changing masses. </p> <p>Your attempts to restrict mass changes to some sort of "destructive" interaction is woefully naive, incorrect, and misleading both to yourself and others.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546061&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="I5JhHYBF9kwC3U1e7upcGVpM94_CHinLk5_8HGf4d7Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Kelsey (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546061">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546062" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503902473"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"The question, if possible, is how to contain such a reaction? "</p> <p>like all other fusions reactions or anything dealing with plasma.. strong magnetic field.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546062&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HvAqrP-LGuQWoN4s2LfgrjwXYaad-9Uv86eoshqNOKg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546062">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546063" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503907751"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Yes, sure magnets can keep the particles in place but would they also block the vibrations moving through SpaceTime / Higgs field? If not then you have no buffer.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546063&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8MhWZ1KWhLjBLC9JPV8dSpkKbRspDpWgdL02IWLwjTI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546063">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546064" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921018"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>buy a vibrator and stop with this vibration bs will you...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546064&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TYsdp_-WI0XVGyWulfvdAZAPMNb1j86oDF6GpiLK-yY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546064">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546065" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921197"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Michael Kelsey,</p> <p><i>"Your attempts to restrict mass changes to some sort of “destructive” interaction …"</i></p> <p>I am only focusing on the idea of how vibrations might change the energy/mass levels of a Proton, and if that may lead to the disruption of a Proton. </p> <p>Please do explain to us what's so 'misleading' about this question.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546065&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OYyjSM3WayFwuepl3F6TSO5Q27HBKYnRCJO7sNWM2bc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546065">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546066" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921363"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Are you saying that collisions don't cause vibrations in the Higgs field and/or SpaceTime?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546066&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TpCoOoBqHQdBgIgcqfgfiUrnbhC6cWwPykTVLz_c-5I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546066">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546067" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503921787"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>By Sean Carrol a theoretical physicist at Caltech:</p> <p><i>"… the Higgs boson is the particle we observe when we interact with a vibration in that field."</i><br /><a href="http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/12/07/how-to-explain-the-higgs-mechanism/">http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/12/07/how-to-explain-the-…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546067&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oH4VuNCexWd3daoYx3EIW33aTCBDm_KJ4vXdYS6EXrQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546067">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546068" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503946661"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle @6 : your metaphoric ideas are stil inconsistent with reality, since in every single example you cite, we can observe individual events in a lab setting, but your claimed proton disintegration is not observed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546068&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="89e06C9gV_sk-jPM31OdNXEPNOx9dtqoA35wxb5xwCc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Eric (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546068">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546069" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503954181"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"your claimed proton disintegration is not observed."</i></p> <p>That's true, and that's why it is a hypothesis, similar to 'passive' Proton decay (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay</a>).</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546069&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="3e0mnntib5IuEzRLKBdIowSxEzFjmQAHwVXPDL4d0gw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546069">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546070" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503968770"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ elle</p> <p>higg's boson is an excitation of the higg's field. Just like a photon is an excitation of the EM field. What does that have to do with protons? </p> <p>since you wrote... higgs boson could make protons more massive/energetic. Why? How? that's not a hypothesis.. that's just statement. It's same as me saying "Sun spots could cause frogs to fly".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546070&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OTLJ2kncUVunPHBL4tXiiOSEzIx2gKXczDU6XCE2LXc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546070">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546071" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503975122"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"Higg’s boson is an excitation of the higg’s field. Just like a Photon is an excitation of the EM field. What does that have to do with Protons?"</i></p> <p>Energy can be transferred into the Proton via vibrations in the Higgs field as with Compton scattering in the EM field, where the Photon transfers part of its energy to the Proton and scatters off at a lower energy/frequency, the Proton taking up the energy-momentum balance. Heating up!</p> <p>BTW the excited states of the Proton involve rearrangements of the energy and angular momentum inside. The transition energies are in the 100MeV to 1GeV range which is beyond visible light, but Gamma Rays can excite such transitions and be absorbed, hence also the ~126 GeV Higgs boson.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"since you wrote… higgs boson could make protons more massive/energetic. Why? How?"</i></p> <p>See above. Energy vibrating through the Higgs field after every collision (Wave–particle duality).</p> <p>--</p> <p>"that’s not a hypothesis.. that’s just statement."</p> <p>Yeah, sure it's a statement, bravo! But the argument of making Protons burst or implode is an hypothesis, like it or not.</p> <p>FYI</p> <p><b>hypothesis</b><br /> hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/<br /> noun<br /> 1. a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546071&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pZcaeTw0wJToIpc0Af2-TPZK9h734cZ8UFMnlspqxEw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546071">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546072" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503981680"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Energy can be transferred into the Proton via vibrations in the Higgs field"</p> <p>- citation please</p> <p>"as with Compton scattering"<br /> - this involves stable particles, higgs lifetime is 10^-22 s, thus I see no parallel nor evidence that this ever happening. </p> <p>re: hypothesis<br /> - you offered NO explanation (talking about other things unrelated to your claim is not an explanation), and offered exactly zero evidence. No evidence is not limited evidence. Thus it's not a hypothesis. It's statement not even based on science.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546072&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZX2zcUECO7ilMJSDu78QW1XqbopAU8U09hdwPLK8zYA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546072">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546073" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503983007"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Besides, suppose a Higgs boson does interact with a proton causing it to enter an excited state. Suppose even further that the proton thus excited decays into some other particle. While that would certainly be interesting new physics, from the "this is going to cause a catastrophic explosion that will kill us all" point of view that Elle is putting out there, so what? What would be the great tragedy that would cause calamitous damage should a single proton undergo some decay? Even should the full 126 GeV energy of a Higgs boson be released, that would be barely noticeable on a macroscopic level. </p> <p>I know, Elle, chain reactions. But what is the mechanism? Why would such chain reactions occur when we cannot seem to generate even a single such event? If such a single proton decay is so improbable that we haven't seen in in literally trillions (or more) particle interactions, what makes you think there's a danger of even TWO such events occurring in close succession, let alone a major chain reaction that will cause macroscopic damage?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546073&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YCEGLLeo3kTvXOvmGgN0XYPX8oSCjplu4qAVZa1N6mM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546073">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546074" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503990939"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>" What would be the great tragedy that would cause calamitous damage should a single proton undergo some decay?"</i></p> <p>If a Proton would disappear out of a nucleus the remaining system would become a negative ion of the element left of the original one on the periodic table. It would also be in a mixed-up quantum state with all the electrons wanting to readjust, and some of the electrons released be lost, along with a bunch of photons, this along with the Proton itself that converts mass into energy, and I'm talking here about only one Proton in the Nucleus.</p> <p>Now for a single 'conversation' there's little harm, but my argument is that the LHC has about a billion collisions per second within a few mm's, now if you look at the double-slit experiment those Photons 'touch' the 2nd slit, my point is that those waves spread out a few mm's. </p> <p>So the hypothesis is that the vibrations of those billions of collisions, happening hours in a row, strain the Protons surrounding that collision spot, and start to charge them so to speak, making them ready to snap. Now for a cm^3 of solid matter surrounding the collision-spot we get ~10^24 charged Protons, if they all would snap then that would be an incredible burst of energy, and a possible ignition for the chain-reaction.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546074&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5c4Vno6ewqP4nHKSF5jmBaoD0zq_qMQrgo34bi8UvLY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546074">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546075" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503992437"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>so how come these "ignitions" and "chain reactions" haven't happened in i.e. in the middle of stars? you have billions of more proton-proton collisions in the stars, over a much larger area and happening for 13 billions years.... </p> <p>and another thing... there is no solid matter or any elements in the tube of LHC. it's vacuum chelle. otherwise the whole thing would have melted a long long time ago...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546075&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="67fP6QQNg0K3vFos0XW9yjB1CyvuBGYICFpRYVE8BCQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546075">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546076" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503992532"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s.<br /> just to be clear.. there are chain reactions in stars... but for completely different reasons and well understood. not because of "vibrations in higgs field" or glass shattering</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546076&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="BMQBnRqLL8DIdzrkH9NeDjPhscntYChMwEbSbv3t4IY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546076">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546077" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997219"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"so how come these “ignitions” and “chain reactions” haven’t happened in i.e. in the middle of stars?"</i></p> <p>Photons aren't crushed within Stars, the temperature in LHC is 5.5 trillion °C. That's 100,000 times hotter than the centre of the Sun.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"there is no solid matter or any elements in the tube of LHC. it’s vacuum"</i></p> <p>Sure the inside is vacuum, but the tube itself is solid.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"there are chain reactions in stars… but for completely different reasons and well understood. not because of “vibrations in higgs field”</i></p> <p>Indeed, the proton–proton chain reaction is a fusion reaction by which stars convert hydrogen to helium. But there are no Protons destroyed in the Process, the temperature is lower, these are 'normal' nuclear reactions.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546077&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oWvU5L_XBq-L2shZU28gT6M9i4H8dCFPRPMbtJnZ8G0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546077">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546078" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997325"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Correction:</p> <p>Photons aren’t crushed … -&gt; P<b>r</b>otons aren’t crushed …</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546078&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GIeR-40gGIpR6xTqnfMuPdAyUZ53dDJSF-k2118ZttQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546078">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546079" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997567"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>Okay, you have a hypothesis. Let's test it out. How long has the LHC been operating? About two years I believe at its current energy and luminosity. Where are the proton decays? Where are the chain reactions? That's the thing about a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis; when faced with actual data that refutes it, you are supposed to reject the hypothesis. It's time you do so; there is no evidence for the calamites you suppose will occur at the LHC.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546079&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eNRFJ-NgXgo6h_iqg3slA_ZmgPQxbm8hVoFlmxc-b5s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546079">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546080" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503997923"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>Let's also get quantitative here. If I'm understanding the Wikipedia article on the LHC correctly (and if the article is correct) the LHC is colliding protons at a rate of 40 MHz, meaning that the collisions occur 25 ns apart. This seems like a quite rapid rate of collision, but as subatomic physics goes, this is actually quite SLOW. As mentioned above by Sinisa, the lifetime of a Higgs boson is about 10^-22 seconds, which means that 250 trillion Higgs lifetimes pass between each proton-proton collision. This indicates that your chain reaction cannot occur -- there simply are no Higgs particles left from the previous collision to cause an interaction with the next collision. Your high luminosity is not high at all; it's in fact quite low in comparison with the hypothesized mechanism of your "doomsday reaction". Let it go.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546080&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mIUfZtR8qAOyOSA8qYksq9r4Pr3jJ3K-4BN2XHZIFTI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546080">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546081" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503998488"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle, </p> <p>You like analogies and big numbers sometimes are hard to comprehend, so let me expand on my previous post. </p> <p>Suppose I throw a baseball at a brick wall. The energy of that baseball is certainly insufficient to break or damage that wall. (I am not a very good pitcher). However, you are arguing, and with some merit, that if I throw baseballs at that wall at the right frequency, I CAN damage that wall. </p> <p>Let's make that frequency analogous to the frequency of the proton collisions in the LHC, though. If we assume that the vibrations caused by a baseball impact dissipate within about 1 millisecond, that would be analogous to the Higgs lifetime in the LHC experiment. I need then to wait 250 trillion x 1 millisecond = about 7922 years before throwing my next baseball. Surely, you won't argue that my throwing a baseball every 7922 years against a wall would have a cumulative resonant effect would you? </p> <p>There is absolutely no possible interaction between one proton-proton collision and the next based on your hypothesized mechanism. Can't happen; the timing just doesn't work out.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546081&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="-yScOmCeg8jEU1KYzuY8D9nkm9caftT6dFoUOpE2DJ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546081">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546082" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503999886"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"That’s the thing about a SCIENTIFIC hypothesis; when faced with actual data that refutes it"</i></p> <p>I haven't put any numbers on a 'flashpoint' so what are you talking about? Besides that the idea is to increase the energy and luminosity of these colliders … increasing the risk.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"the lifetime of a Higgs boson is about 10^-22 seconds, which means that 250 trillion Higgs lifetimes pass between each proton-proton collision."</i></p> <p>Yes, but you need to look at how long it takes for the Protons to renormalize between every collision-peak.</p> <p>In your example you need to look at how fast the wall cools down, how fast the Higgs boson dissipates is irrelevant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546082&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="M1kCjiAS7-PfdaC0TmXt21R-MZn0a-90sfewEKKqvLA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546082">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546083" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504005017"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"Yes, but you need to look at how long it takes for the Protons to renormalize"</p> <p>do you even know what you are talking about? I think not, in fact I think you've spewed out so much nonsense that even you have no idea what you're on about now. </p> <p>What protons? Two batches of protons are aimed one another. Due to the very small cross-sections, some of them simply pass by one another and don't collide, those that do collide create a bunch of new particles, and are no more. What protons are you talking about? Where are they from? </p> <p>Secondly, your fixation with higgs field is just that.. a fixation. Without any merit. Do you understand how rare a higgs boson event is?? Why do you think it took years of collision just to get a small data sample. It takes about 10 billion collisions to get even one higgs boson (your wanted vibration). And it lasts for 10^-22s...</p> <p>Reality isn't what you think it is.<br /> "I haven’t put any numbers " you say.. well, science has. So sulk all you want. Data has shown that your "oh it's increasing in frequency" is bullocks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546083&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7mfIIyZO0syM9Bn3qxn95NYZhGqOjEuE3FhQmedJowI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546083">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546084" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504008312"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"What protons are you talking about? Where are they from?"</i></p> <p>Read again my comment at #6:</p> <p><i>"A high series of collisions could strain out <b>surrounding Protons</b> like with the glass that bursted due to the sound … "</i></p> <p>The Proton-Proton collisions are shaking up the Higgs field / SpaceTime and those waves/vibrations shake up the surrounding Protons, the tube of solid material remember.</p> <p>Did you really not get this?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546084&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="imrQc_aKcpdzL4UBismQGicJNwhRaPKQAMXUZsRNdMw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546084">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546085" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504045553"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>And here I was, thinking that you were worried about something dealing with the actual components of the collisions causing some armagedon. Instead you're worried about things which are not in direct contact with collisions in the first place due to physics which don't exist. Cooool.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546085&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="03D42Othbp8J6p7dn4A8Bl0LNOBwCj42Th3pQZI9_3E"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546085">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546086" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504046870"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"things which are <b>not in direct contact</b> with collisions"</i></p> <p>Yes, that's it. </p> <p>The surrounding Protons are <b>indirectly</b> connected through the Higgs field / SpaceTime.</p> <p><i>"due to physics which don’t exist."</i></p> <p>No. There is proof that the Higgs field exists and that Gravity waves travel through SpaceTime, thanks to the LHC and LIGO.</p> <p>What's unknown is what the impact is of these vibrations on those surrounding Protons. It's a bit similar to global warming and what environmental impact automobiles have while heating up the Atmosphere.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546086&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="36t_c9zJ9B63RoPbIx0YMObj88OkBtOpsv9oZMq6Feg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546086">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546087" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504055225"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"No. There is proof that the Higgs field exists and that Gravity waves travel through SpaceTime,"</p> <p>Yes, there is proof of that, but it's unrelated to your "shatter" statement. No, there is no proof or even a hint, even theoretical, that what you propose is even remotely plausible within the laws of physics. So your statement is just as valid or invalid as my statement that son spots could cause frogs to fly. </p> <p>"What’s unknown is what the impact is of these vibrations on those surrounding Protons."<br /> Well, it was you who said that you talked with people at CERN and they said that the impact of gravitational waves was known and it was 20 orders of magnitude too small to even bother writing a sentence about it. So by your own claims, it's known.</p> <p>" It’s a bit similar to global warming and what environmental impact automobiles have while heating up the Atmosphere."<br /> no, it's not similar, not even a bit. Not with gravitational field or higgs field. It seems you are stuck in a world of analogies with no physical connection with one another. Why you don't actually study the actual subject matter and instead rest all your arguments on un-related analogies is beyond me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546087&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Pkjf_oXULfx_myOsShdGKRY0zjgi42KbMaclpWiUmOc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546087">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546088" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504061658"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"“What’s unknown is what the impact is of these vibrations on those surrounding Protons.”<br /> Well, it was you who said that you talked with people at CERN and they said that the impact of gravitational waves was known and it was 20 orders of magnitude too small to even bother writing a sentence about it."</i></p> <p>It didn't take into account the high frequency and density of the collisions.</p> <p>It would be like saying the emissions of one car has no effects on the environment, but as we all know it are the billions of cars that are messing up our environment, increasing the Global temperature and melting the ice.</p> <p>What you are doing here is like 'Denier' just looking at one or two elements but staying blind for all the rest.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546088&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Anc3U7DEskzYNHoonOCoIO7xONn5FEBgEVPzWuX16Yk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546088">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546089" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504061995"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>So where are these proton decays? If your hypothesis is true, why haven't we observed these events? 2 years of collisions at 40 million collisions per second -- that's over a QUADRILLION collisions. Not a single one has caused the event your ranting on about.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546089&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bM4cV7WQoNzoBmJwANpWsjPlR1dd5_H3nuXHZjWcpQ4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546089">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546090" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504062432"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"If your hypothesis is true, why haven’t we observed these events?"</i></p> <p>Two possibilities: maybe my hypothesis isn't true; but if it's true than it's because the energy of the collisions are still too low and we need more energy.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546090&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="xljN8ZhnLkbd3k5NC0USXxlADvVLjIoaBKo9WXuKYMA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546090">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546091" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504064911"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"It didn’t take into account the high frequency and density of the collisions."</p> <p>they told you that what they do causes (or doesn't cause) anything. AFAIK LHC increased it's power by several TeV from initial runs. Hardly even one magnitude, let alone 20. So what high frequency and density. Making stuff up again?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546091&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RCgzPLuCVJ_ghm-DAkVwaRNvUz4PLOF21BcvUub-h9I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546091">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546092" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504066229"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p><i>"So what high frequency and density."</i></p> <p>One of the LHC safety argument is that collisions are safe because there are Cosmic Rays with 50 times more energy. But the frequency and density of those is a billion times lower than at the LHC as shown in this graph: <a href="https://goo.gl/PNYKCp">https://goo.gl/PNYKCp</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546092&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PZslIHwH_kr6VE8SalJGocv9dZWTLcky95n6NPuMhKo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546092">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546093" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504068626"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>LHC has been running for years now without any issue, you're safety concern has been shown to be unfounded at best and crazy talk at worst, so why are you bringing it up again eh?</p> <p>Secondly, in every collision only about 20 protons actually do inelastic collision, and by the time a second one comes along, it's all gone. Like I wrote in #37.. better actually read and study some actual physics instead of copy pasting your bable from years ago. By this time any sane person that is actually serious about his ideas would either come up with a valid explanation or realized that he's wrong...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546093&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="dAV2D5xx9cqKjtNvP33x3jO4654tcajRLhqNQF4zXCM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546093">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546094" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504070817"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>I'm sorry but you're hardly a reference to listen to.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546094&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ibgr6hU-2poC6-zoH9bE3BW08YgI5IAdDHYKiNC13x4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546094">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546095" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504073032"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>LOLZ.. oki doki :D as far as I can see.. you're not listening to anyone. cheers!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546095&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="PDrgrgQ7nPNANNHlqH_2Q86z4U7DyJ9r1XOfR-gxMTM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546095">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546096" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504096551"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL #43,</p> <p><i>"Secondly, in every collision only about 20 protons actually do inelastic collision"</i></p> <p>BTW That's also something 'Denier' would bring up …</p> <p>Those 20 collisions add up to a total of 600 million inelastic events per second, and once the beam is at full strength the LHC generates collisions for somewhere between 10 and 20 hours.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546096&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ihsuSb-35WFH5YBmlob8XsVtz1Sw3DTFVY0t49vvgg4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546096">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546097" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504101570"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Too many threads on the black hole debate.<br /> Here is a quote i found today from Kip Thorne (2014, I think) on the facts of the matter according to Kip:</p> <p>" The hole’s space is bent downward in some higher dimensional “hyperspace” that is not part of our universe."</p> <p>This is metaphysical mysticism. It has no place in the emerging science of black holes (extremely massive gravity wells.)<br /> If i find the right thread for this I will transcribe it.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546097&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ghkf6_B-nNJEV6_OCPQbZctDGvpDVIIxCaK5zXCQxsI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546097">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546098" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504109816"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle @38:<br /></p><blockquote>It would be like saying the emissions of one car has no effects on the environment,</blockquote> <p>But we observe the emissions of a single car. </p> <p>You are again reasoning from an analogy, but picking an analogy that would support the conclusion "your hypothesis is false." ALL your analogies, in fact, support the conclusion that your hypothesis is false. Because in physics, the individual processes that contribute to a 'chain reaction' are observable too. But yours aren't. Which means your hypothesis runs counter to observation.</p> <p>Elle @40:<br /></p><blockquote>maybe my hypothesis isn’t true; but if it’s true than it’s because the energy of the collisions are still too low and we need more energy.</blockquote> <p>Sean T already covered this in @30. The collision rate is 14 orders of magnitude slower than the Higgs wave decay rate. Thus any hypothesis (like yours) that relies on successive waves constructively interfering to create a bigger effect will not happen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546098&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="cQ4R4X5gZ-KImBOGxYgDdXJnmCLa57Nte-cmaoCrU0g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546098">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546099" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504125181"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"But we observe the emissions of a single car.</i></p> <p>You are again reasoning from an analogy …</p> <p>True but the analogy was related to something I said previous time which SL brought up again, namely the feedback I got from someone at CERN that the GWs produced by LHC collisions are something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected, numbers obtained with the quadrupole formula.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"Sean T already covered this in @30. The collision rate is 14 orders of magnitude slower than the Higgs wave decay rate"</i></p> <p>And I responded at #32:</p> <p><i>"Yes, but you need to look at how long it takes for the Protons to renormalize between every collision-peak."</i></p> <p>Also read #34</p> <p>Bottom line is the question if Protons can be charged and ultimately shaken apart due to vibrations?</p> <p>Your answer seems to be a definite 'NO' based on your gut feeling, my viewpoint is that maybe they can, I don't know.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546099&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="AwoYQbFfoZ9fU7kajsVHituru2uLNNGdv3YISyrobdo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546099">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546100" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504126508"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>What you guys are kind of doing is ignoring the obser.<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546100&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="HFJAHsSqIARwPAliANjFyllYsO6AK-WEJfcXdFOvOms"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546100">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546101" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504147419"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ chelle<br /> "BTW That’s also something ‘Denier’ would bring up …"</p> <p>lol.. well, you exhibit a lot of things a 'Crank' would bring up:</p> <p>- Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making any rational debate a futile task and rendering them impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.<br /> - Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability, and underestimate that of acknowledged experts.<br /> - Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important.<br /> - Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial.<br /> - seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting<br /> - stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error, claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,<br /> - exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,<br /> - misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,<br /> - ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief.</p> <p>etc...<br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)</a><br /> -</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546101&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="pMy3eQs_QIi2xfiJ8HCGuyesqDfEWJElHVn0KtsNxm4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546101">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546102" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504149063"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Anybody else here that thinks I'm a crank for questioning if Protons can be shaken apart?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546102&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="I-qtYbetwJtOss1KfEDbAfcw9MNJsneq-NlMyH0TsEs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546102">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546103" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504153104"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I think everybody is okay as long as there is respect and no excessive posting etc. Diversity is good. We should not take ourselves too seriously here. We are just commenting.<br /> (Especially watching tactics of people like MM is pure fun :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546103&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5MhJIukdfNQ5vlZC7GfvtmZIvy_V1yq7Jg2N4Rxmi-I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546103">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546104" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504156220"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ok, I took your idea seriously, elle, but you have yourself refuted it in your post #46. There are 400 million events per second. That's 25 quadrillion events in the two years that CERN has been running at its current luminosity and energy. How many proton decays have occurred during these 25 quadrillion chances for them to occur? The probability of a proton decay such as you posit seem to be less than one in a quadrillion. You expect TWO successive such decays to occur? The probability of that occurring is less than 1e-30! That's what it would take to start a chain reaction, though.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546104&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="8wmFO1FS9AAsyRFJfms_8aKL8y8kfvElebyyls2lGQU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546104">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546105" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504158314"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T #54,</p> <p>I already answered to this at #40 It's a question of reaching a flashpoint 'temperature' as I told you also at #32. You keep bringing up the same argument.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546105&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MavOMcfr0FUbGPtWMVISD2POtorOejoSlNjzWzYHncM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546105">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546106" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504159339"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle:<br /></p><blockquote>the feedback I got from someone at CERN that the GWs produced by LHC collisions are something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected,</blockquote> <p>We can detect gravitational forces much lower than "destruction of Earth" level. Probably at least several orders of magnitude lower (I'm being facetious - it's going to be many. But let's go with 'several' to be safe). So if it takes 50+ orders of magnitude for mere detection, its going to take at least 53+ orders of magnitude for your scenario to happen. But there hasn't been 53 orders of magnitude of events in the entire LHC's history (see @54), and you'd need that number to occur in <i>less than 10E-20 seconds</i> (approximately) for them to have a chance of constructively interfering! Combining this info, it appears that the only way we can't see an effect now and yet there to be a earth-shattering effect, it would have to occur at intensities ~75 orders of magnitude higher than what we can currently achieve.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546106&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Cpocfwb5gginKxMNT7c-Aok9Lkc_LlPK6p5kDlbcoaE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546106">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546107" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504160118"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Anybody else here that thinks I’m a crank for questioning if Protons can be shaken apart?</p></blockquote> <p>No, I think you're a crank for claiming the LHC poses a credible destruction-of-Earth risk the way it currently operates.</p> <p>If you want to produce metaphors about how a proton is like a glass or car or ice cream cone, and conclude from those metaphors that there is a never-before-seen photon decay modes, feel free. That doesn't make you a crank. <i>Insisting particle physics experiments be halted</i> merely because your metaphor leads you to think there is a risk makes you a crank. There are many many steps you need to take between "I posit a new, dangerous, proton decay" and "stop the LHC from operating." You have to come up with a mechanism for your decay. You have to figure out how to test whether that mechanism actually exists or not. You have to then do the test. You have to show some results consistent with your mechanism existing. Very likely, you'd then have to convince another group to reproduce your results (though if you've done the earlier steps right, that shouldn't be too hard). <i>Only then</i> does your suggestion "stop the LHC" move from crankiness to credible.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546107&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OdaHdWBg44O4bDAHpCscz-wyF36JjmYwFHD1ohlvUUE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546107">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546108" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504165681"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>OK elle, you are making many different arguments at once. I thought it was Higgs particles that caused the problem. These have a lifetime far too short to worry about cumulative effects, so we can rule them out. </p> <p>Next you talk about temperatures (which really is just energy for a single particle). The energy of an excited state particle is dissipated rapidly by spontaneous emission. The rate of such emission scales as the cube of the energy of the transition. For protons, this would be quite high, so again time frames on the order of 10^-20 seconds would be expected, again far too short for cumulative effect. Positing that a higher energy will be required only makes matters worse as higher energies will result in even faster relaxation times. </p> <p>Now you seem to be going on about gravitational waves. eric did a good job discounting that possibility in hs post #56. What's next? I am sure that no matter how many mechanisms get discounted, you will come up with something new. </p> <p>So the answer is yes, you are a crank for thinking protons can be shaken apart, at least under conditions that prevail in the LHC. Unless of course at some point you admit defeat and admit that the evidence does not bear out your hypothesis. Cranks are people who cling to an idea in the face of contrary evidence; you are getting perilously close to that.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546108&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nu-_IRoSd8HG1DWPcIFmcZNNphWQdYraQh1kX94EOpA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546108">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546109" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166040"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Another point: even if a proton is "shaken apart", what is it "shaken apart" into? What happens to it? Why is it a disastrous thing for a proton to be "shaken apart"? </p> <p>I know, I know "chain reaction" and all that. Chain reaction is not an explanation, though. You have to state WHY there is expected to be a chain reaction. For nuclear fission, there is a chain reaction because the initial fission event is triggered by neutron absorption and the result of the fission is the formation of four new neutrons, which can trigger more fission events. </p> <p>You have postulated gravitational waves, Higgs particles, high energy, and who knows what else as triggering mechanisms for protons "shaking apart". Why would a shaken apart proton produce a Higgs particle? If it's just energy, why would a proton "shaking apart" produce energy rather than absorb that energy and produce more massive decay products? Why would it produce gravitational waves sufficiently strong to cause a new event? </p> <p>Absent such a chain reaction, the decay of a single proton would likely go unnoticed by anyone without a particle detector. It would hardly be a dangerous event.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546109&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4ODRVk2qWp03NYwDRBDFHcT6HQ2TPM__-KtdEB7fTDM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546109">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546110" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166419"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"So if it takes 50+ orders of magnitude for mere detection, its going to take at least 53+ orders of magnitude for your scenario to happen."</i></p> <p>In most cases in physics yes, but not in the case of the glass that snaps. In the latter it is the build of small bits of energy that ultimately make the glass snap! So the 'input energy' can be 50 to 100 orders smaller. It's a matter of time it takes to strain the Protons until 'boiling point', with the right pitch. Perhaps until some energy nothing is 'absorbed'.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"Insisting particle physics experiments be halted merely because your metaphor leads you to think there is a risk makes you a crank."</i></p> <p>Yes, that's something I have realized, so that's not something I'm asking ATM. But had expect that the LHC safety paper had included a study on the relationship between the collisions and surrounding matter, but it's handwaved away. </p> <p>We have serious studies checking if mobile phone signals in the electromagnetic field aren't dangerous, and we know that nuclear radiation can cause cancer over a long period of time, but when it comes to the LHC there's nothing to find on the subject if vibrations in the Higgs field have any harming potential. All the studies are only focused on the collisions themselves. As mentioned in a previous post with the Atom bomb there was the thought of setting the atmosphere on fire, and so the did the calculations.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"even if a proton is “shaken apart”, what is it “shaken apart” into? What happens to it? Why is it a disastrous thing for a proton to be “shaken apart”?"</i></p> <p>That's something I already (partly) answered at #21</p> <p>But as you know I'm not an expert, therefore I had expected that expert had explored this path in the Safety paper.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546110&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4HDleU4zxqnXrEKF0f3mRsCsHV64ZCD4PyK4y9rirPY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546110">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546111" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166758"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p>Also check #24 for your last question.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546111&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0bKx_Oi9I38yirXdiT8tTJHJNxnlnJwASWt90kb_nOk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546111">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546112" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504166917"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Oops, there has been a mixup, I thought that Sean T's post at #58 was also by Eric.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546112&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qNJaWsycKMDoXuuw3ksyds31n2kXeSGJZ6UauSzh26M"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546112">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546113" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504194918"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>We have serious studies checking if mobile phone signals in the electromagnetic field aren’t dangerous, and we know that nuclear radiation can cause cancer over a long period of time, but when it comes to the LHC there’s nothing to find on the subject if vibrations in the Higgs field have any harming potential.</p></blockquote> <p>Goodness, that's treating very different cases as similar. The first case is one where we know the mechanism, we observe the emissions, we know and observe their effects, and conclude <i>scientifically</i> there's no risk...but because there is lots of litigation and lots of public fear, people do the studies anyway. In the second case we know the mechanisms, observe the emissions, we know and observe the effects, and they have documented health effects that we've known about for more than sixty years. In the third case, the mechanism is hypothesized but no evidence for it exists. Nobody has ever observed the emissions. The effects are extrapolated from one person's preferred metaphors - not even a quantitative model! </p> <p>So yes, it's not surprising that the third case is not treated like the first or second cases. Why should it be? You're missing the fundamental basis that even the cranks claiming cell phone radiation risk have.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546113&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="gqoKjUV4u3bNckH0hUxQoOTjK10W5uM8jDK5Sei86Do"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 31 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546113">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546114" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504541990"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>We have serious studies checking if mobile phone signals in the electromagnetic field aren’t dangerous, and we know that nuclear radiation can cause cancer over a long period of time, but when it comes to the LHC there’s nothing to find on the subject if vibrations in the Higgs field have any harming potential.</p></blockquote> <p>Those are three very different situations. In the first, the physics is largely known, there's no predicted risk, and the studies get done mostly because of litigation and public demand, not because scientists think it's a fruitful area that will yield new knowledge. In the second, the physics is largely known, the risk and health effects are known, and pretty much everyone accepts it. In the third case, you have no quantified physics. You have a metaphor which may not even be apt.</p> <p>Chelle, there are an infinite number of potential risks we are not studying. Vibrations in the higgs field! Quadrupole motion in quantum foam! Octupole motion in the hydrogen wavefunction!<br /> We can't investigate them all. We probably don't even have the money and resources to investigate all the risks <i>we have evidence for</i>, let alone the ones for which no evidence exists. Why should we treat your unevidenced claim any different from the practically infinite number of other unevidenced claims other people make?</p> <p>The scientific way of dealing with this issue of "more hypotheses than we have resources to investigate" is to put the onus of initial investigation on the proposers/defenders of that hypothesis. That treats all hypotheses (whether mainstream or counter-mainstream) equally, and separates the serious proposers from the less serious ones by asking such people to commit their own time and money to their idea (or the time and money they can raise from investors), before anyone else is asked to do so.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546114&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5TTn3pemk7bsQK1xXjhuR5hVLcOOHS4mvhC5ficyBTI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 04 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546114">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546115" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504559341"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric?</p> <p>1st I'm asking, who am I the public, so it's exactly the same.</p> <p>2nd we only knew later on that nuclear radiation was dangerous enough people got serious injured or died in the early days, the most famous Marie Curie.</p> <p>3rd my 'metaphor' is one of the most basic elements in physics, every security report takes a look at what risks there are for an event to spread out.</p> <p>And sure there's enough money for this, F**K if there is one thing on this planet where there should be money for is to check if you're not blowing up the planet. BTW when something 'new' at the LHC is discovered suddenly 200 papers show up to explain what it is even when it still might be nothing. Surely a 5th of these theoretical scientists could take a few days to investigate the risk of the high frequency and density of the collisions in relation to the 'aether' and the surrounding matter. This is pure basic, not like multi universes etc., are they perhaps too elitist to do an official investigation on something plain and simple?</p> <p>Again for f**ks sake the standard model is 40 years old, nothing significantly new since at least some people could have had the time to do a check on the proposed 'vibrating' effects of the collisions. What's most important ATM in theoretical physics?</p> <p>What I'm reading from your part are a lot of excuses. Why don't you just say; "cool let real scientists investigate it and write up an official paper, so we know officially"?</p> <p>How much would the state lose on this, not a penny.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546115&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bgDY8HlXyEUXSqf5CjTiYK-9t_upF0WmleUDRq4fWvI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 04 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546115">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546116" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504622592"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>, F**K if there is one thing on this planet where there should be money for is to check if you’re not blowing up the planet. </p> <p>People can come up with all sorts of hypotheses that end with the planet blowing up. And they will all, like yours, initially have zero evidence for them. So unless you're demanding we commit resources to investigate every possible planet-blowing-up hypothesis, why should we privilege yours more than any of the others?</p> <p>To borrow from Stephen Roberts, when you understand why you dismiss the risk of octupole motion in the hydrogen wavefunction as not worthy of investigation, you will understand why I dismiss yours.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546116&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="92BkyYgLuQsvBXYTwZXjv7ekT3rgkJHrUiMFxeWKUJk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546116">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546117" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504649951"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"So unless you’re demanding we commit resources to investigate every possible planet-blowing-up hypothesis, why should we privilege yours more than any of the others?"</i></p> <p>All the others have been investigated, but not one takes the high frequency and density of the collisions into account. You just keep on making excuses. </p> <p>You know very well what the problem is, for individual events we have references of Cosmic Rays with higher energies, so it's safe to say there is no risk. But when taking the high frequency and density into account there is no reference, this situation is unique in the universe so one has no idea if this is dangerous or not, and who dares to publish that they don't know if there's a risk even of it's 1 in a billion. The same goes for Ethan's response here playing it safe saying there is 'nothing' vibrating, the official way to look at space, not wanting to be the one saying their 'might' be something vibrating.</p> <p>Anyway does one have proof of String theory? No, but there's no risk for the community to publish one paper after the other … in contrast to a paper that might give the slightest hint of any risk with particle collisions.</p> <p>It's like with global warming being contested by conservatives because it might harm their business or way of life, or tobacco companies who refused to look at the bigger picture:</p> <blockquote><p>"Tobacco companies have capitalized on this philosophical objection and exploited the doubts of clinicians, who consider only individual cases, on the causal link in the stochastic expression of the toxicity as actual disease.</p> <p>There have been multiple court cases on the issue that tobacco companies have researched the health effects of tobacco, but suppressed the findings or formatted them to imply lessened or no hazard. - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Studies">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco#Studies</a></p></blockquote> <p>Scientists protecting their industry, this is typical human behavior.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546117&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="b3vF8lGQBw5tjua-Iou-xY3zYgYzBH5h5qwuGLG219k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546117">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546118" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504662758"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>I suggest you start small. I would first try to complain to local city authorities that the side wall of your building was never tested to resist the impact of 10 000 mosquitoes. They might have tried with one.. on tried with some bigger objects.. but never with repeated hits with 10 000 mosquitoes. No one bothered to test. How negligent of them.<br /> Just saying... doesn't require new physics. 'Cause it sounds like you're asking that theoretical physicists at CERN should stop doing what they're doing and instead concentrate their combined brain power and invent some new extension to the standard model that allows for your "vibrations" to exist and affect the "surrounding" protons in just a way that you claim. Then run experiments that this is in fact real or not, and then update their security assessments that another thing was ruled our or not. </p> <p>Based on what, from your side? You yourself said: " you are right to point out why I am wrong,". Seems that the world ought to do a whole lot for something you admit being wrong about?!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546118&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="962cT-wwYCXOCCURv4Olu3odqyhHfsnd-jtvaplgEkE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546118">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546119" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504664605"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You know very well what the problem is</p></blockquote> <p>I do not <i>know</i> that photons act like glasses that are subjected to acoustic waves; that's your premise, but it isn't mine. I do not <i>know</i> that high energy physics collisions violate Einstein's photoelectric effect. That is your premise, but it isn't mine. I do not <i>know</i> how particles with halflives expected to be about 1E-20 seconds, last long enough to create a constructive interference effect when they're only produced at a rate of a packet every 1E-9 seconds. And I do not <i>know<i> that this unknown hypothesized reaction will produce gravity waves.</i></i></p> <p>So while yes I <i>understand</i> your hypothesis, I do not <i>know</i> it to be credible. You must convince me of that <i>before</i> I will treat it as credible. And the way you convince scientists that you have a credible hypothesis is you go out and get data that supports it. Or, if you're a theorist, you can alternately show quantitatively how it does a good job of explaining some currently unexplained observed phenomena. That will also peak peoples' interest. </p> <blockquote><p>The same goes for Ethan’s response here playing it safe saying there is ‘nothing’ vibrating, the official way to look at space, not wanting to be the one saying their ‘might’ be something vibrating.</p></blockquote> <p>I'll say it. There might be something vibrating. So what? You're still missing all the hard work you need to do between <i>might be</i> and <i>credible threat</i>.</p> <blockquote><p>It’s like with global warming being contested by conservatives because it might harm their business or way of life</p></blockquote> <p>Well if you want to descend into the crankery of implying that all scientists everywhere are acting in a big conspiracy to avoid a truth that might cost LHC experimenters their jobs, you are welcome to. But I'm not going to engage you on that point. Perhaps you an Axil can work together to decide whether it's the same secret group that keeps the LHC operating and prevents free energy from being developed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546119&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="g956es9XJHYRTNGdvB-vU_C12bQpayiXAZD1wUl9FXs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546119">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546120" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504665023"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>Are you kidding, the beam of the LHC will blow a hole through your wall as if it is nothing. You do realize that it is build to pulverize matter don't you?!</p> <p><i>"Seems that the world ought to do a whole lot for something you admit being wrong about?!"</i></p> <p>You sound like MM not getting the point of how one can be wrong within a certain framework, but not within an other. Mind-boggling isn't it!</p> <p>Seems you like also prefer to ignore the quote of the Professor where he said that Space is like glass … and my argument of breaking the glass with a repetitive high pitch.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546120&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QmlHn0GWRsdkFb8WFWxi_D8ljA9DsjUEsRS0oN-yaWo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546120">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546121" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504665704"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"the way you convince scientists that you have a credible hypothesis is you go out and get data that supports it."</i></p> <p>That's true, and it's something I'm trying to do.</p> <p><i>"all scientists everywhere are acting in a big conspiracy …"</i></p> <p>It's not a conspiracy, it's a basic instinct not to jeopardize your own career over some 'foolish' idea. It's something we see all to often that people keep their mouths shot. As in this clip on how a spark killed an Apollo crew: <a href="https://youtu.be/m8chx10UbI8">https://youtu.be/m8chx10UbI8</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546121&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="39wgtcSNZBrxfA6srRBhZvy4fPHoveSjsq-3MKnHwI0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546121">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546122" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504675101"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>IMHO there are good arguments and counter-arguments from both sides. Appreciated :-)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546122&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nyJwUh8IoJBTWbGv8f2rM8KQLmdzZZbMkD0AoKOGX9I"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Frank (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546122">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546123" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504683014"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>You have neither high energy, nor high frequency. The numbers SEEM big, but for the phenomena involved they are not. Statements like "You do realize that it is build to pulverize matter don’t you?!" make it quite clear that you fail to understand the processes involved. Sinisa's mosquito comparison is in fact quite apt. A 1 gram mosquito flying at 1 m/s (a bit over 2 mph), would have a kinetic energy of 1/2*(.001)*(1^2) = .0005 J. A 7 TeV proton has an energy of about 0.000002J. It takes about 250 7 TeV protons to equal the energy of a single mosquito. Hardly energy sufficient to "pulverize matter" as you put it. </p> <p>Besides which, my main point to you still stands. The possibility of an earth-shattering event caused by p-p collisions at 13 TeV and 40 MHz IS being investigated. It just isn't being investigated in the manner you wish. The scientists at CERN HAVE been investigating the possibility for the last two years, and there's no evidence of anything unsafe. </p> <p>BTW, comparing yourself to Mooney certainly isn't going to lend you any credibility on here. Most rational posters here recognize him for what he is, a crank pure and simple. Your hypothesis is not crankbait in and of itself -- a hitherto unknown resonance, particle reaction, etc. is certainly a legitimate focus for scientific study. Your contention, without proposal of a legitimate underlying mechanism, that such a reaction could be a real threat to life on earth IS crankbait. You had been focusing on the former and distancing yourself from the latter. Unfortunately, that seems no longer to be the case.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546123&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fcnSf3YawBJ9slUEkcl2WICAGrl7b94TNdQyqkPvrJc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546123">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546124" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504686285"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Frank,</p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p>--</p> <p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"Hardly energy sufficient to “pulverize matter” as you put it."</i></p> <p>Have you never seen the guy that got hit by a Proton beam that blasted through his head?</p> <blockquote><p>"The left half of Bugorski's face swelled up beyond recognition and, over the next several days, started peeling off, revealing the path that the proton beam (moving near the speed of light) had <b>burned through parts of his face, his bone and the brain tissue underneath.</b>" - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoli_Bugorski</a></p></blockquote> <p>--</p> <p><i>"The scientists at CERN HAVE been investigating the possibility for the last two years, and there’s no evidence of anything unsafe."</i></p> <p>The LSAG is from 2003 and the latest addition was from 2011 can you give a link to the investigation you talk about. </p> <p>Note, as mentioned in a previous comment they all deal with individual collisions like your tiny mosquito, and not taking the whole blast, that blows a hole through your head, into account. Please read the previous comments before posting a comment.</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"BTW, comparing yourself to Mooney …"</i></p> <p>Uh, in a previous post I compared SL with him not myself.</p> <p>--</p> <p>A. <i>"Your hypothesis is not crankbait in and of itself"</i></p> <p>B. <i>"Your contention, without proposal of a legitimate underlying mechanism, that such a reaction could be a real threat to life on earth IS crankbait."</i></p> <p>So I can propose the mechanism (A.) but it's taboo to speculate on what the effects may be (B.) because that makes me a crank.</p> <p>It's like the Apollo disaster linked to hear above, a form of peer pressure to better not speak up that it might be dangerous. Be humble and shut up.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546124&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Gezadfpm8ou9JLLRz4AC3xPeh2Nzq4_1QrgGGu6jWM0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546124">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546125" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504689466"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>No doubt that a proton beam can produce radiation that's deadly to humans, or in the case of the lucky researcher you cited, harmful. (Lucky he didn't die, that is). Still, the kinetic energy of the proton is certainly insufficient to "pulverize matter". This researcher suffered from radiation poisoning due to the proton beam collision; he was not pulverized. </p> <p>I think you missed my point in a couple of respects. The CERN researchers ARE investigating, at least unintentionally so, whether p-p collisions at 40 MHz and 13 TeV are potentially dangerous. They are doing so by actually carrying out such collisions. Where are the earth-shattering proton decays? Why are we still here to debate about it? Obviously, this is NOT a cause for concern, at least at current energies. Physics DOES give an answer to how much energy is needed for such collisions to cause effects like you posit, namely the Planck energy. We are quite far below such energies, and there is no prospect of ever reaching them, though.</p> <p>Also, no, working through the consequences of your hypothesis is fine. However, show me where you have actually done so. In fact, your "idea" really does not even qualify as a hypothesis. It basically boils down to "given enough energy and a high enough frequency of collision, something might happen". You've tried several different "soemthings" in that statement: Higgs field vibrations, gravity waves, proton excitations, etc. Which one is it? If all, show mechanisms for each. What is the threshold energy at which harmful effects might be observed? What is the mechanism for the chain reaction that you posit? Why have we not observed even a hint of such mechanisms at the current 13 TeV energy and 40 MHz frequency? Answer some of these questions and you might just go from crank to an actual hypothesis (which may yet turn out to be false, but at least it would be something testable). </p> <p>Finally, my apologies about the MM reference. I misread your comment in that regard.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546125&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yvygdONJlqBf6MrceFS9V5CJYu7pguGTn7EUijOq4i0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546125">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546126" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504689707"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BTW, elle, you are leaning heavily toward the "crank" end of the scale right now for another reason. You have a choice of two options:</p> <p>1. The entire physics community currently is so hell-bent on keeping their jobs and running their experiments that they are willing to knowingly endanger all of humanity to keep their jobs and run their test. </p> <p>OR</p> <p>2. Elle HC might just not have a complete and better understanding of the physics involved with the experiments at CERN than the physics community does. </p> <p>You seem to be heavily leaning toward option 1 above. I would hypothesize that you lacking understanding is quite a bit more probable than a grand conspiracy among the physics community to risk destruction of the earth.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546126&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="1sPqzW0akTdgzjQ-phd0y2kk67uGPGzXdi3JbTHrAKc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546126">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546127" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504694116"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"This researcher suffered from radiation poisoning due to the proton beam collision; he was not pulverized."</i></p> <p>Yeah right.</p> <p><b>pulverize</b><br /> ˈpʌlvərʌɪz<br /> verb<br /> reduce to fine particles.<br /> "the brick of the villages was pulverized by the bombardment"<br /> synonyms:<br /> grind, crush, pound, crumble, powder, turn to dust; mill, crunch, squash, etc.</p> <p>--</p> <p>The rest of your comment has already been discussed, no need to go round in circles.</p> <p>Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546127&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="q_xmAnSB66iIFlA-pwLHIwE8vR9AOCu2_p033Ql_3sg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546127">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546128" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504714556"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a basic instinct not to jeopardize your own career...</p></blockquote> <p>How are the careers of physicists not working on the LHC jeopardized by deveolping a revolutionary new understanding of proton physics that would call into question the LHC's safety?</p> <p>I mean you're basically talking about a Nobel Prize level of discovery. And you're trying to claim <i>every particle physicist on the planet</i> is refusing to consider it because of some loyalty to CERN. You don't see the conspiracy nuttiness in that?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546128&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="qsMsBF__lN7CHlBYxI3Jmb1NMTESNwTzJaF6g-mfeps"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546128">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546129" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504715178"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>So I can propose the mechanism (A.) but it’s taboo to speculate on what the effects may be (B.) because that makes me a crank.</p></blockquote> <p>As I said in @57, proposing a novel mechanism doesn't make you a crank. Demanding physicists shut down a facility based on one person's unevidenced, metaphoric, unquantified concept makes you a crank. And within the last two days, claiming that no physicist <i>in the entire world</i> would consider the idea because of job security also makes you a crank. For goodness' sake, Elle, what the heck do you think would make a Chinese scientist withold that info? They're peer competitors and would (IMO) happily stick a finger in the eye of the US/European science establishment. (IMO) Their government practically encourages it. The same is true (IMO) for the BJP in India. It takes a real crank to think all scientists on the entire planet have a shared interest in this. It also takes a crank to think every significant physics job in the entire world is dependent on it's occupant not saying bad things about the LHC.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546129&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="oBeEN-GM_x_AHQ0D39msui1hBolbgQLrhfUFqxKnahg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546129">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546130" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504730352"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"As I said in @57, proposing a novel mechanism doesn’t make you a crank."</i></p> <p>I already discussed this with you at #59:</p> <p><i>"“Insisting particle physics experiments be halted merely because your metaphor leads you to think there is a risk makes you a crank.”</i></p> <p>Yes, that’s something I have realized, so that’s not something I’m asking ATM. But had expect that the LHC safety paper had included a study on the relationship between the collisions and surrounding matter, but it’s handwaved away.</p> <p>Are you drunk or so that you already forgot what I said before perhaps just dumb or blissfully ignorant?</p> <p>Like I said to Sean T read what's already been written because we're going round in circles.</p> <p>Take care.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546130&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZyStQm-MemeF698CMLd0Xmhz9GnYjayQNkt235U1Yl8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546130">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546131" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504749918"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>we’re going round in circles.</p></blockquote> <p>As long as you have no new evidence for your position, we will continue to repeat the same mainstream arguments to point out why you're (inductively, provisionally, with the conclusion subject to revision should new evidence come along etc...) wrong. As with all "challenger" ideas in science, the burden of proof is really on you to show why we should give any credence to your idea - there's no burden on us to come up with new or novel counter-arguments every time you repeat your same contention.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546131&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="VTLxz68Ub2gHJF-Bgp0hipieTsCXfTFSJd0VyJ6xj0Y"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546131">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546132" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504758375"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"As long as you have no new evidence for your position, we will continue to repeat the same mainstream arguments to point out why you’re … wrong."</i></p> <p>Ok.</p> <p>But the last few post were no longer about that, for instance you wrote:</p> <p>A. <i>"How are the careers of physicists not working on the LHC jeopardized by deveolping a revolutionary new understanding of proton physics that would call into question the LHC’s safety?</i></p> <p>I mean you’re basically talking about a Nobel Prize level of discovery."</p> <p>B. <i>"Demanding physicists shut down a facility based on one person’s unevidenced, metaphoric, unquantified concept makes you a crank."</i></p> <p>It is the same argument as the one by 'Sean T' @ #71 that I responded too @ #72.</p> <p>You see the irony also in your example, where on the one hand such a theory deserves the Nobel prize (if correct), but if you'd give the slightest hint that there's a hazard, before you have any proof, that would make you a crank.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546132&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bTv4RcFzzr2GCeMVI5QX9R7XwAGufVyCa29jyPwFQQA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546132">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546133" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504774877"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>For the record... for newbies and lurker-readers, in reply to Sean T's slander in #71: "BTW, comparing yourself to Mooney certainly isn’t going to lend you any credibility on here. "...</p> <p>My latest criticism here was that Ethan presents statements as facts which are only theoretical, not supported by any evidence, and that he is proud of it, as if my exposing his dishonesty were a compliment.</p> <p>My criticisms of relativity are based on objective realism... that the physical cosmos is as it is independent of differences in observational frames of reference. Examples are ubiquitous: The lengths of physical objects and the distances between them does not depend on observational differences, in spite of the "Lorentz Transformation" by which the slower one's clock is ticking (after acceleration to higher speed) the shorter the distance traveled... etc.<br /> "Length contraction" ("length is not invariant" according to SR) also includes shrinking trains, flattened planets, variable depth of Earth's atmosphere and reduced distance between stars, depending on the traveler's speed.</p> <p>Also, "spacetime" is not a malleable entity. It's a geometric/ math MODEL presented as a substantial "real world" entity. (Dishonest science) Plus it is supposed to allow "time travel" via the "block universe" MODEL, turning science fiction into "credible science." That's enough scare quotes for one post.</p> <p>All of the above makes me a crank here, a target for endless personal attacks.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546133&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SYPEpji1tGnIllnnNdZqT8zILAbqVkDF5MJ7yemFgzw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546133">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546134" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504801021"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You see the irony also in your example, where on the one hand such a theory deserves the Nobel prize (if correct), but if you’d give the slightest hint that there’s a hazard, before you have any proof, that would make you a crank.</p></blockquote> <p>Where is the irony? Any discovery that radically overturns our current understanding is a likely candidate for the Nobel prize. Admitted. Agreed. That doesn't mean I think every claim that would radically overturn current understanding is worth investigating. To paraphrase Carl Sagan; the fact that some genius ideas were laughed at does not mean every idea that is laughed at is genius.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546134&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="iJzjOiDd5yKNfjuJlCIyP2zUGi22bdJ1pFJh7yPshoc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546134">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546135" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504820171"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"Where is the irony?"</i></p> <p><i>"the fact that some genius ideas were laughed at does not mean every idea that is laughed at is genius."</i></p> <p>No, that's not it. You exactly defined the reason to switch from possibly acceptable to definitely crank, and it is when the idea becomes a threat:</p> <p>• <i>"Demanding physicists shut down a facility based on one person’s unevidenced, metaphoric, unquantified concept makes you a crank.”</i></p> <p>• <i>"Your contention, without proposal of a legitimate underlying mechanism, that such a reaction could be a real threat to life on earth IS crankbait.”</i></p> <p>You both give someone the benefit of the doubt, but not when someone is saying there might be a hazard. It is defense mechanism, perhaps because you experience it as an attack. </p> <p>Someone objective wouldn't make that 'ironic' switch from possible genius to definitely crank because of the possible consequences.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546135&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="feH_4rjINFQlFlyPM4xfes9BLGFdsqz2mv-w0l_sxSE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 07 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546135">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546136" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504847595"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>I guess the part you missed is "underlying mechanism". What is the underlying mechanism in your idea. So far, all you've given is "maybe Higgs field vibrations" or "maybe gravitational waves". What you have failed to do is show HOW such phenomena would result in a dangerous situation. Your analogies to resonance in glasses fail because glasses are aggregates of massive numbers of particles, whereas the CERN tests are collisions involving only two particles (two protons). The remnants of those collisions can further interact with other particles, but (discounting three or more-way interactions which are of very low probability), they will always be two particle interactions. Phenomena like resonance are emergent phenomena involving aggregates of particles, not microscopic interactions. Even a concept such as "temperature" really doesn't have meaning for a single particle. That's why your arguments by analogy are not good ones. </p> <p>Now, if you came up with some chain reaction mechanism by which a microscopic two-particle interaction could propagate throughout a macroscopic mass, then you might be on to something and might be taken seriously. You would need to show how the energy from one interaction is propagated in such a way as to produce subsequent interactions. The example of a fission reactor is a good one. A neutron is absorbed by a fissionable nucleus. The subsequent fission of that nucleus produces four more neutrons, which can go on to trigger subsequent fission events. That's a legitimate mechanism for a chain reaction. </p> <p>In your proposal, what is it that triggers the initial reaction (akin to the neutron absorption in the fission case)? What is it that the reaction produces (more neutrons?) What mechanism is it that allows the products to continue to propagate the reaction? (obvious in the case of fission, since neutrons can directly trigger further reactions. This mechanism need not be so direct). </p> <p>Start talking about things like this, and stop talking about conspiracies among the physics community to hide the threat so that they can keep their jobs. I am not personally a physicist and am not involved with CERN in any way. I really don't care if they keep their jobs or not (beyond my human compassion to not want to see people suffer needlessly). So far you have given no serious evidence that there may be a danger. </p> <p>Your argument is akin to me saying that the quantum flux of the Higgs field might destroy your house if you reply to this message. It's word salad; it's not a real idea based on a real understanding of physics. You can't prove I'm wrong, but I have no evidence that I'm right. If I expect you to take my warning seriously, then it is incumbent upon me to provide evidence that my warning is actually credible. I cannot do so. Neither can you in the case of your warning.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546136&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Ob71gjZmWtO8L3NicF5Day_W-4vbk9w3pOSSKg4NP98"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546136">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546137" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504849933"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p>I haven't spoken of conspiracies, don't pin that on me.</p> <p><i>"Your argument is akin to me saying that the quantum flux of the Higgs field might destroy your house if you reply to this message. It’s word salad; it’s not a real idea based on a real understanding of physics. You can’t prove I’m wrong, but I have no evidence that I’m right."</i></p> <p>That's nonsense and a way to ridicule my argument.</p> <p>What you should compare it to in your example, is starting construction works next to your house and drilling heavily … now one can ask the question could the intensity of the drilling shake my your property apart? Or think of an earthquake and a tsunami that travels hundreds of miles ripping up the ocean shores.</p> <p>That's what (particle) collisions are about, generatin waves and waves and waves of energy that spread out, hitting everything in their path.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546137&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="VnJ69T-BibYTRie2hGb4SUqRhmnIpB6U5SgO6vWHWnw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546137">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546138" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504855287"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Again, your analogies fail. We know the mechanisms by which tsunamis and construction site drilling can damage properties. We DON'T know the mechanism for how 13 TeV (which have MUCH less energy than construction site drills or tsunamis); could destroy the earth. Until you can explain that mechanism, I am afraid your argument IS in fact nonsense.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546138&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fGUEAg4VQztGGsnPzG2puxq6NDmc69j4NF-vY6cKLNc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546138">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546139" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504855778"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"We know the mechanisms by which tsunamis and construction site drilling can damage properties."</i></p> <p>Yes, through Goldstone bosons:</p> <blockquote><p>“The most familiar goldstone bosons are the phonons that carry sound through solids. If you hit your fist on a table that sound is being propagated through the material by goldstone bosons moving through the material.”</p></blockquote> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546139&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="bVBMGklfAEKIV0qkg1YaSCzW5WINqtsbehTfJ32fHVQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546139">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546140" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504856221"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>You do understand, right, that there MUST be a chain reaction to cause any kind of serious macroscopic damage. The power output of the LHC assuming 40 MHz luminosity and 13 TeV collision energies is about 83W, just a bit more than a typical household light bulb. Things like resonance are NOT microscopic phenomena; they are properties of large aggregates of particles acting in concert. There ARE no such aggregations of particles in the LHC system; it's a pretty good vacuum. As such, resonances are pretty much ruled out. The only way to build up energy is for some hitherto unknown reaction to have a chain mechanism that spirals out of control. What is that mechanism? </p> <p>There's a big jump between "there may be a hitherto unknown particle decay that might be observed at the collision energies at which the LHC operates" and "there is a possibility that such a hitherto unobserved reaction could cause macroscopic energy release."</p> <p>It's the same difference as the difference between ordinary radioactivity and nuclear fission. Ordinary radioactivity, while it can be biologically harmful, is NEVER going to cause damage to macroscopic structures, regardless of how much radioactive material is present or how active such material is. We can observe rapid beta decay for as long as we want, and there will never be any reason to worry that the building we are sitting in will be destroyed. Fission, as I have tried to point out previously is a different animal. Fission is triggered by neutrons and produces more neutrons than it consumes. This leads to a potentially runaway chain reaction that can destroy a city. </p> <p>The mechanism by which this occurs is known, though. What we don't know is the mechanism by which your hypothesized proton decay will cause an uncontrollable chain of such decays. If you want to get out of crank territory, specify that mechanism so that others can evaluate the probability of its occurrence. You are still getting mixed up on where the burden of proof lies. It does NOT lie upon the scientific community to disprove your idea. It's up to you to provide your evidence for it. Such and such a reaction MIGHT happen is not evidence.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546140&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6zVuisN07QSI1pVpqWB0G3Lok_bDagjdQUnyWp2_9bw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546140">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546141" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504859719"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean T,</p> <p><i>"There ARE no such aggregations of particles in the LHC system; it’s a pretty good vacuum."</i></p> <p>Seriously, plz go check post #35 that's the time when SL realized what the mechanism is that I am suggesting, this after a long explanation from my part over multiple posts.</p> <p>You should also read what others write, it is really annoying to explain the same things over and over again.</p> <p>Now regarding your 'pretty good vacuum' this is how the Higgs field is considered:</p> <blockquote><p>"The Higgs mechanism is a type of superconductivity which occurs in the vacuum. It occurs when all of <b>space is filled with a sea of particles</b> which are charged" - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#Landau_model">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism#Landau_model</a></p></blockquote> <p>An other Professor said:</p> <blockquote><p>"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that <b>space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ </b>that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is <b>a relativistic ether.&gt;/b&gt;"</b></p></blockquote> <p>Now go look up what the connection is between those 'Goldstone bosons' and the Higgs Boson.</p> <p>I hope that this time you can finally put all the pieces together and graps what I am actually talking about.</p> <p>BTW how much Watt does a spark need to have to start a Wildfire?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546141&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jZ3Svxg7SKDAVenZs9CQA_eaT3HLP8tDnIDiyWNjiiA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546141">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546142" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504866743"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>You both give someone the benefit of the doubt, but not when someone is saying there might be a hazard. It is defense mechanism, perhaps because you experience it as an attack.<br /></p><blockquote> <p>LOL even if you stop saying we should shut down the LHC, and limit yourself to claiming high intensity proton reactions will create a cascade of gravity waves, I'm not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that happens, and I would want you to show me evidence supporting it before I accepted that it happens.</p> <p>But, as to your accusation that I'm being "defensive," maybe an analogy would help. Let's say I live in LA and my neighbor Elle tells me she fears North Korea may launch a successful nuclear ICBM at LA. I personally think this is not credible, but if her response to this belief is to watch the news every day, I won't think she's acting particularly crazy. She's collecting more data; testing her initial belief. Responding to a low-credibility fear with a low expenditure of resources. But if she goes before the HOA and demands it use $millions of our HOA money to build a big nuclear bunker under our neighborhood, I'm going to oppose it and think she's nuts. Is my opposition to her bunker-building demand "defensive"? Is it ironic that my response to her claim differs depending on what she does about it? I don't think so; I think it's perfectly normal to see a low-grade response to a low-grade fear as okay, but a high-grade response to a low-grade fear as irrational. </p> <blockquote><p>Someone objective wouldn’t make that ‘ironic’ switch from possible genius to definitely crank because of the possible consequences.</p></blockquote> <p>In that case I will avoid giving the impression that I ever thought your ideas was 'possible genius' in the future, as I didn't mean to do that. I thought it was obvious that I was putting your idea in the second of Sagan's categories, not the first. But I guess that wasn't obvious so I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.</p></blockquote> </blockquote> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546142&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="GYA6MTc7DedJTFPHkcEqeGekiaS2EVNJqeUuFdwLUVU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546142">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546143" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504867906"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"LOL even if you … limit yourself to claiming high intensity proton reactions will create a cascade of gravity waves, I’m not going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I don’t think that happens, and I would want you to show me evidence supporting it before I accepted that it happens.</i></p> <p>Someone who works at CERN has told me that there are GWs at the LHC but that they are "something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected".</p> <p>SL even asked how he knew this and the guy told me that he "plugged in numbers into the quadrupole formula".</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546143&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="7TBCGLTK9hyrK9Ku-AM6VntxnOxta_kby96dv0oOtFw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546143">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546144" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504895990"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>Someone who works at CERN has told me that there are GWs at the LHC...the guy told me that he “plugged in numbers into the quadrupole formula”</p></blockquote> <p>Oh lordy. I think even the Enquirer would need more than that.</p> <p>Do you think maybe your game of telephone might have been referring to <a href="https://home.cern/about/updates/2017/09/constructive-interference-cern-and-gravitational-waves">this</a>? It even uses the term 'constructive interference,' though here it's being used as a double entendre rather than scientific term of art.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546144&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="MSyNUZ0xoHEJ_Dwi9DFnz1ZBHw0f_wnBGBGpF0UaI58"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546144">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1546145" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1504907813"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>"Oh lordy. I think even the Enquirer would need more than that."</i></p> <p>Ethan already explained quadrupolar radiation here above in his comment to 'Klavs Hansen', and I already told you this at #49.</p> <p>Anyway, if you don't believe me go ask 'mfb' at 'physicsforums . com'<br /><a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/members/mfb.405866/">https://www.physicsforums.com/members/mfb.405866/</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1546145&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="l5zrQqb6S88_R1nCwYoDp8CVkeFWY0Op8kLqbwcFfcU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 08 Sep 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1546145">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/08/27/comments-of-the-week-174-from-growing-black-holes-to-nuclear-bombs%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 27 Aug 2017 07:37:38 +0000 esiegel 37080 at https://scienceblogs.com Starting from scratch, creating a complete pox virus https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/07/07/starting-from-scratch-creating-a-complete-pox-virus <span>Starting from scratch, creating a complete pox virus</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>People talk about resurrecting the Mammoth, the Dodo, the Quagga, or the Tasmanian devil, or any number of extinct (or mostly extinct) creatures. I'm all for that. I suggest removing cattle farming in Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and adjoining areas of Canada, and repopulating the region with extinct megafauna. That would just be cool. </p> <p>There are difficulties with this, including figuring out exactly how to piece together the genome for the extinct animal, how to get a good level of genetic diversity in the neo-founding population, and how to raise the critter up from a zygote. For all these reasons, I've always thought we should start by resurrecting something that already exists. We normally do this sort of dry run or practice run with things we do. In baseball, golf, and other ball sports, athletes take pre-swings. We went "to" the moon a couple of times before landing "on" the moon. Etc. So, let's start by resurrecting a fruit fly, them maybe a chicken, then a dog. That sort of thing.</p> <p>A potentially important public health concern is the re-emergence, one way or another, of small pox or something like small pox. In order to manage that, we would like to see more research involving vaccines. An ideal way to carry out vaccine research without risking the release of full blown small pox (which may or may not be frozen somewhere) on the population is to create a small pox virus (small pox is a virus) from scratch, using a known genetic code. In so doing, the parts of the virus that allow it to spread could be denatured, and the parts of the virus that allow research for vaccines or cures could be left in place. </p> <p>In essence, creating such a Frankensteinian life form is like resurrecting an extinct species. And, some Canadian scientists stole my idea and went ahead and resurrected a non-extinct species in order to test out the plausibility of the method. The research is not published and likely won't be, because it would be too easily misused by nefarious actors. But, the results were discussed at <a href="http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/smallpox/18-ACVVR-Final.pdf?ua=1">a meeting</a> several months ago, and now there is something new about it in <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/how-canadian-researchers-built-poxvirus-100000-using-mail-order-dna">Science</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>Eradicating smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases in history, took humanity decades and cost billions of dollars. Bringing the scourge back would probably take a small scientific team with little specialized knowledge half a year and cost about $100,000.</p> <p>That’s one conclusion from an unusual and as-yet unpublished experiment performed last year by Canadian researchers. A group led by virologist David Evans of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, says it has synthesized the horsepox virus, a relative of smallpox, from genetic pieces ordered in the mail. ...</p></blockquote> <p>The story is also covered by the<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/07/07/scientists-synthesize-smallpox-cousin-in-ominous-breakthrough/?utm_term=.63595fb40506&amp;wpisrc=al_alert-hse&amp;wpmk=1"> Washington Post</a>. </p> <p>And, here is a previously released press release:</p> <blockquote><p><strong>Tonix Pharmaceuticals Announces Demonstrated Vaccine Activity in First-Ever Synthesized Chimeric Horsepox Virus</strong></p> <p><em>Pre-Clinical Smallpox-Preventing Vaccine Candidate TNX-801 May Qualify for Priority Review Voucher if FDA-Approved Under Provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act</em></p> <p><strong>NEW YORK, March 02, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) --</strong> Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. (Nasdaq:TNXP) (Tonix), a company that is developing innovative pharmaceutical products to address public health challenges, working with researchers from the University of Alberta, a leading Canadian research university, today announced the successful synthesis of a potential smallpox-preventing vaccine. This vaccine candidate, TNX-801, is a live form of horsepox virus (HPXV) that has been demonstrated to have protective vaccine activity in mice. </p> <p>“Presently, the safety concern of existing smallpox-preventing vaccines outweigh the potential benefit to provide immunization of first responders or the general public. By developing TNX-801 as a horsepox vaccine to prevent smallpox infection, we hope to have a safer vaccine to protect against smallpox than is currently available,” stated Seth Lederman, M.D., president and chief executive officer of Tonix. “Vaccines are a critical component of the infrastructure of global public health. Vaccination protects those who are vaccinated and also those who are not vaccinated, by decreasing the risk of contagion.” </p> <p>“Our goal is to improve on current methods that protect the public from possible viral outbreaks,” said Professor David Evans, Ph.D., FCAHS, Professor and Vice-Dean (Research), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry at the University of Alberta, in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and principal investigator of the TNX-801 research project. </p> <p>HPXV was synthesized by Professor Evans and Research Associate Ryan Noyce, Ph.D., at the University of Alberta, with Dr. Lederman as co-investigator of the research and co-inventor of the TNX-801 patent. Under their research and development agreement, Tonix wholly owns the synthesized HPXV virus stock and related sequences. Professor Evans and Dr. Noyce also demonstrated that HPXV has protective vaccine activity in mice, using a model of lethal vaccinia infection. Vaccine manufacturing activities have been initiated by Tonix to support further nonclinical testing of TNX-801. </p> <p>Dr. Lederman stated, “Our research collaboration is dedicated to creating tools and innovative products that better protect public health.” </p> <p>About Horsepox (HPXV) and Smallpox </p> <p>Horsepox, an equine disease caused by a virus and characterized by eruptions in the mouth and on the skin, is believed to be eradicated. No true HPXV outbreaks have been reported since 1976, at which time the United States Department of Agriculture obtained the viral sample used for the sequence published in 2006 that allowed the synthesis of TNX-801. In 1798, Dr. Edward Jenner, English physician and scientist, speculated that smallpox is a human version of pox diseases in animals. Jenner had a strong suspicion that his vaccine began as a pox disease in horses and went on to show that it could be used to vaccinate against smallpox. Smallpox was eradicated as a result, and no cases of naturally occurring smallpox have been reported since 1977. Jenner’s vaccine appears to have evolved considerably in the vaccinia stocks maintained in different countries around the world, since vaccinia was mostly selected for growth and production. Being able to provide safe and effective smallpox-preventing vaccines remains important and necessary for addressing and protecting public health. </p> <p>About the Material Threat Medical Countermeasures Provisions in the 21st Century Cures Act </p> <p>In 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act (Act) was signed into law to support ongoing biomedical innovation. One part of the Act, Section 3086, is aimed at “Encouraging Treatments for Agents that Present a National Security Threat.” This section of the Act created a new priority review voucher program for “material threat medical countermeasures.” The Act defines such countermeasures as drugs or vaccines intended to treat biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents that present a national security threat, or to treat harm from a condition that may be caused by administering a drug or biological product against such an agent. The priority review vouchers are awarded at the time of FDA approval and are fully transferrable and may be sold to other companies to be used for priority review of any New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologic Licensing Application (BLA). </p> <p>About Tonix Pharmaceuticals Holding Corp. </p> <p>Tonix is developing innovative pharmaceutical products to address public health challenges, with TNX-102 SL in Phase 3 development for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). TNX-102 SL is designed for bedtime use and is believed to improve overall PTSD symptoms by improving sleep quality in PTSD patients. PTSD is a serious condition characterized by chronic disability, inadequate treatment options especially for military-related PTSD and overall high utilization of healthcare services creating significant economic burden. TNX-102 SL was recently granted Breakthrough Therapy designation by the FDA for the treatment of PTSD. Other development efforts include TNX-601, a clinical candidate at Pre-IND (Investigational New Drug) application stage, designed for daytime use for the treatment of PTSD, and TNX-801, a potential smallpox-preventing vaccine. </p> <p>*TNX-102 SL (cyclobenzaprine HCl sublingual tablets) is an investigational new drug and has not been approved for any indication. </p> <p>This press release and further information about Tonix can be found at <a href="http://www.tonixpharma.com">www.tonixpharma.com</a>. </p> <p>Forward Looking Statements </p> <p>Certain statements in this press release are forward-looking within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements may be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “forecast,” “estimate,” “expect,” and “intend,” among others. These forward-looking statements are based on Tonix's current expectations and actual results could differ materially. There are a number of factors that could cause actual events to differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, substantial competition; our need for additional financing; uncertainties of patent protection and litigation; uncertainties of government or third party payor reimbursement; limited research and development efforts and dependence upon third parties; and risks related to failure to obtain FDA clearances or approvals and noncompliance with FDA regulations. As with any pharmaceutical under development, there are significant risks in the development, regulatory approval and commercialization of new products. Tonix does not undertake an obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement. Investors should read the risk factors set forth in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) on March 3, 2016, and future periodic reports filed with the SEC on or after the date hereof. All of Tonix's forward-looking statements are expressly qualified by all such risk factors and other cautionary statements. The information set forth herein speaks only as of the date hereof.</p></blockquote> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Fri, 07/07/2017 - 05:06</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/uncategorized" hreflang="en">Uncategorized</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/horse-pox-virus" hreflang="en">Horse pox virus</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/small-pox" hreflang="en">small pox</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/vaccine-research" hreflang="en">Vaccine Research</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483837" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499439124"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Let's not just replace the cattle of Northwest America with <b>extinct megafauna</b>; let us also reverse-engineer the ancient human brain and replace it with <b>robotic megafauna</b>. Yesterday I was able to do some cross-fertilization of ideas in the <a href="http://discourse.numenta.org/t/cognitve-psychology-and-htm-theory/2493"><b>HTM Forum</b></a> of Numenta, about which in 2005 I wrote my only <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/03/24/1518224/palm-founders-form-ai-company"><b>Slashdot story</b></a>. Numenta is where serious AI enthusiasts are taking the laborious approach of reverse-engineering the neocortex of the<br /> human brain. Then Mentifex here swoops in and claims to have solved AI with a totally top-down approach to <a href="http://ai.neocities.org/theory.html"><b>how the mind works</b></a>. The Mentifex AI Minds are based on theoretical ideas of the <b>macro properties</b> of neurons, such as extending spatially and temporally over a putative MindGrid and having as many as ten thousand synapses with other neurons. The Mentifex Minds use neural inhibition to dislodge briefly topmost ideas in favor of ascendant other ideas. Since Mentifex AI is concerned mainly with neuron-based concepts playing a role in thinking, I reverse-engineer neurons only enough to create AI software that can demonstrably think and reason in English, German and Russian. I hope to <b>poach</b> some great minds who think alike from the Numenta project. It could take a thousand years to reverse-engineer the neocortex, and Science-Bloggers who get tired of waiting for such a bottom-up approach are welcome to try out the <a href="http://ai.neocities.org/perlmind.txt"><b>ghost</b></a>.pl top-down AI that runs in <a href="http://strawberryperl.com"><b>Strawberry Perl 5</b></a>. My goal is to release basic AI software with sufficient intellectual functionality that individuals and teams, even if working in secret, will latch on to my existing codebase, <b>reverse-engineer</b> it, and and create from it even better AI Minds than we <b><i>tenues grandia</i></b> are capable of.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483837&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EkSLBrGNHH76d5aTlIksm6j00XQleJyabORWRezvoSU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Mentifex (Arthur T. Murray)">Mentifex (Arth… (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483837">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483838" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499439944"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Go chew on your car, dude.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483838&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FEDqClH0FZvnUmUZHmE3zghFLBwupUY3W4AHNTiCNhU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Wow (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483838">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483839" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499444024"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hers all you need to know about the crank ATMurray and his nonsensical AI "theory".</p> <p><a href="http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html">http://www.nothingisreal.com/mentifex_faq.html</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483839&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9oQuQ84jt0BMIhP0VDxBCqh3XsomrFFrlXvx6a6TizI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">dean (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483839">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483840" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499501228"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Hello... ...ello... ...ello...</p> <p>Time cube... ...ube... ...ube...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483840&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="JQP9tGCZyF5nlL2RfwDyQblnj07q9C9NqfMrYK0sPns"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bernard J. (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483840">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483841" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499502554"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>De-extinction is close to my heart - I have colleagues from my postgrad days working on it. I tend not to comment on it too much for particular reasons, not all entirely unrelated to some of the points in Greg's piece, but that said I think that there are benefits to exercises such as Archer's enthusiasm for the thylacine. It's a flagship for the cost <i>vs</i> practicalities of getting to:</p> <p>1) the point of having a defined potentially-operational extinct genome,</p> <p>2) the point of reconstituting it in a surrogate such that it's possible to get the extinct species back, minus any sort of genetic pudding,</p> <p>3) the point of having an immunological and non-immunological allelic diversity that will provide a minimum viable population, and</p> <p>4) the point of learned behaviours that characterised the pre-extinction manifestations of the recovered species, and that are crucial to their integrations into a functioning ecosystem.</p> <p>Compare the cost of achieving 1-4 with the cost of protecting species and their ecosystems from extinction in the first place, and I suspect the bean-counters will clutch their pearls in horror. It's such a shame that conservative minds are characterised by an inability to think broadly, and into the future, beyond their own immediate egocentric concerns.</p> <p>On microbiological tinkering, all I will say is watch that space. This is one of the edges of science where the boundary between fact and fiction is at best akin to the braided ropes used to delineate the queues in cinemas and theatres.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483841&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TDRJh5RhDMrsnBEkvAMqVxUAOt-ECvNQW1QUKhwrBNw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Bernard J. (not verified)</span> on 08 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483841">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483842" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499758737"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>People talk about resurrecting the Mammoth, the Dodo, the Quagga, or the Tasmanian devil, or any number of extinct (or mostly extinct) creatures.</p></blockquote> <p>I think you may have meant the Tasmanian <i>tiger</i> (aka thylacine, aka marsupial wolf) there, as the Tasmanian devil certainly isn't extinct, or even "mostly extinct". (Although it is endangered, largely due to a combination of road mortality and Devil facial tumour disease.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483842&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="zPgpuaTwbG3qmW9DApxsH3sspXv0FJJ2UMD5ax3jQ-0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Dunc (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483842">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483843" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1503687068"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Do you feel like smallpox could re-emerge in the next 5 years?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483843&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9YHd4cS9Lv2p--hdzn3oiMhm3RdPZ52EYSghywhV0JE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Missy Barnes (not verified)</span> on 25 Aug 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483843">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2017/07/07/starting-from-scratch-creating-a-complete-pox-virus%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:06:04 +0000 gregladen 34452 at https://scienceblogs.com Affluence Without Abundance https://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/07/03/affluence-without-abundance <span>Affluence Without Abundance</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>My father in law is an excellent amateur mixologist. I don't drink alcohol very often, but we're all up at the cabins, so last night I had a paper plane. And I believe this is what led to a night of strange and extensive dreams, and in my dreams was my recently deceased PhD adviser, Irv DeVore. (Irv was not dead in the dream.) DeVore is famous for having initiated, with Richard Lee, the first scientific study of extant living foragers, and they worked with the Ju/'Honasi of Botswana/Namibia/South Africa. </p> <p>So, it was strange to have the lingering dream on my mind as I opened the latest Science magazine to see a review, by Alan Barnard, of a recent and interesting book on those people: <a target="_blank" href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1632865726/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&amp;camp=1789&amp;creative=9325&amp;creativeASIN=1632865726&amp;linkCode=as2&amp;tag=grlasbl0a-20&amp;linkId=5450d853d8b299e3638c8219f85e9443">Affluence Without Abundance: The Disappearing World of the Bushmen</a><img src="//ir-na.amazon-adsystem.com/e/ir?t=grlasbl0a-20&amp;l=am2&amp;o=1&amp;a=1632865726" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />.</p> <blockquote><p>A vibrant portrait of the “original affluent society”--the Bushmen of southern Africa--by the anthropologist who has spent much of the last twenty-five years documenting their encounter with modernity.</p> <p>If the success of a civilization is measured by its endurance over time, then the Bushmen of the Kalahari are by far the most successful in human history. A hunting and gathering people who made a good living by working only as much as needed to exist in harmony with their hostile desert environment, the Bushmen have lived in southern Africa since the evolution of our species nearly two hundred thousand years ago.</p> <p>In Affluence Without Abundance, anthropologist James Suzman vividly brings to life a proud and private people, introducing unforgettable members of their tribe, and telling the story of the collision between the modern global economy and the oldest hunting and gathering society on earth. In rendering an intimate picture of a people coping with radical change, it asks profound questions about how we now think about matters such as work, wealth, equality, contentment, and even time. Not since Elizabeth Marshall Thomas's The Harmless People in 1959 has anyone provided a more intimate or insightful account of the Bushmen or of what we might learn about ourselves from our shared history as hunter-gatherers.</p></blockquote> <p>Barnard says:</p> <blockquote><p>The book is full of illuminating observations from the Bushmen themselves. In one passage, for example, Suzman relates an encounter with ≠Oma, one of the resettlement community's most established residents, who once served as a foreman when Skoonheid was still a working farm: “If you are foreman,” ≠Oma tells Suzman, “then you are the eyes and the ears of the baas [boss] on the farm. You are the chief of the workers and are in charge when the baas is away.” Despite better pay and greater social standing among the white farm owners, ≠Oma never entirely succeeded in securing the respect and deference he demanded from his fellow Ju/'hoansi. Today's Bushmen are part of two worlds, one guided by the group's traditional commitment to egalitarianism and the other based on subjugation.</p> <p>In general, anthropological commentary is kept to a minimum, but Suzman's descriptions are full of insight. “To them everything in the world is natural and everything cultural in the human world is also cultural in the animal world, and ‘wild’ space is also domestic space,” he writes, for example, in chapter 7. “So while Ju/'hoansi consider the litter to be an irritation, few see it as pollution—at least in the way the tourists do.”</p> <p>Suzman's frequent reflexivity (e.g., “I never hunted with /I!ae. I was too clumsy, loud, and slow.”) makes the book far more interesting than typical accounts full of statistical detail, academic references, and the like. The book offers few references, and details are limited to those that make for good reading. There are, however, several useful (albeit simple) maps of the areas described and a brief explanation of how to pronounce clicks.</p></blockquote> <p>The review is <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1340.full">here</a>, but I'm not sure if you can see it without a subscription.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/author/gregladen" lang="" about="/author/gregladen" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">gregladen</a></span> <span>Mon, 07/03/2017 - 05:07</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/africa" hreflang="en">Africa</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/kalahari" hreflang="en">Kalahari</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/bushmen" hreflang="en">Bushmen</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/foragers" hreflang="en">foragers</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/hunter-gatherers" hreflang="en">Hunter-gatherers</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/juhoansi" hreflang="en">Ju/&#039;hoansi</a></div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/san" hreflang="en">San</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1483649" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499116930"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Nope. I'm just getting this : </p> <p>***</p> <blockquote><p>What's next for the Ju/'hoansi?<br /> Alan Barnard<br /> Affluence Without Abundance: The Disappearing World of the Bushmen James Suzman Bloomsbury USA, 2017. 320 pp.<br /> + See all authors and affiliations<br /> Science 30 Jun 2017:<br /> Vol. 356, Issue 6345, pp. 1340<br /> DOI: 10.1126/science.aan6309<br /> Article<br /> Figures &amp; Data<br /> Info &amp; Metrics<br /> eLetters<br /> PDF<br /> Log in to view full text<br /> Via AAAS ID<br /> via AAAS ID<br /> This article is available to AAAS members. If you are a AAAS Member use your via AAAS ID and password to log in. Not a member? Click here to join.</p></blockquote> <p>*** </p> <p>Message / view. </p> <p>There are a whole lot of different joining /subscribing categories with the "Science Advocate"one being $ 65 presumably US currency) for digital and $ 95 for print for a one year subscription.. </p> <p>Sadly, I really don't have the money. </p> <p>*** </p> <p>Dare I ask here how accurate the classic old <i>"The Gods must be Crazy'</i> movie* was regarding the bushmen (San - Namibian) culture and lives?</p> <p>* This one : </p> <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Must_Be_Crazy">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gods_Must_Be_Crazy</a> </p> <p> not sure whether you'll have seen it or heard of it or not but I thought it was pretty good &amp; fun viewing as a kid.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1483649&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="782gJ0cDHJrGJoIVLsNMvjOlwgCmhDwJ17sr-5EiMCc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">StevoR (not verified)</span> on 03 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1483649">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/gregladen/2017/07/03/affluence-without-abundance%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Mon, 03 Jul 2017 09:07:36 +0000 gregladen 34444 at https://scienceblogs.com Comments of the Week #166: from expanding faster than light to periodic mass extinctions https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/25/comments-of-the-week-166-from-expanding-faster-than-light-to-periodic-mass-extinctions <span>Comments of the Week #166: from expanding faster than light to periodic mass extinctions</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>“Already in my original paper I stressed the circumstance that I was unable to give a logical reason for the exclusion principle or to deduce it from more general assumptions. I had always the feeling, and I still have it today, that this is a deficiency.” -Wolfgang Pauli</p></blockquote> <p>There's never a shortage of scientific topics to explore and take interest in here at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/">Starts With A Bang!</a> While we have our usual slew of articles, controversies, opinions and more this week, I'm also so pleased to share <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460">a new podcast</a> with you! This month, thanks to our <a href="https://www.patreon.com/startswithabang" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Patreon supporters</a>, we took on a very bold topic, the one of our very existence. Believe it or not, there's one quantum rule that makes it all possible, and that's <a href="https://soundcloud.com/ethan-siegel-172073460/starts-with-a-bang-21-the-quantum-rule-that-makes-existence-possible">the Pauli exclusion principle</a>!</p> <p></p><center> <iframe src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/329991091&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;visual=true" width="100%" height="450" frameborder="no" scrolling="no"></iframe><p></p></center>So have a listen to 20 minutes of incredible science goodness, and then take a look back at everything we've covered this past week, including: <ul><li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/17/ask-ethan-can-the-universe-ever-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Can the Universe ever expand faster than the speed of light?</a> (for Ask Ethan),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/19/three-spectacular-nebulae-caught-together-revealing-stunning-details-about-star-birth/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Three spectacular nebulae caught together, revealing stunning details about star birth</a> (for Mostly Mute Monday),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/20/from-wartime-devastation-to-academic-discrimination-cecile-dewitt-morette-overcame-it-all/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">From wartime devastation to academic discrimination, Cecile DeWitt-Morette overcame it all</a> (a retrospective by Paul Halpern),</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/21/goodbye-planet-nine-new-and-better-data-strongly-disfavors-a-giant-world-beyond-neptune/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Goodbye, Planet Nine! New and better data disfavors a giant world beyond Neptune</a>,</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/22/ligos-successor-approved-will-discover-incredible-new-sources-of-gravitational-waves/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">LIGO's successor approved; will discover incredible new sources of gravitational waves</a>, and</li> <li><a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/06/23/are-mass-extinctions-periodic-and-are-we-due-for-one/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Are mass exinctions periodic, and are we due for one?</a></li> </ul><p>With everything we've covered, you've had plenty to say, and I want to address as much of it as possible! Come join us for this edition of our <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/category/comments-of-the-week/">comments of the week</a>!</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/BlackHoleArtZoomOut.medium.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36221" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/BlackHoleArtZoomOut.medium-600x223.jpg" alt="Although we've seen black holes directly merging three separate times in the Universe, we know many more exist. Here's where they must be. Image credit: LIGO/Caltech/MIT/Sonoma State (Aurore Simonnet)." width="600" height="223" /></a> Although we've seen black holes directly merging three separate times in the Universe, we know many more exist. Here's where they must be. Image credit: LIGO/Caltech/MIT/Sonoma State (Aurore Simonnet). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/18/comments-of-the-week-165-from-the-size-of-stars-to-doubting-ligo/#comment-580688">Paul Dekous</a> on criticism of LIGO: "To my knowledge it is the first ‘official’ criticism so it’s not like they have to use their time to fight of any other criticism, at least they could have said; “sure, now is a bad time, but you’ll get a response in a month or two”."</p></blockquote> <p>There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of what someone is doing, but it's vital to not be overly skeptical. This is not the same situation as faster-than-light neutrinos, as the BICEP2 results, or even as WMAP claiming insanely early reionization. If the Danish group is right, it means that the LIGO detections are still there, and still robust, but at a lower significance. It also means that there is a component to the LIGO noise that they haven't correctly accounted for, and that might be problematic.</p> <p>That's best-case-scenario for the Danish group. The other major (and favored) scenario is that it is the Danes that are wrong. This has courted enough controversy that this time I will likely write a piece myself this week on LIGO, its criticism, and what it all means.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/Htautau1-1200x675.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35938" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/03/Htautau1-1200x675-600x338.jpg" alt="A Higgs boson event as seen in the Compact Muon Solenoid detector at the Large Hadron Collider. This one high-energy collision illustrates the power of energy conversion, which always exists in the form of particles. Image credit: CERN / CMS Collaboration." width="600" height="338" /></a> A Higgs boson event as seen in the Compact Muon Solenoid detector at the Large Hadron Collider. This one high-energy collision illustrates the power of energy conversion, which always exists in the form of particles. Image credit: CERN / CMS Collaboration. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/18/comments-of-the-week-165-from-the-size-of-stars-to-doubting-ligo/#comment-580690">Elle H.C.</a> on a strange phenomenon from CERN: "Well I was always curious if collisions at the LHC could cause tiny vibrations in SpaceTime and shake up surrounding matter with the risk of disrupting protons, like how you can shake and break a glass from a distance, with a speaker with a strong enough amplitude."</p></blockquote> <p>I have never heard of this theory. How would it work within the Standard Model and/or General Relativity? I, myself, am not aware of any physically consistent scenario that has this sort of consequence arising from the LHC. I brought up Hitchens' razor this week -- what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence -- and I am curious whether that applies here?</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Single_dish.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36263" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Single_dish-600x560.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="560" /></a> A single dish that's currently part of the MeerKAT array will be incorporated into the Square Kilometer Array, along with around 4,000 other equivalent dishes. Image credit: SKA Africa Technical Newsletter, 1 (2016). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/18/comments-of-the-week-165-from-the-size-of-stars-to-doubting-ligo/#comment-580691">Frank</a> on how telescopes create images: "I never understood how radio telescopes create images."</p></blockquote> <p>How is a radio telescope different from any other telescope? When a signal arrives, you only need to deduce just a few pieces of information about that signal:</p> <ul><li>How much energy was in the signal,</li> <li>What the measured frequency of that signal was,</li> <li>And where on the sky that signal was located.</li> </ul><p>That's it. The first one can tell you the "apparent brightness," the second tells you a combination of the rest-frame frequency and the cosmic redshift, and the third one tells you angular position. So point your telescopes, they reflect and focus the waves to a point, and we assign a color/magnitude to that particular position dependent on how we choose to visualize/represent the radio signals.</p> <p>It's really no different than how we "color the Universe" in any other light. I strongly recommend, in that vein, if you want to learn more in general, that you read the book <a href="http://amzn.to/2sG5NR1">Coloring The Universe by Arcand, Watzke and Rector</a>, which I <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/12/13/gift-this-not-that-coloring-the-universe-vs-the-hubble-cosmos/">reviewed in a bit of depth</a> around a year ago here.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Island_of_Stability_derived_from_Zagrebaev.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36282" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Island_of_Stability_derived_from_Zagrebaev-600x272.png" alt="" width="600" height="272" /></a> The theoretical 'island of stability' (circled) in nuclear physics. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/18/comments-of-the-week-165-from-the-size-of-stars-to-doubting-ligo/#comment-580714">eric</a> on the nuclear physics phenomenon of the island of stability: "A word of caution for the layfolk: “stability” is a relative term. It’s entirely possible that the nuclear shell effects Ethan talks about increases the stability of the isotopes in the ‘island of stability’ by a factor of 1,000 or even 1,000,000. But that may mean increasing their expected half-lives from nanoseconds to milliseconds. AFAIK nobody int the business expects these elements to be truly stable or even stable enough to allow us to build up macroscopic supplies of them as we do the actinides. But hey, we won’t know for sure unless/until we produce them."</p></blockquote> <p>This is a really good point. When we talk about nuclear physics, we're dealing with tremendously complicated systems where the strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force -- and even the weak force -- are all at play in extremely large composite systems. A single proton has three valence quarks; these nuclei in question have over 250 nucleons each, with around 800 valence quarks alone, all in a single quantum system. We can predict that these various isotopes of particular nuclei will be <em>more stable</em> than the ones surrounding them on the periodic table, but exactly how much needs to be determined experimentally.</p> <p>And that is still, apparently, quite a ways away.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/redshifts.gif"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36278" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/redshifts-600x548.gif" alt="" width="600" height="548" /></a> The farther a galaxy is, the faster it expands away from us, and the more its light gets redshifted, necessitating that we look at longer and longer wavelengths. Beyond a certain distance, galaxies become unreachable by anything we emit today, even at the speed of light. Image credit: Larry McNish, RASC Calgary. </div> <blockquote><p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/17/ask-ethan-can-the-universe-ever-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-synopsis/#comment-580686">Frank Bennett</a> on whether the Universe can expand faster than light: "I think you need to show, as you have in other articles, that the effect is a purely geometric consequence of the expansion."</p></blockquote> <p>It's quite difficult to show that for a single object. When you measure the light from, say, a distant galaxy, you can measure the same things I talked about when the other Frank asked about how radio telescopes create images, including the wavelength and distribution of light from that object. Some of that redshift will be due to the stretching of spacetime; some of that redshift will be due to "peculiar velocity," or the motion of the object itself relative to its local frame-of-reference.</p> <p>The only way to know how much is one type versus the other is to measure a large variety of objects at a variety of distances; you'll wind up with a picture of the overall expansion of the Universe and another picture, superimposed atop it, of the local effects of gravity pushing and pushing individual galaxies at speeds of tens, hundreds or even thousands of km/s relative to the overall Hubble flow. But on large scales, that geometric effect is easily seen, and extraordinarily prominent.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/12/FERMIphoton_race_full.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-35541" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/12/FERMIphoton_race_full-600x405.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="405" /></a> In this illustration, one photon (purple) carries a million times the energy of another (yellow). Fermi data on two photons from a gamma-ray burst fail to show any travel delay, showing the speed of light's constancy across energy. Image credit: NASA/Sonoma State University/Aurore Simonnet. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/17/ask-ethan-can-the-universe-ever-expand-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-synopsis/#comment-580740">Pentacho Valev</a> on what the constancy of the speed of light means: "Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect implies that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer."</p></blockquote> <p>Not quite, and I have read many of your comments to attempt to see where I think you're making a mistake. You're saying, basically, that:</p> <ul><li>You measure a frequency for your light.</li> <li>Frequency is the speed at which the pulses move divided by the distance between the pulses.</li> <li>A moving observer sees a different frequency than a stationary observer.</li> </ul><p>And therefore, you conclude, that the speed at which the pulses move must be different for different observers, and hence the speed of light is constant. That's what I <em>think</em> your reasoning is.</p> <p>But what Einstein's theory says is that the speed at which the pulses move is <strong>always the speed of light in a vacuum for any type of light or any observer</strong>. So what's changing, for different observers, is twofold: the distance between the pulses, which you have right, by the fact of length contraction, but also the way that each observer measures time, due to the effect of time dilation, which is not encoded anywhere in your plain-English descriptions but which matters nonetheless. That is how the speed of light remains constant for all observers.</p> <p>Read this a few times and think about it for a while, and see if you don't rethink how you've conceived of this problem.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/2cf52b2594e613239ce3c9f851943073.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36290" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/2cf52b2594e613239ce3c9f851943073-600x414.jpg" alt="Cecile DeWitt-Morette at her desk in her office in R.L. Moore Hall. Image credit: University of Texas at Austin, News and Information Service / L. Murphy." width="600" height="414" /></a> Cecile DeWitt-Morette at her desk in her office in R.L. Moore Hall. Image credit: University of Texas at Austin, News and Information Service / L. Murphy. </div> <p>A classic Ethan vs. Denier moment <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/20/from-wartime-devastation-to-academic-discrimination-cecile-dewitt-morette-overcame-it-all-synopsis/">as related by Denier</a> this past week on the topic of Cecile DeWitt-Morette: "<em>Ethan</em>: When you have rules that treat men and women equally in theory, but the practical application of the rules leads to unequal <b>results</b>, that’s a classic example of a rule that doesn’t work.<br /><em>Denier</em>: No Ethan. Bad!<br /> When the practical application of rules leads to unequal <b>opportunity</b>, that’s a classic example of a rule that doesn’t work. The insistence of equality of outcome is a nightmarishly illiberal idea."</p></blockquote> <p>So there's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/20/from-wartime-devastation-to-academic-discrimination-cecile-dewitt-morette-overcame-it-all-synopsis/">a lot more to Denier's comment(s)</a> that you're welcome to read, but the crux of this is very difficult, because I don't inherently disagree with the premise here. Unequal opportunity is bad; if everyone has equal opportunity and we see unequal results, that's not inherently bad. In fact, that would be, ideally, what a true meritocracy would look like.</p> <p>The problem arises when we get into the practical applications. How do you measure whether the opportunity is equal or unequal? Is that something that's even possible? The original rules of UNC appeared to be equal, right? That if one spouse was faculty, then anti-nepotism rules just prohibited the other one from becoming faculty. But practically, most qualified male/female couples had the male member be older and more career-advanced when hired, which effectively barred the female member from access to a full professorship. You will notice that <a href="http://academicpersonnel.unc.edu/prospective-faculty-information/faculty-spousal-and-partner-hiring-assistance-program/">UNC's rules <em>and goals </em>are very, very different now</a>.</p> <p>The best argument I ever read about this issue <a href="http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/05/text-of-justice-david-souters-speech/">was written by David Souter</a>, when he spoke at Harvard in 2010 on the topic of Plessy vs. Ferguson. It's incredibly nuanced, talking about the different questions one was asking about the topics of what equal/unequal opportunity means: does it mean equal facilities, equal access, equal results, etc.? And while the answer to the question of race and segregation and barring access is a no-brainer today, he does a good job of getting into the heads of judges circa the late 19th century. So you can argue about opportunity vs. results, but when you see unequal results, boy, does it strongly suggest the presence of unequal opportunity.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/18558574_10154321265940194_4293925206857578202_o.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36292" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/18558574_10154321265940194_4293925206857578202_o-600x393.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="393" /></a> Cécile DeWitt-Morette (on ladder) and colleagues, circa 1973, give a temporary observatory that will be used in Mauritania a dry run in a UT campus parking lot. Image credit: University of Texas at Austin. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/20/from-wartime-devastation-to-academic-discrimination-cecile-dewitt-morette-overcame-it-all-synopsis/#comment-580739">Elle H.C.</a> on what Cecile DeWitt-Morette actually faced: "Some comments here are distasteful, and all this because she dared to speak up about some inequality along the way.<br /> What do you want, that she just had kept it quiet and only talked about how good life has been to her?"</p></blockquote> <p>You can read <a href="https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/23199">an entire history of the event</a> in an interview that the American Institute of Physics did with Bryce and Cecile when both were still alive. You are, of course, free to think whatever you like about it, but this is what they have to say in their own words. Here are some relevant parts:</p> <blockquote><p>Bryce: "But in the meantime, the people at Chapel Hill has persuaded me to consider putting this thing in Chapel Hill. And I was assured by the department there that it would be bona fide and it wouldn't be run by Bahnson. Chapel Hill is a beautiful place, and I was wanting to get out of Livermore for an academic position, so we went there, both of us, as visiting research professors. After a few years I was given a regular professorship and Cecile was demoted to a lecturer."</p> <p>Cecile: "Without being told it was a demotion. "Oh, it will be so much better for you." And that's the part I didn't like, the hypocrisy of letting me believe that it was better. And in the French context, it could have been better, so I took it for granted."</p></blockquote> <p>Cecile was, no doubt, an opportunist, like a great many other people. And she demanded good things for herself, like many others. Should she just have settled for whatever was offered to her? I would again point to the changes in <a href="http://academicpersonnel.unc.edu/prospective-faculty-information/faculty-spousal-and-partner-hiring-assistance-program/">how spousal hiring is done at UNC</a> and across academia as evidence that her decisions helped affect some tremendous positive change.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Earth_and_Super-Earth.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36294" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Earth_and_Super-Earth-600x360.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="360" /></a> In theory, Planet Nine would likely be similar to the exoplanet 55 Cancri e, which is approximately twice the Earth's radius, but eight times the Earth's mass. This new study, however, disfavors the existence of such a world in our outer Solar System entirely. Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt (SSC). </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/21/goodbye-planet-nine-new-and-better-data-disfavors-a-giant-world-beyond-neptune-synopsis/#comment-580731">John</a> on the demise of the evidence for Planet Nine: "The falsifiability of the Planet Nine theory made it Science. The observations made it unlikely. Sic transit gloria mundi novem."</p></blockquote> <p>I liked Planet Nine as an idea, even though I was skeptical. There are other, indirect pieces of evidence that have come out against Planet Nine, largely based on the observations of TNOs in the outer solar system, but I thought it was most important to highlight the fact that Batygin and Brown's original dataset that motivated it in the first place is now looking... shall we say, woefully insufficient.</p> <p>Also, I can never see "sic transit gloria" without thinking about Max Fischer anymore.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Artist_s_impression_of_the_three_LISA_spacecraft.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36300" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Artist_s_impression_of_the_three_LISA_spacecraft-600x392.jpg" alt="An artist's impression of the three LISA spacecraft shows that the ripples in space generated by longer-period gravitational wave sources should provide an interesting new window on the Universe. Image credit: EADS Astrium." width="600" height="392" /></a> An artist's impression of the three LISA spacecraft shows that the ripples in space generated by longer-period gravitational wave sources should provide an interesting new window on the Universe. Image credit: EADS Astrium. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/22/ligos-successor-approved-will-discover-incredible-new-sources-of-gravitational-waves-synopsis/#comment-580744">Steve Blackband</a> on LIGO, LISA and noise: "How is this affected, if at all, by your recent post that casts doubts on the LIGO observations and suggests that all they saw was noise?"</p></blockquote> <p>First off, no one (serious) is suggesting that "all LIGO saw was noise" at all. People are suggesting that LIGO is seeing correlations in noise that shouldn't be there, and that may pose an issue for the robustness and reliability of the signals, which still show up even with that correlated noise.</p> <p>But what's awesome about LISA is that the overwhelming majority of sources-of-noise that LIGO must contend with disappear for LISA. LISA will have the vacuum of space to contend with, rather than the best vacuum we can make inside a long chamber here on Earth. LISA will be in orbit around Earth, and will lose all the sources of noise from the Earth's ground. Thermal noise will be at a minimum due to active and/or passive cooling on the spacecraft. (I'm not sure that's been finalized.)</p> <p>One of the best parts of LISA, that I tried hard to emphasize, is how <em>non</em>-noisy it will be compared to LIGO. And if there is this mysterious noise correlation, that will be incredibly interesting, and perhaps will lead to -- if not new physics -- at least new advances in understanding the sources of a new type of interferometer noise.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/08/1-U1TKSOmpfiu_JRkSDzPquA.jpeg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-34964" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2016/08/1-U1TKSOmpfiu_JRkSDzPquA-600x440.jpeg" alt="" width="600" height="440" /></a> Special relativity (dotted) and general relativity (solid) predictions for distances in the expanding Universe. Definitively, only GR’s predictions match what we observe. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user Redshiftimprove. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/22/ligos-successor-approved-will-discover-incredible-new-sources-of-gravitational-waves-synopsis/#comment-580775">Sinisa Lazarek</a> on dealing with relativity/Einstein deniers: "And then at the end of the day, when scientists call you cranks, you feel in your arrogance/ignorance that there is some conspiracy that no one is allowed to question GR/SR, when it’s not the case. There are hundreds of valid scientific papers out there with valid arguments on how to build/change something beyond GR. Questioning GR doesn’t make you cranks… HOW YOU question GR makes you cranks."</p></blockquote> <p>What do you do when you're presented with something that doesn't make sense to you? You think about it, you listen to it, and yet it just defies common sense. You know, in your gut, that it can't be right. What do you do?</p> <p>We all get that knee-jerk reaction, the one that says, "that's gotta be wrong!" I had it yesterday; a friend of mine was telling me about kissing bugs, and that they bite your lips and put something into your blood that just lays there, dormant, for a decade or more, and then you develop symptoms and die. And I had that reaction, and said that it sounded like those made-up animals that Australians tell tourists about to trick them, like 'drop bears' and 'circle snakes.' (And yes, I know 'rock melons' are real; thanks Australia.) But what did I do? Did I just talk about how that can't be right, and tell what I knew to argue the point? Or did I look it up, and learn that kissing bugs are a common name for the insect that transmits the protist that causes Chagas' Disease?</p> <p>My point is that it's easy to rely on common-sense and decry something that runs counter to that as an obvious falsehood. But life isn't obvious, and in particular, science isn't obvious. In fact, the fact that science isn't obvious is why it's so hard, why it takes so much training, and why the knowledge it takes to engage in it is so specialized. If it were obvious, we wouldn't need to be scientists to make the advances we've made. Think about this the next time someone advocates "common sense" solutions to our problems. Do you want common sense? Or do you want hard work, science, and evidence? Think about it, because if you're willing to put in the hard work, you can learn it all for yourself.</p> <blockquote><div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Planetoid_crashing_into_primordial_Earth-1200x908.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36304" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Planetoid_crashing_into_primordial_Earth-1200x908-600x454.jpg" alt="A large, rapidly moving mass that strikes the Earth would be certainly capable of causing a mass extinction event. However, such a theory would require strong evidence of periodic impacts, which Earth doesn't seem to have. Image credit: Don Davis / NASA." width="600" height="454" /></a> A large, rapidly moving mass that strikes the Earth would be certainly capable of causing a mass extinction event. However, such a theory would require strong evidence of periodic impacts, which Earth doesn't seem to have. Image credit: Don Davis / NASA. </div> <p>From <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/23/are-mass-extinctions-periodic-and-are-we-due-for-one-synopsis/#comment-580761">Denier</a> on my opinion about our ability to introspect: "Were the last few words just a throw-away bit with truthiness feel used only to provide punctuation to the end of your piece? Or is there an epistemological school you are drawing from for that statement? Do you think that as a species we don’t do collective introspection well?"</p></blockquote> <p>What I said, in particular that led to this question was: <strong>For the foreseeable future, the Earth isn’t at increased risk of a natural disaster coming from the Universe. Instead, <b>it looks like our greatest danger is posed by the one place we all dread to look: at ourselves</b>.</strong></p> <p>It isn't about introspection that I was getting at, but rather the <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-inertia-trap/201303/why-are-people-bad-evaluating-risks">well-documented</a> <a href="https://www.wired.com/2007/03/security-matters0322/">fact</a> that humans are quite bad at evaluating risks. In particular, we're very bad at evaluating low-probability high-consequence risks, and almost always overstate those in our minds, compared to higher-probability risks. The idea of a catastrophic impact -- the focus of my entire piece -- is one such example of a low-probability high-consequence event, and it's one that humanity really frets about. The idea that the LHC would create a black hole and then that the black hole would destroy the Earth was another. And yet, actual problems like the deadliness of mosquito-borne diseases or simply the flu are just brushed off.</p> <p>It is our ability to fret about phantom problems and exceedingly unlikely scenarios while failing to mitigate actual, ongoing, tangible dilemmas that frustrate me.</p> <div style="width: 610px;display:block;margin:0 auto;"><a href="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Brown-Dwarfs.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-36307" src="/files/startswithabang/files/2017/06/Brown-Dwarfs-600x601.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="601" /></a> These are the two brown dwarfs that make up Luhman 16, and they may eventually merge together to create a star. Image credit: NASA/JPL/Gemini Observatory/AURA/NSF. </div> <blockquote><p>And finally, from <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/06/24/ask-ethan-can-failed-stars-eventually-succeed-synopsis/#comment-580774">Jose Pacheco</a> on brown dwarfs: "One thing’s for sure, Brown Dwarf. You’ll never be bright enough to make Dad Star proud."</p></blockquote> <p>But this isn't because of a failing on either the brown dwarf's part or of another star that ever existed in the Universe; it's because all the other stars -- parent stars, sibling stars, etc. -- likely will no longer exist by time the brown dwarf merges with another to become a true star. The rate of decay is slow; gravitational radiation carries away mere Watts of energy for this brown dwarf system. But give it enough time, like all the time the Universe has left, and eventually this orbital decay will make a star. No matter how long-gone your progenitors are, you still shine bright, all the same.</p> </div> <span><a title="View user profile." href="/startswithabang" lang="" about="/startswithabang" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">esiegel</a></span> <span>Sun, 06/25/2017 - 09:11</span> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-tags field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Tags</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/tag/comments-week" hreflang="en">Comments of the Week</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-blog-categories field--type-entity-reference field--label-inline"> <div class="field--label">Categories</div> <div class="field--items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/channel/life-sciences" hreflang="en">Life Sciences</a></div> </div> </div> <section> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544810" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498430081"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p><i>"How would it work within the Standard Model and/or General Relativity?"</i></p> <p>Maybe a question for Stephen Hawking, and the vaporizations of Black Holes.</p> <p>At the LHC the argument was made that Micro-BHs could form, and it wasn't excluded. But the risk was dismissed because they would vaporize immediately, and there is the argument that Earth and other planets are struck Cosmic Ray-wise with zillions of these 'possible' MBHs and nothing happens. All faire and square.</p> <p>But as with the breaking of a glass they can record one *tick* on the glass to record its tone and than play it 'artificially' on repeat so the glass start to wobble excessively until bindings are cut off and the glass bursts, and the tension of the excitement is released.</p> <p>We can make a comparison to Cosmic Ray collisions in nature as irregular *thicks* on the glass here and there, so sure everything will wobble a bit but the amplitude is not dense enough and it doesn't last long in one place. In contrary at the LHC the density and frequency rate at one specific place is a billion times higher than in CRs in nature, so here you have the man made loudspeaker-effect that is unseen in nature.</p> <p>Now let's say we hit a point where the LHC starts to produce an excessive amount of MBHs that vaporize at a certain frequency then isn't that 'vapor' the same as the vibrations the loudspeaker produces, now if we look at Hawking Radiation:</p> <p><i>"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles. As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole."</i></p> <p>So what we have around the collision spot at the LHC are a lot of Virtual particles and we know that these are more like 'side' vibrations, that we can't observe, only when they turn into real particle pairs when the show up.</p> <p>So there's a catch 22 the moment this effect shows up it means that the load speakers are shaking everything up as well at a high pitch.</p> <p>If you have see the biopic on Stephen Hawking with Eddie Redmayne than you'll remember the scene where he got the idea for his radiation from watching scintillae escaping the fireplace. Well at the LHC there might come a flashpoint where there is suddenly a lot of this previously 'unseen' heat escaping, shaking up the Atoms in the area around the collisions spot until the point of 'combustion' and a chain reaction might be ignited.</p> <p><i>"Hitchens’ razor: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"</i></p> <p>The evidence here is that you are: A. We are doing collisions at an unseen hight rate in one specific spot; B. Atoms can be broken apart; C. Waves can travel in between Atoms; D. There are virtual particles; E. Black Holes should vaporize; F. Micro Black Holes might form; G. Science as been confronted since ever with 'side effects' and chain reactions of all sorts, from fires to epidemics.</p> <p>Anyway perhaps you are alluding on a 'smoking gun' which I don't have, but the moment there is one it can be too late. How can one stop a chain-reaction on a subatomic level?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544810&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="H_S9u9adK35-ty-M1Cuaw99F548RMSDhClwTXnROywU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 25 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544810">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544811" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498444336"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Exhibit F.</p> <p><a href="http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/05/12/spectacular-new-crab-nebula-images-close-in-on-its-final-secrets-synopsis/">http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/05/12/spectacular-new-crab…</a></p> <p><i>“However, <b>one significant problem remains with the nebula: the masses don’t add up.</b> By looking in all these different wavelengths, we can calculate/estimate the mass of the Crab Nebula, and arrive at a figure of about two-to-five solar masses. The neutron star at the core is likely no more than two solar masses, and yet <b>it should be impossible to have a supernova unless your progenitor star is at least eight times the mass of the Sun. So where did that extra mass go?</b> There’s no shell around the nebula, and we’ve looked at length for one. Instead, <b>our models of something — the nebula, the neutron star, or the supernova itself — must have a flaw in it somewhere.</b> The data is better than it’s ever been; now it’s time for scientists to put those final pieces of this great cosmic puzzle together!”</i></p> <p>Perhaps no flaw, maybe there was an extra (terrestrial) something, a local man made machine that caused a chain-reaction which induced the supernova explosion, and this nebula is the <b>smoking gun</b> of their involuntary suicide.</p> <p>It can also explain the Fermi paradox, whereby a highly civilized species that looks for intelligent ways to explore the galaxies will blow itself to pieces to find a fuel, or think of Marie Curie's death:</p> <p><i>"The damaging effects of ionising radiation were not known at the time of her work, which had been carried out without the safety measures later developed. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket, and she stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the faint light that the substances gave off in the dark. Curie was also exposed to X-rays from unshielded equipment while serving as a radiologist in field hospitals during the war. Although her many decades of exposure to radiation caused chronic illnesses (including near-blindness due to cataracts) and ultimately her death, she never really acknowledged the health risks of radiation exposure"</i></p> <p>I rest my case.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544811&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RFGa-LcOP-sbcXvLjDfPCu-a2tO_t59R6hn0GcEJ4h4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 25 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544811">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544812" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498450853"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan Siegel wrote: "From Pentacho [sic] Valev on what the constancy of the speed of light means: “Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect implies that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer.”</p> <p>Not quite, and I have read many of your comments to attempt to see where I think you’re making a mistake. You’re saying, basically, that:</p> <p>You measure a frequency for your light.<br /> Frequency is the speed at which the pulses move divided by the distance between the pulses.<br /> A moving observer sees a different frequency than a stationary observer.<br /> And therefore, you conclude, that the speed at which the pulses move must be different for different observers, and hence the speed of light is constant [typo perhaps - should be "is NOT constant"]. That’s what I think your reasoning is.</p> <p>But what Einstein’s theory says is that the speed at which the pulses move is always the speed of light in a vacuum for any type of light or any observer. So what’s changing, for different observers, is twofold: the distance between the pulses, which you have right, by the fact of length contraction, but also the way that each observer measures time, due to the effect of time dilation, which is not encoded anywhere in your plain-English descriptions but which matters nonetheless. That is how the speed of light remains constant for all observers." [END OF QUOTATION]</p> <p>Your counterargument is based on a wrong premise:</p> <p>"what’s changing, for different observers, is [...] the distance between the pulses, which you have right, by the fact of length contraction"</p> <p>Length contraction is irrelevant here - it can only be defined and calculated for objects moving at a speed smaller than c, and the pulses are not such objects. So the idea that the motion of the observer somehow changes the distance between the pulses (or the wavelength of the incoming light) is absurd, and the Albert Einstein Institute explicitly rejects it:</p> <p>Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: </p> <p><a href="http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif">http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detec…</a> </p> <p>By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." <a href="http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler">http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler</a></p> <p>Again: Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect proves variable, not constant, speed of light. This is to be expected because the variation of the speed of light is in fact the cause of the Doppler effect. When the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the speed of the light relative to him becomes c'=c+v (in violation of Einstein's relativity) and accordingly the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=c'/λ=(c+v)/λ: </p> <p>"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ." <a href="http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html">http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html</a> </p> <p>"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." <a href="http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php">http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544812&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lb_sziHe6UHedPgcPPQJse8PYnnBhfUbf9iSFtu6UTo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Pentcho Valev (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544812">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544813" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498464184"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>A. Yes, there are many collisions, but no two EVER occur at the same point in space. The earth is rotating. It's also revolving around the sun. The solar system is revolving about the galactic center. The galaxy as a whole is moving relative to other galaxies in the local cluster. The local cluster is moving relative to other clusters. We NEVER see two collisions occur at the same spatial location. </p> <p>B. Yes, atoms can be broken apart. What relevance does this have for anything? Such fission events do create energy, and can cause great devastation if allowed to do so in a way that sustains a nuclear explosion, but that's not particularly relevant in a particle accelerator, is it?</p> <p>C. Yes, waves can travel between atoms. They're called electromagnetic radiation or gravitational radiation. There's no evidence that there's any danger from these. There's also no evidence for any other wave phenomena travelling through the vacuum. What evidence is there that electromagnetic waves or gravitational waves can have any devastating consequences?</p> <p>D. Yes, there are virtual particles. There are virtual particles everywhere, though, not just in particle accelerators. These really have no measurable effect, though. If they did, they'd be REAL particles, not virtual ones. </p> <p>E. Black holes should vaporize. I agree. On a timescale dependent on the size of the black hole, that is true. Why is it relevant? </p> <p>F. Micro black holes might form. Sure, and they might form when the atmosphere gets hit by cosmic rays of much greater energy than what the accelerator can produce. Why does that not cause a problem? </p> <p>G. Yes, chain reactions can be hazardous. What evidence do you have that collisions in a particle accelerator will cause any kind of chain reaction, though? Another case for Hitchen's Razor, it would appear. </p> <p>You postulate some kind of resonance like that of a glass breaking because of a sound wave. That resonance, though, is a result of the frequency of the sound wave matching the natural vibrational frequency of the glass. The incoming waves reinforce each other and build to a large amount of energy, capable of shattering the glass. In the case of the particle accelerator, what exactly is it that's resonating? The particles being collided? The accelerator itself? If there's nothing to resonate, then there's no way for such a resonance to cause a problem. </p> <p>Remember that any such phenomenon that could be observed in a particle accelerator could equally well be observed in cosmic ray collisions of higher energy. If there's no evidence of such in cosmic ray collisions, why would you expect such phenomena in accelerator collisions?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544813&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="n1ZPYlBfM_ubT8ySNUfcos_-pjXZzvi7rjLVoDUdWh4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544813">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544814" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498464853"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Pentcho,</p> <p>Just for the heck of it, I checked out one of your links. The derivation was one based on classical mechanics as a simplification and it ignored relativity completely. This is a good approximation in some cases, such as the Doppler shift for sound waves, but it is incorrect for light. Besides, it does not claim (as you said) that the wavelength is unchanged. The derivation yields different results for a moving source and a moving observer (a sure clue that relativity is ignored since relativity tells us that the two are physically equivalent). For a moving source, it gives wavelength equal to the difference of the wave velocity and source velocity divided by the frequency. For the moving observer it's the sum of the wave velocity and observer velocity divided by the frequency. For a resting observer, of course, the wavelength is the wave velocity divided by the frequency. </p> <p>The main difference in relativity is that the derivation you linked assumes that velocities are additive. That is if a wave is travelling at 500 miles per hour and the source moves toward you at 300 miles per hour, you will observe that the wave travels at 800 (500+300) miles per hour. This is not the correct formula for velocity composition, though, only a good approximation when the speeds are small. When the speeds are large, a more complicated formula applies (you can look it up; it's too complicated to render well here). This formula, though, yields a composed velocity of c when either of the two component velocities are c, hence when working with light, the moving observer does indeed measure c for light speed.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544814&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="csGandDf8dEL4U-jrwSEdi1mZa8Vo1RnMUEJAFxfOyI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544814">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544815" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498465907"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>you can argue about opportunity vs. results, but when you see unequal results, boy, does it strongly suggest the presence of unequal opportunity.</p></blockquote> <p>Not at all. Take for example crime statistics on arson. Men are arrested for arson at over 4.5 times the rate women are. The idea the differential suggests the presence of unequal opportunity is laughable. Women can purchase matches just as easy as men can.</p> <p>In the case of Cecile DeWitt-Morette there very well may have been the presence of unequal opportunity and at any rate it is anecdotal so isn’t proof either way. That said, she should not be wholly exonerated from role her choices played in bringing about the situation. She did choose to stay married to her husband, did choose to support his move to UNC, and chose to work at UNC herself for 15 years rather than apply to be a full professor at Duke University just up the street.</p> <p>On Cecile DeWitt-Morette I think you and I agree a lot more then we disagree.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544815&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="fqkz4kH9cnrr1sht7E1yZv0pcrsVhrpXlEKAEj6wmrY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Denier (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544815">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544816" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498465991"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ Sean T</p> <p>you should check Pentcho's comments on the LIGO post... just for heck of it... </p> <p>It doesn't matter what we argue, even given plain every day examples that prove his reasoning is wrong. </p> <p>Basically he doesn't believe in blue-red shift of light. He can't distinguish between classical vs relativistic doppler effects. He can't explain why we keep getting the same constant speed for light even tough he argues that we should see speeds over the speed of light if the source is moving towards us.. etc etc... </p> <p>He's not here to learn.. he's here just to troll same old (wrong) song over and over.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544816&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="yMg3ez8d4wgBaEiGWMIIWdJESJhSWvmAjxXGappK7xM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544816">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544817" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498466258"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>The best argument I ever read about this issue was written by David Souter, when he spoke at Harvard in 2010 on the topic of Plessy vs. Ferguson. It’s incredibly nuanced, talking about the different questions one was asking about the topics of what equal/unequal opportunity means: does it mean equal facilities, equal access, equal results, etc.?</p></blockquote> <p>In reading through your linked piece from Souter I didn’t find anything on the issue of opportunity versus outcome. It has been quite a hot topic lately as that seems to mark the separation between liberals and progressives. Classic Liberals want equality of opportunity. Progressives want equality of outcome and will accept or even demand UNequal opportunity to bring it about.</p> <p>Souter’s speech seemed more about judicial activism versus constructionalism and his personal justifications for violating the separation of powers by legislating from the bench. Funny enough I thought he shot a hole in his own justification with the Plessy and Brown juxtaposition. Activist Judges in the Plessy case took the temperature of the nation which influenced the outcome. Activist Judges in the Brown case took the temperature of the nation which influenced the outcome, but because the mood of the nation changed the earlier Activist Judges were wrong. Essentially it is that Activist Judges are always wrong, if not today then just give it a few decades and they will be, so Souter feels justified in being an Activist Judge.</p> <p>Here is my issue with Activist Judges; Democracy is dangerous. It has its benefits for sure but it is dangerous. Democracy is mob rule. The founders of our government very purposely created a Representational Republic precisely because they understood the problems inherent in pure Democracy. </p> <p>James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10</p> <blockquote><p>Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths … A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.</p></blockquote> <p>With the Judicial Branch they took extra precautions to isolate it from public opinion. They didn’t want that poison anywhere near the judicial system. As put very well by Marvin Simkin:</p> <blockquote><p>Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.</p></blockquote> <p>Then we have former Supreme Court Justice David Souter saying that we should ignore the stated Constitutional Separation of Powers, and ignore the Original Intent, and ignore that the Activist Approach previously led to bad precedent, and go right ahead being an Activist Judge because the will of the people has changed. Eff that. I’m glad Souter is gone. I’d take the Notorious RBG over that guy any day.</p> <p>Forget Trump for a moment. If you want to know what it would take in the United States for a true Authoritarian to come to power, it is for people like David Souter to be allowed to strip away the protections put in place by the founders that buffers the levers of power from mob rule, then run a demagogue and it is game over. So long as the existing procedural machinery is left it place it can’t happen even under someone like Trump.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544817&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YxhZwM2ehy3Q7ilaXuvbNJaVhg8kzIBx4dj9Bi7FKjQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Denier (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544817">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544818" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498468278"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean T wrote: "Pentcho, Just for the heck of it, I checked out one of your links. The derivation was one based on classical mechanics as a simplification and it ignored relativity completely. This is a good approximation in some cases, such as the Doppler shift for sound waves, but it is incorrect for light. Besides, it does not claim (as you said) that the wavelength is unchanged."</p> <p>No it does not ignore relativity. When the speed of the observer is small, the relativistic corrections CAN be ignored, and this is textbook wisdom. Many authors teach only this speed-of-observer-is-small case where classical and relativistic analyses coincide, and do not introduce the relativistic corrections at all.</p> <p>As for your discovery that the author "does not claim that the wavelength is unchanged", it is funny, to say the least. The author says that the speed of the waves is higher for the moving observer, but this obviously means nothing to you:</p> <p>"Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v’=v+vO"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544818&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U0uwx6ot8sUMyZwdfW9M3lxFSmPbnutff9akGg6Giys"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Pentcho Valev (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544818">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544819" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498470999"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ethan: "... by the fact of length contraction..."</p> <p>Length contraction is based on how different observers from different frames of reference might theoretically measure length. As applied to physical objects, it is not only absurd but factually wrong to assume that an observation at high speed makes a physical object shrink as compared with a measurement from at rest with the object. Both can not be "the correct" length of the object. There is no physics whatsoever to explain the shrinkage of physical objects, however images of them may *appear* differently, as conveyed by light to a near lightspeed traveler.</p> <p>"Do you want common sense? Or do you want hard work, science, and evidence? Think about it, because if you're willing to put in the hard work, you can learn it all for yourself."</p> <p>The "science" of special relativity theory needs to supply the physics of, for instance, Earth's diameter shrinking, more the faster an observer approaches until it is flat as a pancake. Or is that an "equally valid" description of Earth just because SR says that length varies with the observer's frame of reference?<br /> Is that too much to ask before calling before calling length contraction a "fact?"</p> <p>"... due to the effect of time dilation."</p> <p>The same can be said for "time dilation." Not a "fact." Clocks don't "measure" an entity, "time." They just tick at various rates depending on the history of forces (acceleration and gravity) to which they have been subjected.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544819&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="TR3n70-k3_BKTCEL8UIbIKGJhVpoiuSFZBNuNOkSW7o"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544819">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544820" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498478425"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T #4,</p> <p>A. Collision spot (speaker) and nozzles (glass) move together trough space, vibrations continuously travel towards the protons that make up those nozzles. It's like throwing a ball back and forth between two cars driving next to each other. I'm sure your arms will get tired and your muscles start to burn even if you're never throwing it from the 'same spatial location'.</p> <p>B. The fact that Protons can be shaken apart proofs that they are fragile.</p> <p>C. That's like sticking your hand into a fire for a fraction of a second and saying 'look it's safe. I am not proving that a low frequency and density is dangerous, I am trying to proving that the higher the energy the bigger the danger becomes. This part should be the easiest to understand.</p> <p>D. Again the same case as C. It is about turning up the heat. </p> <p>Leave your kid during a normal day in the sun or during a heatwave. Are you going to believe someone that brings up the former and says 'these really have no measurable effect' … and let your kid get sunburned?</p> <p>E. Because this 'vapor' is energy converted into gravitational vibrations that are boosted onto the protons of the nozzles. You remember the glass being exited by the sound waves.</p> <p>F. Really? I explained this over and over again in my comment, why are you not reading what I write?</p> <p>I'll repeat, density and frequency at one specific spot. Remember the speaker, you can play for a fraction the pitch of the glass really loud, but the glass won't break those are the HECR collisions you refer to, while I am pointing out repeatedly that it's the ongoing high frequency that causes the effect of breaking the glass. It's the same as robbing wood for a longer period to start a fire vs. smacking it hard for just a fraction. It is about building up energy, wearing matter out, got it?!</p> <p>G. It is only to show that when dealing with physics we can get chain reactions in all shapes and forms, and at all levels; from an avalanche, to a forest fire, to an A-bomb, it would be unique if there wouldn't be one at a subatomic level. It looks like a law, sort of like Moorse's law for transistors, you draw a line from point to point …</p> <p>--</p> <p><i>"Remember that any such phenomenon that could be observed in a particle accelerator could equally well be observed in cosmic ray collisions of higher energy."</i></p> <p>No. </p> <p>You are simply refusing to read what I write. Read up instead of making such a futile remark. I mentioned enough times the difference in density and frequency. Actually the largest part of your comment here was completely besides the point and full of ignorance.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544820&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WMcguz1DW5-HROHagVPq3qur3wpYJtQ3FD7BGfyJrq8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544820">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544821" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498478816"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Robbing &gt; Rubbing</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544821&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="WNLuIdt6Myb_-ClkesvPlNPe4EjgKWNeH6zgqcYw7ho"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544821">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544822" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498482782"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Denier</p> <p><i>"Take for example crime statistics on arson. Men are arrested for arson at over 4.5 times the rate women are. The idea the differential suggests the presence of unequal opportunity is laughable."</i></p> <p>This is an interesting example, it proofs that man are more testosterone driven, and commit easier violent crimes, probable also push and exclude woman towards the back and rape them. It is a good reason to be weary why woman are less represented in certain fields even when they have equal rights.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544822&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="omwvM3SBPt8jnGl_DeO1Jp_-KSgoJbBlV5ybQ6VbsdU"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544822">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544823" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498483246"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BTW your arson example also fits also perfectly with my LHC argument that 'mankind' will set the world on fire, and burn it to the ground. In is a gene.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544823&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="G-v0KmicBsLe1BaUumbOssN86ikpsCrBjCEn0b6BrD4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544823">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544824" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498491412"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Denier:<br /></p><blockquote>Classic Liberals want equality of opportunity. Progressives want equality of outcome and will accept or even demand UNequal opportunity to bring it about.</blockquote> <p>I certainly do not speak for progressives write large, but IMO you have sadly and ridiculously misread your opponents, strawmanning them quite badly. Few to no progressives want a Harrison Bergeron type world of mandated equality of outcomes. Maybe some on the extreme left does, but IMO it's not the goal of the movement. </p> <p>Where progressives differ from conservatives is that progressives recognize that <i>luck</i> plays a big role in many people's lives and that bad luck is in many ways the antithesis of 'equal opportunity.' Where a conservative would say "you got cancer? Well, everyone had that chance. Tough luck, pay for it yourself, society should do nothing to help you," the progressive says "getting randomly struck by a disease prevents the equal opportunity for a prosperous life that the state promised you. Thus it makes sense that we all contribute to a fund that will mitigate the effect of that bad luck and restore back to you the equal opportunity to have that life." Likewise with unemployment and welfare - a conservative says "if you got fired, you probably deserved it. The state will not help you. Depend on your friends/family, or work, or starve." The progressive says: "many layoffs and firings are due to circumstances beyond the control of the person, and unemployment can strike even good workers. Thus providing the unemployed some bridging resources while they get back on their feet creates the opportunity for people to plan their lives and make good strategic decisions in spite of the short-term vicissitudes that would steal their opportunity for a good life." </p> <p>Or to put it more simply, conservativism is a 'just world' system - it works to the extent that nature (and circumstance) is just. It fails when nature and circumstances get further away from just. Progressivism seeks to modify that system in recognition that neither nature nor circumstance is, in fact, close to just.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544824&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="o1URJtm9WBvcvu6HZEKZ8coRa9LMccOwUGlQVwKLj4c"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544824">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544825" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498498349"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM:<br /></p><blockquote>The “science” of special relativity theory needs to supply the physics of, for instance, Earth’s diameter shrinking, more the faster an observer approaches until it is flat as a pancake. </blockquote> <p>You can find this physics in any quantitative discussion of SR, from wikipedia and many other sources. The equation for length contraction is deductively derived from Einstein's two postulates (physical laws invariant for different inertial reference frames; speed of light is c in all frames). Thus if you accept them, there is pretty much no way to logically or deductively reject length contraction. But Sinisa told you this months ago, and you never tell us which postulate you reject (probably a psychologically safe move, since both are observationally easy to test) so I have no doubt you'll continue to reject it for nonrational reasons.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544825&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eLUjFAMyIqmsi5u9IWu2EAiSh9g_0W_VXGG9DeOGhNE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544825">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544826" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498503140"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>The most fundamental thing(s) required for any understanding of relativity happens to be the very thing(s) that are being rejected as the very source of it's fundamentally falseness. Every iteration of the conversation is a new ride on the very same carousel, playing exactly the same music. Simultaneously entertaining and hopelessly futile.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544826&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="G6uye2idFHBZtXK-tAkv4fEOOGooxxtZsvv3uZl86lo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Alan G. (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544826">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544827" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498510366"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@eric wrote:</p> <blockquote><p>IMO you have sadly and ridiculously misread your opponents, strawmanning them quite badly...Where progressives differ from conservatives is...</p></blockquote> <p>Conservatives are a whole different kettle of fish. I'm leaving Conservatives completely out of this discussion and only referring to leftist Classical Lockean Liberals versus leftist Progressives. Many believe 'Liberal' and 'Progressive' to be synonyms. They are not, and much has been made of the differences lately by those on the left dismayed at the state of affairs on their own side.</p> <p>One of the more outspoken voices on this subject is Dave Rubin, a gay married atheist of Jewish ancestry, pro-pot legalization, pro-choice, life-long lefty voter who got his online start on The Young Turks.</p> <p>In the following video Rubin spends the first 5 minutes monologuing on the difference between Liberals and Progressives and Libertarians, and why he feels somewhat abandoned by the left. He's interesting and not at all abrasive if you've got 5 minutes.</p> <p><a href="https://youtu.be/u8QRd18-z2M">https://youtu.be/u8QRd18-z2M</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544827&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="kgGT8R1jNWVlEvJNw-0M6bQ_YdKZO62cVnyshSHQ1v4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Denier (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544827">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544828" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498533694"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Ethan,</p> <blockquote><p>'There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical of what someone is doing, but it’s vital to not be overly skeptical.'</p></blockquote> <p>There is nothing wrong with being extremely skeptical. It is not like I hate this project and want to stop it, they can build a few more detectors and I support LISA. Show me what you got.</p> <p>Looking forward to your article.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544828&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="6bqrxUm0zkp5xpP0Oypx-MO1_kZsPVuPj7ysdOMFdUY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Paul Dekous (not verified)</span> on 26 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544828">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544829" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498549753"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>Okay then enlighten me. What exactly is it that is vibrating that will cause the disaster? Is it the protons being collided? Is it the detector? Is it air inside the system? You are throwing out ideas, but have no physical mechanism by which those ideas could be true. Argument by analogy is faulty if the analogy doesn't apply. Like I said above, the glass shatters because of vibrations in the glass that match its natural vibration frequency. What in the accelerator is vibrating?</p> <p>As for your argument about repeated collisions, that too is specious. Each collision involves two protons; two DIFFERENT protons. The same protons are not colliding over and over again. The decay particles will interact with particles in the detector, but you do realize that two successive collisions will have a miniscule probability of reacting with the SAME particles in the detector. Each proton-proton collision produces a handful of decay particles. Let's be generous and say 10 particles are produced in each collision. The detector is a macroscopic object, meaning it's made of on the order of 10^20 or more particles. What is the probability that two successive collisions will produce decay products that react with the SAME particle in the detector? It's on the order of 10^-19 or less. That means that the proton-proton collisions in the LHC are not really any different than the high-energy cosmic ray collisions in the atmosphere. The energy from each collision is dissipated via independent interactions with different particles in the detector system. Further, if there were multiple interactions with the same detector particle, they would have to be closely spaced in time. The detector particles will be in an excited state as a result of a collision with a decay particle. This excited state last only for a very brief time (on the order of 10^-15 seconds or so, depending on the state and the nature of the interaction). Two particle collisions interacting with the same detector particle spaced even 1 second apart would be equivalent to independent interactions. </p> <p>Finally, while the energies involved SOUND very high, they in fact are not in macroscopic terms. Suppose that the LHC is running at 13 TeV at a rate of 10^12 collisions per second. The energy for each collision is approximately 2 microjoules. The power produced in these collisions is therefore about 2 megawatts. This is substantially lower power output than a good sized power plant.</p> <p>You have basically put forth ideas without evidence for their validity. It would be valid then to dismiss those ideas without evidence. Of course, we DO have evidence for the invalidity of your ideas. The LHC has been running for some time now. Have there been any reports of catastrophic disasters resulting from its operation? Are we not still all alive? Is the earth not intact? A good scientist recognizes when his or her ideas have been falsified by the data and gives up on them.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544829&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="94PXQponYQfABjoYa8a2HLYFY8RpDkiltA8h8rdKAls"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544829">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544830" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498550097"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Just an aside: from a point of view of actual physics, if there WERE an energy that in and of itself would create situations that might cause issues, that energy would naturally be expected to be on the order of the Planck energy. If you are not aware of it, the fundamental constants (G, h, c) can be arranged in such a way as to produce quantities that have units of mass, length and time. This gives a unit system that in some sense is the natural unit system of the universe. The quantities seem to represent inherent limits of the universe. For example, it is theoretically impossible to measure a length smaller than the Planck length or a time shorter than the Planck time. Given a standard unit of mass, time and length, it is then possible to produce derived units for most other physical quantities. The Planck energy is one such quantity. It would be equal to c^2 times the Planck mass. The Planck energy turns out to be larger than the collision energy at the LHC by a factor of roughly 10^14. We have quite a way to go before we would have to worry about hitting such a limit.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544830&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="29stTD5MosfoHEhJcxqLLmwMmHYjcfFdZb9YGM0ipRk"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544830">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544831" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498551885"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric @ 16: "). Thus if you accept them, (My note: the postulates of SR) there is pretty much no way to logically or deductively reject length contraction."</p> <p>Math and theoretical postulates do not make physical objects shrink. As I said, there is no physics of a shrinking objects ( Earth for instance) depending on differences in observation. That would be the optical physics of images conveyed by light to near lightspeed observers.</p> <p>It the real physical world (beyond observational differences) planets (and stars) are NOT FLAT. SR must eventually get over insisting on physical shrinkage as a result of observational differences.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544831&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="vY7yDcgfQ5c_9Pg1CuuI5-qLEYOFt7MjHVhncsKBU0w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544831">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544832" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498551999"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>edit: In the real world...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544832&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="z98lm7WDbPOWhxdxrrfnoaOVx_FY0_UDVohTwmleUg4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544832">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544833" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498560198"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Regarding ‘different’ protons … you could look at the LHC as a combustion engine, each time gas is injected into the same cilinder, there’s a spark and BAM! you have a combustion, the piston is pushed upwards and fuel is converted in kinetic energy. When it’s the cilinder of a Harley Davidson motor, you’ll hear the loud explosions: BAM-BAM-…-BAM</p> <p>In short we put fuel into the motor, we have a chemical explosion and we get kinetic energy, heat, combustion gases and sound waves.</p> <p>So each time we inject a new portion of fuel, but the place where the combustion happens stays the same, it is in the cilinder. The same goes for the LHC each time new collisions happen with new protons, but it’s always at the same spot surrounded by the same nozzles.</p> <p>Now when we collide Protons at the LHC we get all kinds of decays, you could compare these to the kinetic energy, the light flash and the combustion gases of the motor, and we can detect these. </p> <p>My argument is that p+p+ collisions generate also undetectable vibration within SpaceTime, The Vacuum and/or the HiggsField. Just like the gravity waves (presumably) detected by LIGO.</p> <p>I like to compare those vibration to the sound-waves. If you only have visual tools to look at a motor you will only see the flash, the piston being pushed upwards and the fumes escape. What you will fail to notice are the sound waves. The LIGO experiment has shown how difficult it is to record vibrations in SpaceTime, there is too much noise to detect everything and LIGO is done in complete silence. The LHC is the opposite with noting but noise so detecting more ‘gentle’ waves is a no-no. Think again of the Harley, the LHC can’t hearing the BAM-BAM’s, they go under the radar.</p> <p>BTW if you are familiar with Harley’s then you know that nuts and bolts will start to rattle lose from vibrations of the one- or two-cylinder power-plants. This is the same as the Glass that starts breaks, and it can be pretty dangerous cause the bike might fall apart causing a crash.</p> <p>Now your objection is:</p> <p><i>“The decay particles will interact with particles in the detector, but you do realize that two successive collisions will have a miniscule probability of reacting with the SAME particles in the detector.”</i></p> <p>This is true for the elements we can see (kinetic/flash/fumes) but the gravity waves detected by LIGO travel spherical like a wave through a medium, actually even light is a wave (and a particle).</p> <p>So each time a p+p+ collision happens all the particles surrounding the collision spot can feel these waves. Of course the further matter is from the collision the less intense these waves are.</p> <p>This contradicts your second objection:</p> <p><i>”That means that the proton-proton collisions in the LHC are not really any different than the high-energy cosmic ray collisions in the atmosphere.”</i></p> <p>In nature there are about a thousand Cosmic-ray collisions of a few GeV’s (1 GeV= 10^9 electron Volt) per second per m^2. In LHC it are about one 1 billion per second per cm^2. That’s 1.000.000 times more for an area which is 10.000 smaller, it is a density &amp; frequency difference of 10 billion and unique in the Universe.</p> <p>BTW during the last run at the LHC in 2015 we had collisions that were even 10.000 times more intense, with energies of 13 TeV (1 TeV= 10^12 eV). These collisions are in nature of course less frequent per m^2 while the density &amp; frequency at the LHC of 10 billion per cm^2 was maintained. Look at this graph to get an idea: <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Cosmic-ray_spectrum_with_LHC_luminosity.png">https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Cosmic-ray_spectrum…</a></p> <p>You could compare this to having one Harley Davidson driving around your house BAM-BAM or 10 Billion of them, have you ever heard the story of the walls of Jericho that fell after Joshua's Israelite army marched around the city blowing their trumpets. :)</p> <p>And regarding your last objection:</p> <p><i>“Finally, while the energies involved SOUND very high, they in fact are not in macroscopic terms.”</i></p> <p>Yes that is true, but the density and frequency rate of the collisions is extremely high, you can compare cosmic rays to rain drops, water being soft an gentle or even hail hitting hard; but at the LHC with its extreme high frequency and density you get something like those intense waterjets that can cut marble. The same for breaking glass with sound, continuous high frequency receptive vibrations.</p> <p>Next you have also the fact that to start of a chain-reaction very little input can be enough to start it, a small spark on some dried out (strained) grass etc.</p> <p>Anyway, a Proton has an inner mechanism with it’s tree quarks, gluons and seaquarks; if something starts to disrupt that mechanism a Proton could loose it’s function of being ‘positive’ and implode, what happens than to for example an iron Atom if it’s nucleus is disrupted, will it split?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544833&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="aNluljkNSfnuasyhJOAs--HWrUuwOD652pw9j3QCiW0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544833">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544834" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498577215"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle:<br /></p><blockquote>My argument is that p+p+ collisions generate also undetectable vibration within SpaceTime, The Vacuum and/or the HiggsField. Just like the gravity waves (presumably) detected by LIGO.</blockquote> <p>If the vibration carries away energy, it will be detectable because all the other energy output in the product will not equal the input energy of the reactants.</p> <blockquote><p>So each time a p+p+ collision happens all the particles surrounding the collision spot can feel these waves. </p></blockquote> <p>That would make it really easy to detect. The only way your effect could be real but "undetectable" is if all the particles surrounding the collision spot <i>didn't</i> feel those waves.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544834&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="L_RAIFJChhKlGUXRSh76wssWBJK5Qhp7PL4SCUqRPzY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544834">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544835" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498602386"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric</p> <p>A part of my argument is that there is a flash point, like the glass that bursts after a longer period of excitement. We increase energy and luminosity at the LHC and are shaking up surrounded Protons harder and harder but we can't detect that they we are straining them and that they are wobbling much harder because they are keeping their relative structure.</p> <p>It is only past a certain tipping point that the glas breaks. The same goes for those protons surrounding the collision spot, were we reach a frequency and intensity of collisions at the LHC that causes them to break. At that point it all surfaces what was going on, and becomes 'detectable'. </p> <p>The problem here is that it could be too late and that we, by accident, have started a chain reaction. Think of having a bucket of gasoline and you trow a rock in it, nothing will happen except for a big splash! But if you heat up each time that rock a little more until it sees red than, then we will get once we reach the flash point an ignition and an rapid explosion and you could set your home on fire.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544835&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="RUWVqyJY1t_6W3EaFhiwpzLYJGw4p4f5GzyUaRO8J5s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544835">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544836" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498606113"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ chelle</p> <p>you've been down this road before... years ago... so much so that you even got banned on this blog, because your "scare-theory" was so non-scientific that it became painful. </p> <p>It's still non-scientific, and it's still painfully whack. Nothing is happening at LHC to cause the world to blow up. There are no spooky vibrations, no black holes etc etc.. </p> <p>Please stop posting this non-sense again. In last couple of months you actually had nice comments and productive discussions. Why this change in tone and mindset all over again?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544836&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="KvK38KeK56f971mrU6pMdWbuzoTpCZep0FqikyZ5fQo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544836">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544837" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498610341"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL</p> <p><i>"There are no spooky vibrations, no black holes etc."</i></p> <p>LIGO detected vibrations of BH, that's new.</p> <p>BTW I am not saying that it will happen, it is just something that needs to be taken in consideration. Sure you can be like Denier and be ignorant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544837&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="P5OFeNI5zMc6eEN2_MiIfazQTreqjl1G9oSx0C1TuLY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544837">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544838" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498610853"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>"LIGO detected vibrations of BH, that’s new."</p> <p>I'm talking about your rants about LHC making micro-black holes and cascading vibrations and whatnot that you are afraid off! Don't twist my words.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544838&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="jNXCcoTsLOtNk9CicVmOE5WdmSkm-fGWsIYFiPvM_f0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544838">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544839" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498618327"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>I am not 'ranting' here, I am answering Ethan's questions:</p> <p><i>"How would it work within the Standard Model and/or General Relativity?"</i></p> <p><i>"I brought up Hitchens’ razor this week — what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence — and I am curious whether that applies here?"</i></p> <p>But okay, so are you now saying that there can be no micro-black holes produced by the LHC, and if there were that they wouldn't boost out virtual particles? You do know what virtual particles are, don't you; and you do know that you are contradicting here serious theoretical research.</p> <p>BTW may I remind you what Ethan has told you about things YOU don't 'believe in:</p> <p><i>"What do you do when you’re presented with something that doesn’t make sense to you? You think about it, you listen to it, and yet it just defies common sense. You know, in your gut, that it can’t be right. What do you do?<br /> We all get that knee-jerk reaction, the one that says, “that’s gotta be wrong!” </i></p> <p>… </p> <p>But what did I do? Did I just talk about how that can’t be right, and tell what I knew to argue the point? Or did I look it up, and learn that kissing bugs are a common name for the insect that transmits the protist that causes Chagas’ Disease?"</p> <p>--</p> <p>So please do reflect a little before saying that is not possible.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544839&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="SW613fBAJo7uWsnj4-SNSvDkk6HpK_moEdUPH_zc8FI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544839">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544840" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498619535"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Yes, chelle... instead of comparing LHC to combustion engine, and some weird vibrations that only you understand shaking spacetime from protons... look it up first, inform yourself.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544840&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="tPqYiWrZ4vgWgT_sKimbIoD_OEnsNRYwTta_vES3pss"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544840">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544841" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498619747"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>p.s. your dead giveaway is that you compare what LHC is doing to irrelevant macroscopic things. Glasses shattering from sound, gasoline, fire etc... </p> <p>Wanna argue something... use real science. Don't compare things which aren't comparable. We are all grown boys and girls here with decent understanding of physics, so either argue exact things that are going on with exact results.. or you're in the same basket with MM, pantcho etc...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544841&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lHKehZs20LHLscjSlmF3aF9aPj-yyyngwNCsA8StmcY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544841">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544842" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498621173"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@SL,</p> <p>I talk about MBHs that vaporize, p+p+ collisions and GWs.</p> <p>Ethan didn't seem to have a problem when I wrote:</p> <p><i>"Well I was always curious if collisions at the LHC could cause tiny vibrations in SpaceTime and shake up surrounding matter with the risk of disrupting protons, like how you can shake and break a glass from a distance, with a speaker with a strong enough amplitude.”</i></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544842&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="UXE8dqsm9EDQix7eqP8QOMUw8GdaiMWSTVlpoJs0820"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 27 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544842">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544843" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498627124"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle,</p> <p>Your argument by analogy is faulty. When the analogy breaks down, so does the argument. If you are talking about multiple collisions producing vibrations in spacetime, remember that no two collisions EVER occur at the same point in spacetime. The LHC is moving quite rapidly through spacetime (technically, at the speed of light if your discussing 4-velocity). In spatial terms alone, it's moving quite rapidly as well, so there are no two collisions occurring at the same spatial point either. We need only deal with SINGLE collisions, not accumulations of energy from them. </p> <p>Now if you're talking about the collisions somehow interacting with the air inside the lab, the detector itself, or some other matter present, then sure repeated interactions could occur. What mechanism though would direct the p-p decay particles to interact with precisely the same environmental particle multiple times within a short time span (short enough that an excited environmental particle would interact before it returned to a relaxed state). It's highly improbable without such a mechanism that this would happen. </p> <p>Without multiple microscopic interactions, all you are talking about is dissipation of energy at a macroscopic level. The energy dissipated is quite a bit lower than the energy being dissipated at a typical power plant. Nobody's concerned about a power plant producing catastrophic consequences (discounting the environmental damage and contribution to global warming). Why would the LHC be different? The repeated interaction you are concerned with just is not a factor like you seem to think it is. Arguments by analogy rarely work well on a microscopic level. </p> <p>Besides, like I said above, the LHC has been operating for more than two years. Where are the micro black holes? Where are the protons being disrupted? Your idea may have been scientific in the sense that it is testable, but the test has now been run, and it's wrong.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544843&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0gFU250EVm9VTCqnZJ-4foyKs_RISfoM-J_oPuf2bdg"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544843">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544844" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498630959"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sean T #34:</p> <p><i>"remember that no two collisions EVER occur at the same point in spacetime."</i></p> <p>Sean T #4:</p> <p><i>"there are many collisions, but no two EVER occur at the same point in space."</i></p> <p>I responded to this at #11. The same goes for your other remarks, what's the use to answer to your questions if you ignored what I write?</p> <p>One remark though, you say: <i>"the test has now been run"</i>, so why keep upgrading the machine?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544844&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rVJcNoEx8HHEohJBptoYGLoerDTbMxNkQIypZPJa5Rw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544844">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544845" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498635502"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Why keep upgrading the machine? Well, despite your opinion to the contrary, running collisions at greater energies and greater luminosities will, in the opinion of real physicists, generate better data that may lead to scientific breakthroughs.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544845&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="U7CqVb8ApVMBNC7JDYxMxDAOX4ge9a7A3YtFia0Zv7g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544845">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544846" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498635572"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>In case you did not comprehend my point. The test I was referring to was the test of your hypothesis that the LHC would somehow cause a disaster. It has not. I did not mean to imply that the real physics being done using the LHC was finished.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544846&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4O638dTyGXAlzkcsl9bGynCdC9OOh7MCgRrMeeaX2vM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544846">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544847" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498637809"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sinisa Lazarak @32: "... or you’re in the same basket with MM...'</p> <p>Rather than continuing to "put me in a basket" with "cranks" (all critics of relativity) address my statement:<br /> "As I said, there is no physics of shrinking objects ( Earth for instance) depending on differences in observation."</p> <p>Anyone who accepts SR's absurdity that a pancake shaped Earth ... or having various diameters depending on the speed and direction of approach of all possible observers... is valid science is seriously deluded by the belief that the length of things "depends on whom you ask," as Ethan promotes here... and of course acceptance of the "postulate" that length must be variable if lightspeed is constant.<br /> How would length contraction actually work, physically speaking? Compression requires force... a lot of it to flatten Earth!<br /> But y'all continue to ignore that little fact and chant along with SR doctrine that it all depends on the observer. That is philosophical idealism, NOT OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544847&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZOLj7JeQG0GZBd1F4ZpJbrm-cSXWiwjF4Mo_Tihhfvs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544847">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544848" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498641299"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@ MM</p> <p>maybe you missed my comment about why you are cranks.. the link to it is up there in the middle of the article. No, not all critics of relativity.. just one particular bunch.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544848&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="d43whApg8ogPdIqjzzfELRfNXdhzp50rFoHERAqoCSM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544848">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544849" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498641329"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T,</p> <p><i>"The test I was referring to was the test of your hypothesis that the LHC would somehow cause a disaster. It has not."</i></p> <p>You don't say.</p> <p>I wrote plenty of times that one day we might reach a flash point if we keep on increasing the energy and luminosity of the collisions. But Mr. T here already knows that the 'test' is done and that it has invalidated my argument, but oh 'real physics being done using the LHC isn't finished'.</p> <p>I find you to be a dishonest debater.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544849&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9shoE73aAyFq0zn-mjC-86w8l1HVu1s8dpG-reInRWs"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544849">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544850" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498642662"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM #38,</p> <p>Don't worry, you're not a crank, you're just dumb.</p> <p>I don't mind being called a crank, because my hypothesis is crazy. We are sort of on the opposite sides of the spectrum, you lack imagination, while I have too much. ?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544850&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="IrskD_YLM3TWuNk3bWy7EZdp42zOof5Z-CTP7rfUjVc"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544850">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544851" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498669349"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle:<br /></p><blockquote>BTW I am not saying that it will happen, it is just something that needs to be taken in consideration. </blockquote> <p>I think, like a lot of cranks, you confuse "my idea was considered and nobody found it convincing" with "my idea was not fairly considered." In my opinion the former happened (and continues to happen, with each new objection), not the latter</p> <p>If protons are like ringing glasses, then CERN risks the destruction of the world. But if protons are like power rangers, then banging them together will create a cool giant robot! And right now, both of those metaphors have equal evidence and theory behind them. So I consider them. Here is me, considering them. Rolling them over in my mind. Okay, they are considered. Since the evidence of these metaphors being accurate descriptions of reality is zero in both cases, after due consideration I decide they are not worth changing my experiment over and I move on.. </p> <p>But have no fear! All you need do is go out and get some evidence that protons <i>are</i> like ringing glasses and that your hypothetical waves <i>do</i> exist, and scientists will reconsider your idea.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544851&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="QV0vl757CkRrpfRuvvutdyVZc41WDxaufbV4RlTweH0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544851">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544852" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498685292"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Eric,</p> <p><i>you confuse “my idea was considered and nobody found it convincing” with “my idea was not fairly considered.”</i></p> <p>Whatever, semantics, the general idea is that MBs wouldn't produce notable gravitational waves. They are something like 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected, and also 20 to 50 orders of magnitude too weak to play a role in the collision.</p> <p>The key issue stays that the high frequency isn't considered even though we have plenty of examples in physics where frequency plays a crucial role.</p> <p>Look at the fire of the tower in London, they didn't consider the flammability of the panels, well surprise, surprise.</p> <p>History repeats itself over and over again, even with your joke:</p> <p><i>"if protons are like power rangers"</i></p> <p>They also used to laugh with Kekulé's structural formula of benzene as being monkeys, I guess now idiots like power rangers, what's new:</p> <p><a href="http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kekule-von-stradonitz-friedrich-august-791826-1371896-german-chemist-18829674.html">http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-kekule-von-stradonitz-friedrich-august…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544852&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0iAcAPFyBeXh4gemG3MKgdtgu771PF_cjCHns7WMRB8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544852">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544853" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498687630"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>BTW</p> <p><i>"All you need do is go out and get some evidence that protons are like ringing glasses and that your hypothetical waves do exist, and scientists will reconsider your idea."</i></p> <p>That's something I have already realized some time ago, and I am working on that, no worries I am getting closer.</p> <p>If you like to sponsor my research feel free to do so ?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544853&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="nXf9qDS6O7kXWMVqVbZmtZD6o1kWFa9zr3tx4MoMCpw"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 28 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544853">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544854" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498720211"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>SL,<br /> So... still avoiding the substance of the criticism that there is no physics of shrinking physical objects (as per SR).<br /> It's all based on the "subjective experience" of Observer A vs Observer B (human or muon or whatever) such that the " flat Earth" (as seen from the fast approaching traveler) becomes "equally valid" with the actual physical ( factual, not fantasy theoretical) nearly spherical Earth with all epistemology supporting it.<br /> Rather it's still just "attack the critic" who dares to declare that "the emperor (of SR) has no clothes"</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544854&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="lFlF-z3G0PC0QuemkekHg7NmISGjnJyLenUoQPvRBd4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 29 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544854">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544855" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498724732"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM, </p> <p>craving attention, are we? ROFL! Read a book or two instead...</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544855&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="0Eq00bb7VUBd2SdDNSpv6_-1hrMh30yeO8mz-mYpwm0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sinisa Lazarek (not verified)</span> on 29 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544855">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544856" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498798913"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ok, I thought a few years back you said that the LHC run in its current configuration would cause a disaster. Since it did not, you were incorrect. Now, if you want to move the goalposts and posit a different higher energy and frequency, fine, go ahead. The upgrades are going to continue to go forth, and your hypothesis will be tested in due course. Please, though, tell me the VALUES for energy and frequency that will cause disaster. Until you can quantify it, you absolutely will not be taken seriously. </p> <p>Even after quantifying your idea will probably be dismissed as lacking in physical mechanism, but by not quantifying you can always keep saying that we just haven't reached high enough energies and/or frequencies yet and your idea then becomes unfalsifiable. There are always bigger numbers that haven't been tried yet, so if you are allowed to just keep moving the goalposts, your idea cannot be proven wrong.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544856&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="rRdftxmob0Q2bkSQBy0F-mcsNo2dWO4maPESG6fRS_w"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544856">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544857" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498798998"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM,</p> <p>The fact that you are attacked for being critical of relativity does not imply that you are correct in your criticism. If you declare that the emperor has no clothes, when in fact the emperor is dressed in full imperial regalia, then you will be rightly attacked as being delusional.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544857&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="afdea1K1t8D5SPtwuWKtrbaA41TzaNAS-uau7Z26sZM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544857">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544858" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498802182"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T #47,</p> <p><i>"I thought a few years back you said that the LHC run in its current configuration would cause a disaster. Since it did not, you were incorrect."</i></p> <p>Again you are dishonest debater. I did not say that LHC would cause disaster. </p> <p>How could/can I know what the flash point will be, that's like asking the first person who lit a fire how much heat it will take before igniting it? That's also what I said before, 'there’s a catch 22'. You need a reference, but the reference could be disastrous from the get go.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544858&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OTjXbl941k5O5jqFMyqMPDDA6um6QqIEDL1VtJ7nTv0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544858">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544859" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498808671"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle, </p> <p>And you are equally dishonest. Why did you oppose the LHC, then, if you didn't think it would be disastrous? Why do you continue to oppose it? </p> <p>Let me try this by analogy since argument by actual physics seems to not work, and you seem to like arguments by analogy. The LHC experiments are analogous to a child throwing a tennis ball at a brick wall. If he throws it hard enough, it could break a hole in the wall. However, he's simply not capable of throwing the ball that hard, so there really is no danger. The frequency is really irrelevant. You can throw that tennis ball against the wall thousands of times a second and the wall isn't going to break. You need more energy to break the wall. The energy from the previous throw is dissipated by the time the ball hits the wall again. </p> <p>Now, as I have said above, physics can give us an idea of the amount of energy needed to cause things like you are afraid of with colliders. That would be energies for interactions on the order of the Planck energy. The energies of the LHC interactions are 14 orders of magnitude smaller than this, so there is little danger. </p> <p>That's the physics of the situation. If you want to be taken seriously, provide some physics of your own. What is the mechanism by which a resonance can cause damage? What is doing the vibrating? What is the resonant frequency or frequencies that could be dangerous? How is energy from a given collision stored and added to the energy from subsequent collisions? </p> <p>Such and such MIGHT happen is not an argument. I MIGHT win the Powerball. If you're going to question accepted and well-established science, then anything MIGHT happen. The LHC MIGHT turn into a giant bird that will eat the entire human race. A wormhole MIGHT open and a hostile race of aliens MIGHT come through and destroy the earth. Obviously, I have no justification for thinking any of those things WILL happen, but neither do you for what you say might happen.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544859&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="uuR3W83tG5Z4HCMDlp3sIgWhj1ARBiDF4nAJGOTu_Ho"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544859">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544860" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498817459"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Sean T</p> <p>* <i>"Why did you oppose the LHC, then, if you didn’t think it would be disastrous?"</i></p> <p>There is a difference between 'will be' and 'can be'.</p> <p>* <i>"You can throw that tennis ball against the wall thousands of times a second and the wall isn’t going to break. You need more energy to break the wall. The energy from the previous throw is dissipated by the time the ball hits the wall again."</i></p> <p>We are not talking about 1000 times but a difference of 1.000.000.000 times. I am almost sure that at that frequency you will pulverize the bricks and blow a hole right through it. </p> <p>Keep in mind that the collisions at the LHC are 100.000 times hotter than the center of the Sun, the force with which you are throwing the ball is quite energetic.</p> <p>* <i>"If you want to be taken seriously, provide some physics of your own. What is the mechanism by which a resonance can cause damage? What is doing the vibrating? What is the resonant frequency or frequencies that could be dangerous? How is energy from a given collision stored and added to the energy from subsequent collisions?"</i></p> <p>Those are good questions. Vibrations can be virtual particles; as mentioned above 'They are 50 to 100 orders of magnitude too weak to be detected, and also 20 to 50 orders of magnitude too weak to play a role in the collision.' So indeed if there are waves shaking up a Proton than the question is how much strain a Proton can take and how much time there is between an excited state and a 'relax' state.</p> <p>* <i>"Such and such MIGHT happen is not an argument."</i></p> <p>If you look at the history of physics than my argument is quite down to Earth. There are plenty of examples of dangerous previously unknown side effects that showed up. I already mentioned Marie Curie’s death: <i>"The damaging effects of ionising radiation were not known at the time of her work …"</i></p> <p>Anyway, we are continuously treading into unknown territory with this record breaking luminosity, this is no child's play. I don't believe that your ridicule such as 'a giant bird that will eat the entire human race' is here in place.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544860&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YDeo_QGo0mHzEDS7OZLM5C3UG05dkd0e4NGr6V5IHq0"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544860">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544861" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498835280"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@eric:</p> <p><i>If protons are like ringing glasses, then CERN risks the destruction of the world.</i></p> <p>Conversely, if protons are like ringing glasses, and CERN risks the destruction of the world, then ringing glasses also risks the destruction of the world.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544861&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="mMXBms2df9sfawGcyqxPgaLJg8kRZS2xkbsYaWV5UkA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" content="Naked Bunny with a Whip">Naked Bunny wi… (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544861">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544862" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498857964"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@Naked Bunny with a Whip,</p> <p><i>"…then ringing glasses also risks the destruction of the world."</i></p> <p>Then how would you fit In the high frequency and density of p+p+ or heavy iron collisions into this analogy:</p> <p><i>"The Higgs field is responsible for giving mass to certain elementary particles. The Higgs boson is a particle associated with that field. Physicist David Miller of University College London earned Waldegrave’s bottle of bubbly by explaining both. To do so, he described a busy cocktail party.</i></p> <p>An average person could wander through the crowd with ease. But a more popular figure would be mobbed as soon as he or she entered the room, making passage more difficult. In this example, the party-goers represent the Higgs field, and the people walking through the crowd represent particles to which the field gives mass. A person who is significantly impeded by interested guests is like a particle given a large mass by the Higgs field.</p> <p>An excitation of the Higgs field is a Higgs boson. You can picture this as a bump that travels down a rope when you twitch one end of it, as the TED-Ed animation suggests.</p> <p>In a cocktail party, this kind of excitation might move through the crowd if a rumor spread from one end to the other (illustrated above). People nearest the rumor-originator would lean in to hear it. They would then pass it along to their neighbors, drawing together a new clump of people, and then return to their original positions to discuss it. The compression of the crowd would move from one end of the room to the other, like a Higgs boson in a Higgs field.</p> <p>Miller’s analogy isn’t perfect, but so far it has survived the test of time. When scientists on experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN announced the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, many of them described what they’d found by saying, “Imagine a cocktail party…”<br /><a href="http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/september-2013/famous-higgs-analogy-illustrated">http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/september-2013/famous-higgs-ana…</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544862&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="hdqsS_EC1NeK1DJFnI3dT6vhT7wUtzIx1lqRZ0G_oeI"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 30 Jun 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544862">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544863" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1498987839"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Is there an honest scientist (amateur or pro) in this forum (regular contributor or reader) who will answer my challenge in #45?<br /> (I didn't expect an answer from SL.. see #46.)</p> <p> Ethan and the mainstream choir here totally avoid the absurdity of a shrunken Earth diameter with no physics of physical contraction. It "absolutely" contracts, and how much and in what direction "depends on whom you ask," says Ethan. </p> <p>This passes for "science" among those totally indoctrinated by special relativity theory, and Ethan goes along with the mainstream.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544863&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="eeaDAH6KnDvaqu2wmnUZFcCdO8TrXT2i6iXdKZ2MwRM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 02 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544863">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544864" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499071599"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Ps; Sean T, #48: "... then you will be rightly attacked as being delusional."<br /> A question for the hypothetical honest scientist to whom #45 is addressed: Which is delusional, the one claiming that Earth is flat (as he approaches at near lightspeed) or the one in orbit observing our nearly spherical home? It can't be both. Which is true and which is based on a delusional belief (SR.)?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544864&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="9GEQdYNx-Lp8-056pdByf_0Vh_Gxwsbj5sEnP1eTSFM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 03 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544864">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544865" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499099404"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>edit: ... to whom #54 is addressed. (I'm dyslexic at times.)</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544865&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="u9Wdgp_ZyQL_TFoGlAlPV9qHX4JwNORzPAVcBNmYm7g"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 03 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544865">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544866" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499121864"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM #56,</p> <p><i>"I’m dyslexic"</i></p> <p>Ever wondered if this is what made it difficult to understand what other people write, and got you stuck in this conflict situation?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544866&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FUwp8gOLpKp8l5SMrAOrge6U5NpT5-p5MihOJAWudcM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 03 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544866">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544867" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499159877"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle H.C.,<br /> Your arguments, as in this thread, have been exposed as nonsense.<br /> My argument... that a "flat Earth" as "equally valid" (because "length is not invariant") is total nonsense... has never been addressed. All y'all have on that is more personal attacks.</p> <p>Dyslexia does not make one stupid. It requires serious stupidity to believe in shrinking physical objects, depending on how they are observed!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544867&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5SvLJSjbEdeX24PWfHYrGiSnLMp6gmQxMT0k1UCoKm4"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544867">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544868" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499164214"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM #58,</p> <p>It's not an attack, I am trying to help you solve your issue. People have tried to explain you the situation plenty of times, but can't seem to make the connection, honestly you look dumb. I already told you that, and I am almost sure that everyone with a bit of a brain thinks the same of you. Has it ever occurred to you that it's not them but you, yourself, who's the one that is wrong?</p> <p><i>"Dyslexia does not make one stupid."</i></p> <p>But it makes it difficult for someone to read what people write.</p> <p>This goes back to the suggestion I made some time ago to <b>talk</b> with a local physicist. If you don't have to read it, and this way you can avoid that hurdle. Have you ever considered taking that advice, or are to stubborn?</p> <p>Regarding my own argument on small vibrations shaking up matter, it hasn't been exposed, Ethan has discussed this and it comes down to multiple unknowns such a the Vacuum that damps, or how many possible (?) vibrations a proton can take. </p> <p>At this point it is a hypothesis not even a theory, something we can be openly discuss. The physical phenomenon is an sich also no different than cooking a potato. If you could read more easily you could have grasped that as well.</p> <p>Unfortunately I am not even sure if you're able to grasp what I'm writing here. So again also this comment could be in vain.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544868&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="4vVAsVYC07acIZ_Klw0a1MIo4z77aykcXmocxIxvm8s"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544868">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544869" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499178015"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Elle H.C.,<br /> I find your comments @# 59 extremely offensive on many levels.<br /> You equate occasional reversal of numbers and letters with stupidity and inability to comprehend what is written. Not too surprising considering (as a psychologist) your level of comprehension of science, as in this thread.</p> <p>You don't have the intellectual honesty or personal integrity to address the obvious argument that things don't shrink as a result of differences in observational perspectives. Of course you are not alone in that lack of integrity. SR is based on it.<br /> This will be my last reply to you. You seem too stupid to be worth my time.<br /> How about that flat Earth, anyway?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544869&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="FN3OY2x6fBgT51rNHngbgrg7XGI5Exva_g0o024wR_k"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544869">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544870" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499178658"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM:<br /></p><blockquote>My argument… that a “flat Earth” as “equally valid” (because “length is not invariant”) is total nonsense… has never been addressed.</blockquote> <p>I will say the same thing to you as I said to Elle: you are getting ""we addressed your idea and rejected it" but confusing it with "we didn't address your idea."</p> <p>We've addressed it tens of threads, tens if not hundreds of posts already. You just don't like the answer we give you. It's not nonsense, it's deductively derived from Einstein's two principles, which have themselves been empirically tested and to our best understading are true. Thus any implication deductively derived from them must, logically, also be true. The contraction itself has also been empirically tested, by observing things like muon half-life. </p> <p>I get that you reject this data as erroneous. I get that you reject some of the deductive implications of Einstein's principles. What I don't get is how you confuse all this comprehensive addressing of your point with the notion that we've never addressed it. </p> <p>Do you think it only counts as addressing your point if we change your mind?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544870&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZZKtRjLo2e_uLrGFkqzrxSoC7e1PQgUrmZtEb62a-V8"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544870">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544871" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499206248"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM #61,</p> <p><i>"You equate occasional reversal of numbers and letters with stupidity and inability to comprehend what is written."</i></p> <p>Exactly, I know it's not flattering but that's what it is, some people can others can't. But that doesn't mean that you dyslectics are overal stupid, there are multiple methods to digest information therefore I encourage you to go <b>talk</b> with a physicist.</p> <p>There are plenty of dyslexics who enjoy listening to an audio book over reading a book.</p> <p>You always feel your under attack and you start attacking people, it's time that you stop attacking and listen to people. But I have the impression that you are addicted to generating conflict and the attention you get out of it.</p> <p>Anyway I am happy that you are going to stop replying to my remark, perhaps you should also stop commenting on the blog here in general because Ethan himself made it clear that you are just to ignorant.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544871&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="szNzJO0SUjujiS8JFD0bKbkcm7YN9BvVktbji2CEpNE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544871">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544872" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499211553"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Blatantly lying Einsteinians: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century: </p> <p>Jose Wudka, UC Riverside: "This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." </p> <p>However Michel Janssen (honest in this case) describes endless empirical adjustment (groping, fudging, fitting) until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached: </p> <p>Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544872&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="YcoVfwdAZU75m34P-so68nsNJF0F1ureFcoABNXfSSQ"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Pentcho Valev (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544872">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544873" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499211893"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Sorry, the above comment was for another thread.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544873&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="_LVLDa0q9TSYCFMsPCW3siIlPzSneNJBhXPusf_j_LE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Pentcho Valev (not verified)</span> on 04 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544873">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544874" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499239582"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric @61: "We’ve addressed it tens of threads, tens if not hundreds of posts already."<br /> Not true. No one here has ever addressed the physics of supposedly shrinking physical objects... only the theory that observers at very high speed will see objects differently than one at rest with an object.<br /> How does that train-in-a-tunnel or pole-in-a-barn... or Earth's diameter actually, physically shrink? That is the unanswered challenge, and the reason it remains unanswered is that they don't physically shrink, as SR claims. They only (theoretically) *appear to shrink* as an image carried by light would probably be distorted as an observer approaches at near lightspeed. Can you see the difference? SR does not make that distinction but rather insist that length depends on the observer's frame of reference.</p> <p>Can you honestly believe and insist that a "pancaked" Earth is a valid scientific description of this (or any other) planet? Please set your indoctrination aside for a moment and answer honestly.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544874&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="5DzIR7Duqw3YIqKMRqRb3u9k_uLI0H7YmEE6pJ96qyM"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544874">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544875" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499242538"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM</p> <p>I have addressed that, but you simply did not accept or did not comprehend the answer. Let me try again:</p> <p>In school, you undoubtedly encountered a course in Euclidean geometry. Likely, it was simply called geometry, without the descriptor. In either case, this subject received its full development by the Greek mathematician, Euclid. Euclid started by coming up with several axioms that were (at least so he thought), self-evident. For the most part, this seems reasonable, for example, he stated that given two points, you can draw a straight line through them. One of his axioms that also seems quite reasonable is that given a line, then through a point not on the line, you can draw a single line parallel to the given one. If you draw the situation on a piece of paper, you can hardly see any way that this could be untrue. </p> <p>However, by the 18th century, mathematicians HAD developed geometries in which this last "parallel postulate" was indeed untrue. There were geometries in which no parallel lines could be drawn through the external point. There were ones in which an infinite number of parallels could be drawn. While these seemed to be "false", the main factor that concerns mathematicians was met by these systems, namely that the axioms were self-consistent. That is the axioms did not contain any contradictions. The were known as non-Euclidean geometries. Did they correspond to the physical universe? Well, seemingly no, but mathematicians did not care. They were studying axiomatic systems regardless of whether or not the axioms comport with reality. The answer cannot be determined by mathematics alone anyway. The question is a scientific one. </p> <p>As it turns out, this scientific question has indeed been answered. Euclid was wrong. The universe is not described by a Euclidean geometry. One of the implications of Euclidean geometry is that there is a function called the metric (symbolized by the letter s) defined by<br /> ds^2 = dx^2+dy^2+dz^2. This function is recognized as the distance in Euclidean geometry. It tells us how to determine the distance between two points. If we move from point a to point b, we must (generally) move some distance in the x direction, some (generally) different distance in the y direction, and some distance in the z direction. If we know those distances (which we call coordinates), we can determine the distance between two points. In Euclidean geometry this is a useful quantity because it is invariant. In other words, I can assign an origin and some coordinate axes and determine the distance between two points. You can choose a different origin and different axes and determine the distance. The answer we get will be exactly the same, though, even if we don't choose the same origin and axes. </p> <p>As I said above, though, this is not strictly correct. We recognize the correctness of the above description intuitively because it is approximately correct. It is correct precisely when the observers who are picking their origins and axes are not moving rapidly with respect to the interval being measured. When they ARE moving rapidly, the approximation breaks down, and the value for ds calculated using the formula from the above paragraph no longer is an invariant value. When observers are moving rapidly, the distance measured by one observer CAN disagree with one determined by another observer. This includes the distance from one side of the earth to the other. The moving observer, in the direction of motion, does indeed measure a shorter distance between the near and far surfaces of the earth. It is not a physical shrinking of the earth, but rather a change in the geometry of space that causes the change in distance. The moving observer would measure all kinds of things differently, though, such as a stronger electromagnetic attraction between neighboring molecules (again in the direction of motion), and a stronger gravitational attraction between particles at the surface of the earth and those at its center. The physics all hangs together. The measurements indicate that the expected shape of the earth is not spherical since the forces involved are directionally-dependent. The laws of physics are not broken. It is a completely valid description for the moving observer to state that the earth is flattened in the direction of motion. </p> <p>The question then arises, "who's right?" Since both observers apply the same laws of physics to the situation, and the same laws of physics are valid for both, there is no way to answer the question in a scientifically valid way other than to state that both observers are right. The situation is completely analogous to the case where you watch a baseball pitcher throw a pitch. If I'm standing next to him and I measure his pitch velocity at 90 mph, and you're in a car driving toward him at 50 mph, you will say that the ball is going 140 mph. If the ball hits your car, you can calculate the kinetic energy of the collision and assess the damage it did to your car and the result will be perfectly consistent with the ball travelling 140 mph. The fact that I saw the ball travel 90 mph is irrelevant. We were both right in our measurements. </p> <p>The laws of physics do NOT require all observers to measure the same values, only that the measured values be related in certain ways as governed by the laws. You likely have no problem with the argument I gave above that velocity is not invariant from observer to observer. The simple reality is that distance likewise is not an invariant quantity. That is less "common sense" simply because our brains evolved in an environment where we never had the chance to experience the fact that distance is not an invariant. Time, likewise, turns out to not be invariant, contrary to normal experience and Euclidean geometry. Does that mean, as you suggest, that there is no objective reality? Quite the contrary. It simply means that the quantities we take to be invariant are truly not.</p> <p>The invariant quantity still turns out to be the metric, but a different metric than the Euclidean one. The true points that make up the universe are not the spatial points we usually think of, but rather events. That is things that occur at a specific point in space at a specified time. We can measure the "distance" between two events using the metric of the real spacetime (which is called Lorentzian as opposed to Euclidean). This metric is ds^2= -dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2. (Depending on the source, you may see this written with the + and - signs interchanged; physically it makes no difference; also, this form of the metric assumes we are using units where c=1. If we don't then a factor of c^2 must appear in the "dt" term). This is the quantity that is invariant and is what replaces both "objective time" and "objective distance" in relativity. the metric invariant (hence length contraction). The invariance of the Lorentzian metric accounts for all of the observations of relativity. The inability to comprehend what happens for moving observers is rooted solely in the insistence on treating the universe as though it were governed by Euclidean geometry. Give up Euclid and it all makes sense.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544875&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="Hal68O9O541KbCSApk5iJlre7DbejUdvwVt77dhNdoY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544875">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544876" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499242921"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>No one here has ever addressed the physics of supposedly shrinking physical objects… only the theory that observers at very high speed will see objects differently than one at rest with an object.</p> <p>That's because <i>they don't flipping shrink</i>. Get it through your head: under SR the object itself <b><i>DOESN'T CHANGE</i></b>. It is exactly the same before, during, and after some other object relativistically approaches it. Its exactly the same when someone relativisticallly approaches it as it would be if no object relativistically approached it. So there is simply no transformation or physical change that needs to be explained. </p> <p>HOWEVER, it is also true and an important part of relativity that length and time are not individually conserved quantities. They are relative to the frame of reference, just like an object's velocity and momentum are in Newtonian physics. In fact we can play your silly objection game to Newtonian physics too, just to show how nonsensical your complaint is. I have a 1 kg cannonball moving at 1 m/s. But wait, if some space traveler approaches it moving 2m/s, then the cannonball's momentum has changed! Just by approaching it, I changed the cannonball's momentum from 1 N*s to 3 N*s! Newtonian physics must explain this. YOU must explain this, MM! How does that traveler change the physical properties of the cannonball, merely through the act of approaching it?</p> <p>It doesn't, of course. It is true that to the first observer ("I have...") the cannonball's momentum is 1 N*s. It is true that to the space traveler, the cannonball's momentum is 3 N*s. And it is true that moving towards the cannonball produces no physical change in the cannonball itself. All three statements can be simultaneously true <i>for relative properties like momentum</i>. And in SR, relative properties include x, t, and m measured separately. They also include B and E fields measured separately.</p> <p>So stop complaining about how we need to explain some magical shrinking of distance. We don't, because that's not what SR claims happens. After several claimed decades of study of SR, you seem to still not comprehend this fundamental part of it: a <i>relative</i> property can be really, physically different in different frames of reference without any physical change happening to the object.. Under SR, an object's length in the direction of motion is like the cannonball's momentum: when you consider it from different frames of reference the object itself never changes, but that property <i>is</i> really, actually different depending on the frame of reference you're considering.</p></blockquote> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544876&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="r6nMQ1cwZJjPIS2mLcFS-agQ-tZiJRQtXS5BDZhqDZY"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544876">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544877" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499268839"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric @67:<br /> "So stop complaining about how we need to explain some magical shrinking of distance. We don’t, because that’s not what SR claims happens. </p> <p>... the object itself never changes..."</p> <p>You misrepresent SR to suit yourself. It insist that a 20 ft pole can physically fit into a 10 ft barn... if... (several caveats and at least two observers in all examples), and a long train can fit into a short tunnel (invent your own numbers)... "if"... etc.</p> <p>Study mainstream length contraction before you lecture me on your own version of it again.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544877&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="ZRuawEgS4IKCaacE5BsJmlmCeXxSiGAhjoCxH4SFL34"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544877">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544878" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499288507"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>@MM #68,</p> <p><i>"It insist that a 20 ft pole can physically fit into a 10 ft barn"</i></p> <p>From my <b>perspective</b> it 'looks' like can fit the Moon in my pocket, go figure. Actually I can fit it in between my thumb and forefinger. Check out these images for proof: <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/holdthemoon.html">http://www.crystalinks.com/holdthemoon.html</a></p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544878&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="EASPU0FwJ2TyYdKTd-zho1C7LTPFIxHezP5IdVMR2xA"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Elle H.C. (not verified)</span> on 05 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544878">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544879" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499326143"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM,</p> <p>You are still thinking in Euclidean terms with regards to the barn/pole example. How do we know that the pole fits into the barn? We close both doors of the barn simultaneously while the pole is inside. The notion of "simultaneous", though turns out to be entirely based on Euclidean geometry. What is simultaneous for a given observer will in general NOT be simultaneous for any other observer. </p> <p>It is only the observer at rest with respect to the barn that sees the doors closing simultaneously. This is as it should be. The pole is moving very rapidly with respect to this observer, so its length is contracted in perfect accord with the true, non-Euclidean geometry of the universe. It therefore fits momentarily inside the barn. Since it's rapidly moving toward the front door, the doors must remain closed for only a brief time in order to avoid a collision between pole and door. </p> <p>Now consider the very same situation from the point of view of an observer moving with the pole. This observer will see the front door close then reopen while the front of the pole is inside the barn and the rear of the pole is sticking out of the still open back door. Only after the back of the pole enters does the back door close. The front door reopens and the front of the pole exits the barn. The back of the pole then exits. </p> <p>Both observers agree, as they must, that the pole never collides with either door. Relativity implies causality. if an event A causes and event B (such as a collision between a pole and a door causing a loud noise and damage to both objects), then for ALL observers event A must cause event B, and therefore for all observers event A must occur before event B. That is not relative. It is only by denying relativity that causality can be violated. Only by allowing motion faster than c can causality be violated. If you really think about it, it is classical physics, which allows instantaneous interactions across a distance, that makes no sense.f</p> <p>Like I stated above, preservation of causality requires that causes must precede effects for ALL observers. Consider as an example if relativity were false and the gravitational interaction really were instantaneous. Consider what would happen if the sun were to just disappear. Obviously, the disappearance of the sun would eliminate its gravity and the earth would go careening off in a direction tangential to its orbit. The cause is the sun's disappearance. The effect is the change in the earth's motion. Now, consider how this would appear to an observer near the earth. Since the gravitational interaction is instantaneous, the earth would change its motion immediately. However, our observer would not see the sun disappear for eight minutes. The effect precedes the cause, and causality is violated. Since we know this is false, our earlier assumption that gravity is instantaneous must likewise be false. It's easy to come up with similar examples of violation of causality for the other fundamental interactions, so we are left with the conclusion that interactions cannot occur at speed greater than c. Once that conclusion is reached, relativity follows deductively.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544879&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="plyLzR1VzAt6pc9uztNbi7wqKwTU8iJoTnAFtYAS4DE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544879">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544880" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499331250"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>How do we "know" that a 20ft pole can fit into a 10ft barn?<br /> Because Einstein made physics all about two observers seeing the same thing differently. That is when objective "natural" science was abandoned for relativity's version of philosophical idealism. What's true about the physical world? "It depends on whom you ask." What utter bullshit!</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544880&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="OgoIERub6Nw-e76ff-PNo_5jEMGNT69AhhvETKmuCng"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544880">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544881" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499353359"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><blockquote><p>What’s true about the physical world? “It depends on whom you ask.” What utter bullshit!</p></blockquote> <p>You're wrong conceptually two different ways. Both coming and going. :) First way you're wrong: in SR the <i>spacetime interval</i> does not depend on who you ask. </p> <p>Second way you're wrong: clearly there exist real properties that 'depend on who you ask.' Your claim that this is bullflop is, itself, easily disproven. What is the single unchanging and objective value of my momentum, MM? If you're right, you'll be able to empirically demonstrate an answer that question. If you're wrong, you won't. And obviously, you can't, because there is no meaningful answer to the question of what my "single unchanging and objective value of" my momentum. My momentum is relative to the movement of other objects around me.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544881&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="VjP9V66ni5txmpxsTscLb28ZkOEC3MD9MGDkWiS256A"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">eric (not verified)</span> on 06 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544881">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544882" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499404086"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MM</p> <p>Relativity preserves causality. Non-relativistic physics does not. Are you not going to call a system of physics where an effect can precede its cause bullflop?</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544882&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="B_ZswMdbC77AnlmcaOzPmxWkc6tGhFFDHLeHrBC8pnE"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Sean T (not verified)</span> on 07 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544882">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> <article data-comment-user-id="0" id="comment-1544883" class="js-comment comment-wrapper clearfix"> <mark class="hidden" data-comment-timestamp="1499768305"></mark> <div class="well"> <strong></strong> <div class="field field--name-comment-body field--type-text-long field--label-hidden field--item"><p>eric and Sean T,<br /> You will find a summary of my criticisms of GR and SR in the latest comments from week 168.</p> <p>eric,<br /> Momentum is cumulative, like in a head on crash. Velocity is relative to whatever... on all scales. Neither. have anything to do with my criticism of relativity.<br /> Sean T,<br /> I have never claimed that an effect can precede its cause. Obvious bullshit, just like different observations causing Earth to change shapes or the "thought experiment" in which a 20' pole fits in a 10' barn.</p> </div> <drupal-render-placeholder callback="comment.lazy_builders:renderLinks" arguments="0=1544883&amp;1=default&amp;2=en&amp;3=" token="toUgBa5NNlAuL10eSIV9u1MEMvbMtn6EIa_3Td8hvMo"></drupal-render-placeholder> </div> <footer> <em>By <span lang="" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Michael Mooney (not verified)</span> on 11 Jul 2017 <a href="https://scienceblogs.com/channel/life-sciences/feed#comment-1544883">#permalink</a></em> <article typeof="schema:Person" about="/user/0"> <div class="field field--name-user-picture field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"> <a href="/user/0" hreflang="und"><img src="/files/styles/thumbnail/public/default_images/icon-user.png?itok=yQw_eG_q" width="100" height="100" alt="User Image" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /> </a> </div> </article> </footer> </article> </section> <ul class="links inline list-inline"><li class="comment-forbidden"><a href="/user/login?destination=/startswithabang/2017/06/25/comments-of-the-week-166-from-expanding-faster-than-light-to-periodic-mass-extinctions%23comment-form">Log in</a> to post comments</li></ul> Sun, 25 Jun 2017 13:11:29 +0000 esiegel 37016 at https://scienceblogs.com