great From: Dr. Plamen L. Simeonov <plamen.l.simeo...@gmail.com> To: tozziart...@libero.it Cc: fis <email@example.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story Well, these are only citations. What if all of them are
From: "tozziart...@libero.it" <tozziart...@libero.it> To: fis <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 6:32 PM Subject: [Fis] Game over! A Curious Story "The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the
There is no way I could trust such a proof as it would completely rely on the very particular and certainly arbitrary axiomatic theory in which such a proof could be produced (there is no way we can take the 'universe' as being operating on theories of relativity and quantum field, for example).
Dear Terry and FISers, I know that there is probably theoretical “no proof” or guarantee in the mathematical sense, but this should not mean that irresponsible experiments can be carried out on a large scale like Tesla did them a century ago. What you suggest about “experiments of nature” sounds
Mathematic analysis seldom provides "proof" of any physical theory or prediction. This is of course why we do empirical experiments. So being unpersuaded by either side's theoretical analysis and prior to running the actual experiment on the LHC, what is the best approach? I think that there is
"The operation of the LHC is safe, not only in the old sense of that word, but in the more general sense that our most qualified scientists have thoroughly considered and analyzed the risks involved in the operation of the LHC. [Any concerns] are merely hypothetical and speculative, and