It's actually the idiota who dispense funding. After one gets the funding not
everybody does as
promised. haha. The smart ones hire a writer who specialises in factoids.
Basically it's a
large loop tunnel, with magnets packed all around to prevent the particles from
flying away.
They make hem run round in circles to get speed up, them smash them into
another particle and
photograph in a smoke piled area what happens. Most often they show in a
Feynmann trick diagram
what they change into and out of. One only gets to see the traces left. Many
of them got bored
with the pile of untold different particles. So they went back to the original
three, proton,
neutron and electron as families of them.
adrian
archytas wrote:
> The LHC cranks over this coming week - apparently they are going
> straight to high energy on a managerial decision on costs. I've long
> been unsure the theories actually get tested, but am far to far away
> from the esoteric knowledge to judge other than on concerns that we
> get really good at rationalising our research programmes just as they
> go decadent (as in economics).
>
> On 7 Sep, 10:56, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Yeah,
>>
>> An alternative science lisT I was on, we got visited by one of those from
>> CERN, a dyed in the
>> wool materialist. Right now they're building a bigger one. Though another
>> friend is into
>> designing a microscope to peer at quarks, etc. Cannot afford to build it, of
>> course. And then
>> particles are now acepted by some as standing wave knots in E.M. fields.
>> Funny to imagine I'm
>> made up of an E.M. process, although I know it's true. Given that then a
>> particle will be where
>> two or more wave fronts cross, in a sine wave schema then the opposite where
>> they at at extreme
>> apartness would constitute what so far nobody is looking at, feasibly what
>> they call energy?
>> Which leaves admitting who or what conducts the orchestra.
>>
>> Adrian.
>>
>>
>>
>> archytas wrote:
>>> The main use of this stuff is likely to be measuring and manipulation
>>> at these small levels. CERN hopes not to picture the Higgs' Boson but
>>> catch something of its decay. Perhaps I should have written 'picture'
>>> as "picture" or {picture}?
>>> On 6 Sep, 12:48, adrf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Flapsinatingly intruiging. What the poor sod info consumer does not know
>>>> is what he gets is
>>>> instrumental manipulation to give him a sense image of it all. I recall
>>>> seeing the first piccie
>>>> of an atom somewhere over 2 decades agon. The wrinkly surface is most
>>>> likely a field'wave
>>>> interference as interpreted Quantum fashion. So what it actually looks
>>>> like had we nano sized
>>>> eyes only god knows. My chip, 1.8 Ghz has I'm told 43 million chips in it.
>>>> Nice though.
>>>> adrian
>>>> archytas wrote:
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080904115132.htmhasa
>>>>> comparison of gold atoms pictured by an electron microscope and the
>>>>> new helium-ion microscope. Might be of interest in getting a glimpse
>>>>> of just how small we can 'photograph' and what an atom looks like.- Hide
>>>>> quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
