It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Climate Change: Is Carbon Dioxide the Culprit? No, It's CERN?

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Bedlam

Associated W and Higgs boson photoproduction and other electroweak photon-induced processes at the lhc

www.sciencedirect.com...


You have to read it for content, not keywords.

For example, it's not "electroweak photon" induced processes, it's photon-induced "electroweak processes". You can find a lot of keyword triggered results where the words photon and electroweak are used together, but there is no such thing as an electroweak photon.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Bedlam

He's not the only one stating this old theory of Bethe's is wrong.


Even if Bethe was totally wrong, your guy is stating "because we can't do Bethe cycle fusion in a bottle on Earth, and because it doesn't explain cosmic rays, then stellar fusion is incorrect". Neither conditional clause matters, because neither has anything to do with how Sol works.

The Sun doesn't GENERATE cosmic rays. It has nothing to do with them. Nor does fusion in general. It's like the guy said "Bethe cycle fusion doesn't explain meteors, therefore stellar fusion is wrong". Scope out a bit - you're focused too closely on his smoke and mirrors. Smoke doesn't matter. Mirrors don't matter. Because neither relates to the conclusion at all.

Bethe cycle not being done commercially on Earth doesn't matter. Cosmic rays don't matter. Because neither are predicate to stellar fusion in a star like Sol. Can fusion be done? Sure! High school kids have done it. Every thermonuclear bomb does it. YOU could do it, if you had more money than sense and were good with machine tools. Do such reactions generate cosmic rays? NO! Because fusion doesn't do that. I'm unclear as to why he even mentions it, except he wants to bring it in later. Hell, at one time, you could with enough money and a simple license, just buy a fusion reactor off the shelf:



Behold, the Daimler FusionStar, a commercial Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor used for generating neutrons.

Focus instead on his theory which REQUIRES free neutrons and anti-neutrons in abundance. Then, since we know a lot about them not hanging around for more than a few seconds, you can just wad the paper up and toss it in the trash.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I see what you mean about keywords. He's not "my boy" though.

If I understand correctly he is using this term, "electroweak photon" as a new term which is describing gamma rays.

Because of the experiements at the LHC include the finding of the Higgs Boson, I do believe this brings more questions to the drawing board in regards to the photon. Like this article suggests.. I could be wrong though as you suggest.


One possibility is that the photons come from a graviton, a theorized particle that carries gravitational force the same way that photons carry electromagnetic force. The current understanding is that gravitons should be massless, but this graviton would have mass—and because it has mass, it could indicate the existence of smaller dimensions invisible to everyday life. Another possibility—one that Martin’s paper develops—is that the photons indicate a heavy cousin of the Higgs boson. Many theories currently predict the existence of multiple Higgs bosons, but experiments have only revealed the one that nabbed the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics. The existence of certain Higgs bosons would support some theories of supersymmetry, an attractive hypothetical genre that could shed light on physics’ big questions. Some supersymmetry theories could explain why the Higgs boson exists, or identify the source of dark matter in the rotation of galaxies.
www.wired.com...

They say this "bump" was a fluke however new phenomena arise all the time in accelerators which leads to tons of papers written on the unknown and theoretical physicists everywhere trying to explain our world. There is so much we do not know and hopefully "normal science" will one day ( sooner than later) will look at phenomena which does not fit in the box will be seen and theorized…normal scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies which is sometimes upsetting for the normal person which doesn't adhere to the dogma of such.
edit on 23-10-2016 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




The Sun doesn't GENERATE cosmic rays


I thought it did? I'm so lost. lol


Cosmic rays are energetic, subatomic particles that arrive from outside the Earth's atmosphere. The lowest energy cosmic rays are produced by ordinary stars like the Sun. For example, during a solar flare many particles are ejected from the Sun. When these solar particles interact with the Earth's magnetic field, they tend to spiral into the Earth's magnetic poles where they excite the gas in the atmosphere causing it to glow. This is observed as Aurora, or the Northern/Southern Lights.
www.telescopearray.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




Then, since we know a lot about them not hanging around for more than a few seconds


Again this above is confusing because I don't see where he says it hangs around a long time.

His theory as I'm sure you know postulates the graviton.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Just like this theory ( linked below) would change the standard model.... still doesn't stop physics lovers ( theoretical physicists) from theorizing and thank God they do continue even with so much criticism when it goes against the norm.

www.int.washington.edu...



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
If I understand correctly he is using this term, "electroweak photon" as a new term which is describing gamma rays.


However, the words mean things. He doesn't get to just invent a new term for gamma rays. Photons are photons, there aren't some that are 'electroweak'.



There is so much we do not know and hopefully "normal science" will one day ( sooner than later) will look at phenomena which does not fit in the box will be seen and theorized…normal scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies which is sometimes upsetting for the normal person which doesn't adhere to the dogma of such.


Looking at things we don't understand is all that physics does. It's not 'dogma', it's a huge body of things we have studied and understand, as opposed to, say, religion.

You can't just make up a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and say 'tada' like this guy is doing. That's not science. What he's saying is nonsense.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
I thought it did? I'm so lost. lol


Those are particles accelerated by the Sun's magnetic field, not produced as a byproduct of fusion.

Keywords. Meaning. They are often not the same.

Remember your guy's argument was contingent on fusion not explaining cosmic rays? Yeah. That part. Your cite, the one you chose, states that these are produced by particles accelerated by the Sun's magnetic field. Not that they came from fusion.

He's full of bollocks, you know.
edit on 23-10-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Bedlam




Then, since we know a lot about them not hanging around for more than a few seconds


Again this above is confusing because I don't see where he says it hangs around a long time.

His theory as I'm sure you know postulates the graviton.


Ahem:



A star starts its life as a cosmic soup of neutrons, antineutrons, and boson particles. Through neutron-antineutron annihilation the temperature of the star is built up until it reaches a threshold energy of the order of a TeV. At this energy thermonuclear conversion of boson particles to their constituent parts by the impact of ultra high energy neutrons and antineutrons begins.


Forgot that bit? No, no a star does not start its life as a soup of free neutrons and anti-neutrons. Unless YOU are assuming that some cosmic force just poofs them there, dense enough for fusion to start, it's going to take eons for enough mass to aggregate to form a protostar. Only you're going to be losing half of the free neutrons and anti-neutrons every 15 seconds or so. Not counting annihilation of anti-neutrons, which, by the way, don't exist in the wild in quantity anyway.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
thank God they do continue even with so much criticism when it goes against the norm.


Going against the 'norm' is what scientists do, however, they have to do it so that their new ideas fit observed data.

Science is more than just sitting around making up any old crap you have a mind to. It actually has to fit observation. Something that the 'neutron anti-neutron' fusion idea fails at. Miserably. On several levels.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I'm not sure if you read within the thread where I stated my interest in the theory ( since I'd never heard of such) lead me to email Amagh.



Here are our emails below.....



"Hello Professor Amagh,

I am emailing you tonight as I just finished reading your paper, "Climate Change: Is Carbon Dioxide the Culprit?"

It's a very interesting theory !!

I'm sure you haven't gotten great response from the scientific community? Am I correct?

In regards to said theory, How does it become a secondary energy source of the Sun's energy when supposedly zero energy escapes the machine? Are there any links you can send me for further reading to try and understand how you came to this conclusion as I really don't understand it.

There is probably no way they would stop the machines from smashing particles the speed of light in order to slow down global warming. They have spent billions on it. What are your thoughts in that regard?

I'm not a scientist nor do I understand a lot of it but I do try. I sell houses however reading and learning is a passion/hobby of mine.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jennifer Jennings"

His reply below:

"Hi Jennifer, I thank you for your e-mail. Any relation with Jennings of ABC News? He was a popular journalist during my student days in the USA(BS, UC Berkeley, MS, Stanford, PhD. U of Chicago). Am surprised a real estate lady is interested in this abstract stuff!

It is not true zero energy escapes from these machines(see ref. 4 of the paper)- recall the title of the WSG theory( 'Electro -.Weak Theory); 'electro' stands for energy. The machines are an aberration- a waste of tax-payers' money. We have two groups in theoretical physics, namely, 'Machine -Driven' and 'Intellect-Driven' theorists, I belong to the latter; and we know ourselves. Amagh. "



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

Actually, "cosmic rays" has become a catch-all term for energetic particles. Bedlam is correct: the sun does not produce cosmic rays, but it does produce energetic particles. They are just of lower energy level than what physicists consider a cosmic ray.

True cosmic rays are far too powerful to be trapped by the earth's magnetic field. They manifest as a type of 'avalanch' of photons in the atmosphere. As they slow due to collisions with particles in the atmosphere, they give off photons, and since they travel at almost the speed of light, they appear to be keeping up with the photons they released until they finally slow down. The whole thing takes place in a few milliseconds.

The concern is that even supernovae are not powerful enough to produce high-energy cosmic rays. So is there something out there more energetic than a supernova? And what could that be? NASA is conducting experiments to try and track cosmic rays in order to pinpoint the area of the sky they are coming from. That will let us narrow our search for their source.

As to the theory, Bedlam is right again: pure bull-potatoes.

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
It is not true zero energy escapes from these machines(see ref. 4 of the paper)- recall the title of the WSG theory( 'Electro -.Weak Theory); 'electro' stands for energy...


Argh. No. No it doesn't.

"Electro" is short for electromagnetic, not energy.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 11:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Ok... lets walk through this together.

He is describing electro-weak in the email not electromagnetic. Right? I'm trying to understand because I think he is right. There is a transition phase at such high energy whereas it then becomes electroweak, right?


In particle physics, the electroweak scale is the energy scale around 246 GeV, a typical energy of processes described by the electroweak theory
en.wikipedia.org...


Electromagnetism is a branch of physics which involves the study of the electromagnetic force, a type of physical interaction that occurs between electrically charged particles
en.wikipedia.org...

Electrically charged-- has energy. It's charged?


The other three fundamental interactions are the strong interaction, the weak interaction, and gravitation.[1]


The force that moves electrically charged particles would have to have energy would it not?

Back to electroweak..


According to the electroweak theory, at very high energies, the universe has four massless gauge boson fields similar to the photon and a complex scalar Higgs field double
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

He stated that electro in electroweak stands for energy. That's wrong in a way that should call the guy's competence into question.

The energy level at which you get electroweak interaction is unbelievably high.

You also can't say something has charge therefore it has energy because "it's charged" and thus can say accurately that electro means energy. He's just wrong.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

If the Sun is said to only produce a small amount of cosmic rays then how do physicists suppose cosmic rays are 100% not coming from CME's or neutrinos produced in nuclear reactions in the Sun? It seems as though there are theories but not exactly 100% consensus or science backing where cosmic rays actually originate from. Case in point is this article.


Cosmic rays are mainly made up of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei. Their origin is still something of a mystery, although recent experimental data from the Fermi Space Telescope have shown that many of them originate from supernovae, while some may come from quasars. Almost all of our observations of cosmic rays are carried out within the heliosphere – the massive magnetic bubble that extends well beyond Pluto's orbit and contains the solar system.
physicsworld.com...

And this..


But even though accelerators came to provide the best hunting ground for new particles, the physics of cosmic rays is still widely studied.
home.cern...

While there is no doubt supernovae and quasars may also have cosmic rays origins how can someone say the Sun only has a little cosmic ray origin?? Cosmic rays are even neutralized by the Sun. The Heliosphere is dominated by the Sun!

Much to their surprise, scientists did not previously know this region was there. Astro-physicists refer to this new region as a magnetic highway for charged particles because oursun's magnetic field lines are connected to the interstellar magnetic field lines.
www.solarsystemcentral.com...

I know we have conversed back and forth on here before but I can't seem to remember if you are also a Physicist?

When you say particle accelerators haven't reached the unification of the electro-weak are you stating none have produced that much energy?

In order to get to the energy level to find the Higgs Boson ( beginning of the Universe) doesn't it have to get up to that much energy? Isn't that what electroweak stands for is the amount of energy you obtain to reach the level in which it requres?


Above the unification energy, on the order of 100 GeV, they would merge into a single electroweak force
en.wikipedia.org...


LEP was commissioned in July 1989 and the first beam circulated in the collider on 14 July. The collider's initial energy was chosen to be around 91 GeV, so that Z bosons could be produced. The Z boson and its charged partner the W boson, both discovered at CERN in 1983, are responsible for the weak force, which drives the Sun, for example. Observing the creation and decay of the short-lived Z boson was a critical test of the Standard Model. In the seven years that LEP operated at around 100 GeV it produced around 17 million Z particles. In 1995 LEP was upgraded for a second operation phase, with as many as 288 superconducting accelerating cavities added to double the energy so that the collisions could produce pairs of W bosons. The collider's energy eventually topped209 GeV in 2000.
home.cern...

My above post pointed out the fact when you have electroweak ENERGY it produces "four massless gauge boson fields similar to the photon and a complex scalar Higgs field double".


The feebleness of the force, however, is not always the case. As energy (temperature) increases, the weak force gets stronger. In the extreme temperatures of the great primaeval fireball which was the birth of the Universe, we now realize that electromagnetism and the weak force were one and the same thing. But as this fireball cooled down, it eventually reached a temperature where the weak interaction 'froze'. Beta radioactivity and other low energy weak force effects are only the fossil remains of what happened in this early Universe. However modern accelerators and storage rings, like LEP, can recreate those primaeval conditions and we can see again the 'weak' interaction rise to rival electromagnetism in strength.
cern-discoveries.web.cern.ch...

To me it seems as though this energy level is indeed recreating the energy levels seconds after the big bang?


“[T]he concentration of so much energy into the tiny nuclear volume is enough to establish truly colossal densities and temperatures about a quarter of a million times those at the core of the sun,” he wrote. “Heavy-ion collisions recreate the quark-gluon plasma, the extreme state of matter that is believed to have filled the Universe when it was only microseconds old… From the perspective of the early 1950s, the energies attained by the [LHC] would have seemed like science-fiction.”
www.sciencealert.com...

It seems to me physicists are theorizing more so now than in recent years because the Higgs has changed the way they think about the standard model.


Specifically, the Standard Model predicts the existence of a Higgs particle (named for the British theorist Peter Higgs), which would explain where the masses of particles of the electroweak force come from, and possibly even the masses of quarks and leptons. High-energy physicists believe they’ll find the Higgs when the Large Hadron Collider, now being built at CERN, begins operation. If they don’t find the particle, the Standard Model will certainly have to be revisited. If they do find it, the discovery will lead us into new territory: theoretical studies already suggest that the Higgs will be made of a new kind of matter, unlike the particles we know today. Neutrinos are also part of the Standard Model. There are billions of them in every room of every house, yet they are so elusive they can fly through a wall of lead several light-years thick. According to the theory, neutrinos have no mass, but recent experiments have proved otherwise. That finding has now opened up a whole new arena to be explored – hinting, again, that the Standard Model needs modification.
www.oecd.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




Only you're going to be losing half of the free neutrons and anti-neutrons every 15 seconds or so


Did you mean 15 MINUTES instead of seconds?



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I appreciate your feedback. I understand the search is ongoing and while we cannot say for sure where they originate we cannot say for sure where they do originate.

I find it hard to believe the Sun cannot produce more than a small amount of cosmic rays. I guess that is why I am considered hard headed and ever ending with questions. lol

If the Sun is traveling through the Interstellar Medium could it not excite the Sun in so many ways to produce high energetic particles such as cosmic rays? Even the Voyager was said to have excited the Sun in ways they didn't expect.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Bedlam




Only you're going to be losing half of the free neutrons and anti-neutrons every 15 seconds or so


Did you mean 15 MINUTES instead of seconds?


Probably...however, let's see you explain how that matters. Please. Given the time it takes for a proto star to form, 15 hours, months, years, millenia would be sufficient to make him totally wrong.

Free neutrons do not exist long enough for this to be true. Period. Anti-neutrons are not available in sufficient quantities. AND you have the same issues with half life. He is categorically wrong.



posted on Oct, 25 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

You think that neutrinos can be considered cosmic rays, so I'd have to sort of doubt your intuition on what's hard to believe about cosmic rays.

Also, I very much doubt you can find how "voyager excited the sun".



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join