Maybe MRI machines will be useful instruments too. They used to be called NMR imaging machines but the name was changed due to irrationals fears associated with the word nuclear.
Harry On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 6:39 PM H LV <[email protected] wrote: > Rutherford established this method of investigating the nucleus and the > hope has been with increasing energies we would devine the secrets of the > nucleus but I think this approach has reached it limits. The new tools of > nuclear research are what has a traditionally been viewed as useful to only > chemists and material scientists...plus a willingness to pose questions. > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 7:50 PM [email protected] < > [email protected] wrote: > >> Regarding colliders studying subatomic particles, if the incident probing >> beam of primary particles— for example electrons or positrons---is high >> enough energy to scatter off the nucleon target, the scattering pattern can >> tell something about the shape, charge, magnetic characteristics, mass and >> maybe other real parameters of the target nucleon. Here a scattering >> interaction is either elastic or inelastic. Nearly all collider >> experiments are inelastic, only approaching true elastic interactions as >> the target nucleon presents higher and higher inertia—resistance to >> transfer of momentum from the incident primary particles of the probing >> beam. >> >> >> >> These scattering interactions do not produce a “hodge-podge of >> sub-nucleon particles and little information about the physical structure >> of the target. The hodge-podge may identify some of the primary >> particles making up the target. Many such scattering may give a food >> statistical estimate of all the primary particles making up the target. >> >> >> >> Thus Jones’ comment: “ This prospect (fame) - in a way actually threatens >> the geniuses at CERN - given the large disparity in funds employed. Thus >> the lack of enthusiasm from that sector is evident and we can expect >> intransigence to continue - plus an unwillingness to review own LHC data >> for confirmation - since it should be there.” This comment is right on >> IMHO. >> >> >> >> Bob Cook >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* H LV <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Friday, February 1, 2019 1:57:01 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on the novel particle >> >> I could learn about the structure of a watch by smashing it with a hammer >> but chances are I will damage or destroy some parts of the watch in the >> process. >> >> Do high energy colliders really offer a window into the structure of >> matter or do they transform the very thing they are studying? >> >> Harry >> >> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Krasznahorkay and others from the Hungarian Institute for Nuclear >>> Research, on a very limited budget, recently reaffirmed a spectacular >>> discovery made 4 years ago and partially validated by others. If true, >>> their findings could be complementary and perhaps even more important than >>> the Higgs. >>> >>> This prospect (fame) - in a way actually threatens the geniuses at CERN >>> - given the large disparity in funds employed. Thus the lack of enthusiasm >>> from that sector is evident and we can expect intransigence to continue - >>> plus an unwillingness to review own LHC data for confirmation - since it >>> should be there. >>> >>> The mystery finding is apparently best explained as a ~16.7 MeV neutral >>> particle -- not the dark photon, which was an early aim but "dark" >>> nevertheless (weakly interacting). It is yet to be named but could help >>> explain the results of Holmlid's experiments with laser irradiation of >>> dense deuterium - where muons were suspected but not proved. That work is >>> another earth-shaking discovery which is generally ignored by the >>> mainstream, and discovered on even less of a budget. >>> >>> On the off-chance that this Hungarian discovery proves correct and >>> explains Holmlid - here is suggested name for it, and a simple way to >>> validate the connection. The suggested name is the "Zsa boson" in honor of >>> another famous Hungarian. >>> >>> The data supposedly can be explained by a vector gauge boson that decays >>> to e+e− pairs. Others have suggested the new particle cannot be an X boson >>> which would mediate a fifth force. Yet there is one feature of interest >>> that is apparently agreed - that being the coupling, which is present to up >>> and down quarks AND electrons whereas proton coupling is suppressed. >>> >>> Thus a suggestion to Holmlid or replicators who are on a strict budget - >>> look for simple electron coupling at a distance. How? Well one lowest-cost >>> possibility with lots of "impact" so to speak would be simply to place a >>> fully charged ultra-capacitor in various positions around the target and >>> look for the expected explosion (being careful to provide adequate safety). >>> "Duck and cover," as we were taught in the fifties :-) >>> >>>
