Results from the LHC soon?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Results from the LHC soon?

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 . . . 13 · Next
Author Message
Profile SciManStev
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Jun 99
Posts: 4793
Credit: 79,869,266
RAC: 36,253
United States
Message 1277852 - Posted: 31 Aug 2012, 1:32:48 UTC

http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/30/black-holes-bright-galaxies-emerge-from-dust/?hpt=hp_c2

Steve
____________
Warning, addicted to SETI crunching!
Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group.
GPUUG Website

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1277929 - Posted: 31 Aug 2012, 5:10:23 UTC
Last modified: 31 Aug 2012, 5:16:22 UTC

In the August 30 issue of "Nature" magazine an article titled "The new particle" says that as a follow-up machine to the LHC an International Linear Collider, accelerating leptons instead of hadrons, is planned in Japan since Europe is busy with the LHC and the USA with heavy ion accelerators. Who will pay for it?
Tullio
____________

Profile Chris S
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 31162
Credit: 11,399,786
RAC: 22,513
United Kingdom
Message 1279593 - Posted: 3 Sep 2012, 10:33:55 UTC

How small can we go?

small

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1279826 - Posted: 3 Sep 2012, 23:08:58 UTC - in response to Message 1279593.
Last modified: 3 Sep 2012, 23:11:24 UTC

How small can we go?

small

Chris,
Its ridiculous!

To summarise, its the old argument - Is matter a wave or a particle?
And the answer is that matter is a particle that acts like a wave depending on how you measure it.

And inversely, light, or electromagnetic radiation, is a wave that can act like a particle depending on how you measure it.

This is quantum mechanics. Some people know how it works and some people don't. Right now today, there are many programs on the TV with astronomers and physicists attempting to explain quantum mechanics when they really haven't a clue how it works. As a result, they end up confusing the millions of people who are watching the TV program with really poor science explainations.

That news article on the BBC website, in my mind, clearly shows that the, so called mathematicians do not understand quantum mechanics. As a result, they are only propagating further confusion among thousands of readers of the article.

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1280179 - Posted: 5 Sep 2012, 7:52:46 UTC

Why ridiculous? The author is not a mathematician, he is an experimental physicist taking part in the ATLAS experiment at LHC, a simulation of whose results is now running on my computers via the Test4Theory@home BOINC program.
Tullio
____________

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2468
Credit: 1,172,332
RAC: 118
United States
Message 1280209 - Posted: 5 Sep 2012, 10:40:16 UTC - in response to Message 1280179.
Last modified: 5 Sep 2012, 10:51:57 UTC

Johnnie, my son,

As for quantum mechanics. It's my belief that physicists (and the rest of us) do not understand what really happens at the very small end of the scale. This may well be due to the supposition (if true) that the mathematicians have not produced the proper notions of Number and how Calculus should work at the infinitesimal level. Throwing away (ΔX)(ΔP) as we differentiate always bothered me. This is exactly what we call the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle"; it seems that the way we do calculus guarantees that we will be uncertain at the very small level..

Both sciences have served man well and are remarkable intellectual achievements. Never the less we can only model reality and try to predict behavior in a way that we hopefully can understand.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1280598 - Posted: 6 Sep 2012, 15:06:16 UTC - in response to Message 1280179.
Last modified: 6 Sep 2012, 15:07:14 UTC

Why ridiculous? The author is not a mathematician, he is an experimental physicist taking part in the ATLAS experiment at LHC, a simulation of whose results is now running on my computers via the Test4Theory@home BOINC program.
Tullio

Tullio,
Yes, in my opinion, even at CERN, and at many of the top physics institutions around the world, many of the top mathematicians and physicists DO NOT understand the quantum mechanics they are studying, investigating and teaching to others. That is my honest opinion Tullio!

In my opinion, of the top 10,000 people in the world who are investigating particle physics, and teaching it to other students, maybe less that 10% of them really understand quantum mechanics and what it means.

I'm not saying that to insult these very clever people. I'm saying it because they are all studying and investigating areas of physics that we still don't have the answer to. If we had the answers to some of the problems in quantum mechanics then maybe more people would understand it better. So i'm not insulting these people. I'm just making an observation.

John.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1280607 - Posted: 6 Sep 2012, 15:34:32 UTC - in response to Message 1280209.
Last modified: 6 Sep 2012, 16:05:24 UTC

Johnnie, my son,

As for quantum mechanics. It's my belief that physicists (and the rest of us) do not understand what really happens at the very small end of the scale. This may well be due to the supposition (if true) that the mathematicians have not produced the proper notions of Number and how Calculus should work at the infinitesimal level. Throwing away (ΔX)(ΔP) as we differentiate always bothered me. This is exactly what we call the "Heisenberg uncertainty principle"; it seems that the way we do calculus guarantees that we will be uncertain at the very small level..

Both sciences have served man well and are remarkable intellectual achievements. Never the less we can only model reality and try to predict behaviour in a way that we hopefully can understand.

Daddio,
You make some good points there. Yes, we are making progress. There is just one small error in the maths of quantum mechanics that needs to be removed. Once they remove the error, all the maths will fall into place. That will happen very soon! The error can't last much longer.

In the mean time, there is one group of people that have found a way to solve the problems in quantum mechanics. They were forced to solve the problem for their particular science so they could get answers. This small group of people use a kind of get-a-round or sticky plaster to solve the problem.

Its quantum chemistry;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry

Now the Quantum Chemists needed to solve the equations of quantum mechanics so they could plot the precise structure of atoms and molecules. So none of the quantum mechanics maths were working for them, they were getting dud answers and plots. So in the 1980's, they started using a get-a-round to force the maths to work. By putting in this get-a-round into the maths of quantum mechanics, they kind of put a sticky plaster over the hole. But the end result allows them to plot and simulate atomic structure in computers.

So right now today, Quantum Chemists can produce perfect quantum plots of atomic structure. Look at this page very carefully;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital

Now that page is quantum chemistry in action. But the maths used still has the "sticky plaster" holding it together! Remove the sticky plaster from the maths, and you get answers that are nonsense. Put the sticky plaster back on, and the maths work!

Here is the God's honest truth - The sticky plaster they are putting on the quantum mechanics maths contains the solution to all the problems in world physics. But the quantum chemists don't realise what they have! They are putting a sticky plaster on the very bit that will solve the problem for them.

Anyone who understands what i have said in this message will become very wise indeed. But you need to understand what the "sticky plaster" is, and why they are putting a sticky plaster on the maths!

It took me 2 years to find this small group of scientists, the Quantum Chemists. But once i found their "sticky plaster", i knew i had the right people who had solved the problem for me.

The problems in particle physics, and physics in general, will be solved through quantum chemistry. If only the two groups of scientists knew each other and talked through the problem. They would have the solution. But physicists are very stubborn and don't listen to anyone. They are so stubborn, they block out people who have already solved the problem. This is to their own detriment!

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1280658 - Posted: 6 Sep 2012, 17:43:25 UTC

I've just received news that QMC@home is being transferred from Muenster University to the new Theoretical Chemistry Institute at Bonn. It will employ not only MonteCarlo methods in Chemistry but also Quantum Mechanical treatment of both biological materials and structural materials such as proteins and catalyst materials for use in cars. I think that before talking about quantum chemistry one should know at least the Hartree-Fok method for integrating ab initio the Schroedinger equation of molecules and the density functional theory besides the MonteCarlo method. I have studied all three and have personally known dr.Enrico Clementi, formerly an IBM Fellow, and one of the founding fathers of quantum chemistry. I am running QMC@home and shall follow their advances.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1280686 - Posted: 6 Sep 2012, 18:34:53 UTC - in response to Message 1280658.
Last modified: 6 Sep 2012, 18:37:40 UTC

I've just received news that QMC@home is being transferred from Muenster University to the new Theoretical Chemistry Institute at Bonn. It will employ not only MonteCarlo methods in Chemistry but also Quantum Mechanical treatment of both biological materials and structural materials such as proteins and catalyst materials for use in cars. I think that before talking about quantum chemistry one should know at least the Hartree-Fok method for integrating ab initio the Schroedinger equation of molecules and the density functional theory besides the MonteCarlo method. I have studied all three and have personally known dr.Enrico Clementi, formerly an IBM Fellow, and one of the founding fathers of quantum chemistry. I am running QMC@home and shall follow their advances.
Tullio

Tullio,
Thats very interesting. So you are familiar with hartree-fock and density functional theory? Then you understand what i was saying in my last 2 posts?

Ok Tullio, maybe you can help me with something here. I told you before that i can't actually read the maths. I know this sounds funny, but its true. My skill is in fault finding, problem solving and mapping. But i can't read the maths. So maybe you can help me!

Tullio in one of those theories, hartree-fock or density functional theory, they have what i am describing as a "sticky plaster" to cover a hole in the maths. Somewhere in the maths of those theories, they are using a figure of "90% of something" as opposed to the full 100%. But because i can't read the maths, i don't understand exactly what this 90% figure really is in mathematical terms.

Tullio do you know what i'm talking about? Do you know about this 90% figure they use when plotting atomic orbitals?

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1280935 - Posted: 7 Sep 2012, 9:50:31 UTC - in response to Message 1280686.

I could not find where that 90% value is cited. But the main point is that both in classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics the n-bpdy problem has an analytic solution only if n=2, like the Earth-Moon system and the hydrogen atom. For n>2 you must recur to approximate methods, with varying error margins, For molecules, the standard approximation is to build a molecular orbital as a linear combination of atomic orbitals, each of which has been obtained by the Hartree-Fock method with some approximation. Also the coefficients of the linear combination must be weighted. The standard practice is to use a reasonable model and to compare its results to experimental data from standard chemical analysis. Then you vary your coefficients and see if the results of the calculations agree more with chemical data. This is a highly empirical method and has been greatly helped by the use of computers, and a project like QMC@home helps in this effort. All users are given slightly different coefficients and the results are compared to see which one suits better. Then this first tier result is used as an input to a second tier calculation, as in Hartree-Fock, a highly iterative method. No parallel processing here is possible and no GPU can be used.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1280943 - Posted: 7 Sep 2012, 10:34:38 UTC - in response to Message 1280935.
Last modified: 7 Sep 2012, 10:43:02 UTC

I could not find where that 90% value is cited. But the main point is that both in classical mechanics and in quantum mechanics the n-bpdy problem has an analytic solution only if n=2, like the Earth-Moon system and the hydrogen atom. For n>2 you must recur to approximate methods, with varying error margins, For molecules, the standard approximation is to build a molecular orbital as a linear combination of atomic orbitals, each of which has been obtained by the Hartree-Fock method with some approximation. Also the coefficients of the linear combination must be weighted. The standard practice is to use a reasonable model and to compare its results to experimental data from standard chemical analysis. Then you vary your coefficients and see if the results of the calculations agree more with chemical data. This is a highly empirical method and has been greatly helped by the use of computers, and a project like QMC@home helps in this effort. All users are given slightly different coefficients and the results are compared to see which one suits better. Then this first tier result is used as an input to a second tier calculation, as in Hartree-Fock, a highly iterative method. No parallel processing here is possible and no GPU can be used.
Tullio

Tullio,
You do have a very advanced knowledge of this topic!

Ok, i found where this 90% value is discussed;

On this page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital
Go down to the heading "Shapes of orbitals" about half way down the page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_orbital#Shapes_of_orbitals
And read the first paragraph!

In the first paragraph of the "Shapes of orbitals" section, it talks about physically plotting the orbitals Tullio. And it discusses why this 90% figure is used. If you try to plot an atomic orbital using 100%, the maths go haywire and the computer won't plot the orbital. So they use this 90% probability of finding where the electron will be to plot the orbital and it gives the computer a kind of "boundary" or "outside edge" to work with. This allows you to draw nice pictures and plot the electron orbitals.

So the 90% figure is the probability of finding where the electron will be.

John.
____________

Profile Bob DeWoody
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 May 10
Posts: 1369
Credit: 547,606
RAC: 213
United States
Message 1280961 - Posted: 7 Sep 2012, 11:11:55 UTC

Johnny, it is a picture that indicates the black hole is there. The activity of the stuff around it is proof a black hole is at the center of activity. That's the simplest way I can think of to explain what the observations prove.
____________
Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required.

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1280988 - Posted: 7 Sep 2012, 12:39:52 UTC - in response to Message 1280943.

Johnney, what the chemists call "orbitals" the physicists call probability amplitudes. So we are dealing with probabilities and representing them graphically is not the main objective, although this gives us the opportunity to picture molecules with sticks and balls (remember the "double helix" of Crick and Watson?). But we are really dealing with probability amplitudes expressed as complex numbers. Read, if you want, the story of the introduction of complex numbers by Girolamo Cardano narrated by Roger Penrose in his book "Shadows of the mind". Cheers.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1281226 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 0:32:45 UTC - in response to Message 1280988.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 0:44:15 UTC

Johnney, what the chemists call "orbitals" the physicists call probability amplitudes. So we are dealing with probabilities and representing them graphically is not the main objective, .....
Tullio

Tullio,
Yes, this definitely is the main objective. To be able to plot the wave functions of electrons is critical Tullio! To be able to visualise what atoms REALLY look like, instead of what we "think" they look like. You have no idea just how critical it is.

Why do i think its so critical?

Answer - Its critical to visualise EXACTLY what the electrons around molecules look like because it allows you to "see" the mistake. Tullio, this is how i found the error. I found the error because i could "see" where the error was with my eyes and in my mind.

Tullio i told you i can't read the maths. But from studying quantum chemistry, i found the error at the root of physics because i could "see" the error! This is why i say that the quantum chemists have the answer that the physicists are looking for!

Do you understand?

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1281269 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 4:09:38 UTC - in response to Message 1281226.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 4:11:15 UTC

Frankly no. But, if you have found an error in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, publish it, as Louis De Broglie and David Bohm have done. I hope you know the EPR paradox and the Bell inequalities. The discussion is still going on but I don't think quantum chemists are taking part in it. They are using QM as a tool, like a Bunsen beak or a Petri dish and ignore epistemology.
Tullio
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1281368 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 9:37:28 UTC - in response to Message 1281269.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 9:41:31 UTC

Frankly no. But, if you have found an error in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, publish it, as Louis De Broglie and David Bohm have done. I hope you know the EPR paradox and the Bell inequalities. The discussion is still going on but I don't think quantum chemists are taking part in it. They are using QM as a tool, like a Bunsen beak or a Petri dish and ignore epistemology.
Tullio

Tullio,
I don't understand, why you don't see the error?

The electron orbital plots are 90% of the wave function! We can't plot 100% of the wave function because the answer has nothing to "hold it together". So, quantum chemists are just happy and content to plot 90% of the wave function because it works! They are happy because they really don't care, they just want to draw the pictures of the molecules or whatever work they are doing.

Tullio what about the other 10%? Is it right to just simply ignore this other 10% and throw it away in the bin and not worry about it?

Its the left over 10% that tells you what is wrong!

We plot 90% of the wave function of an electron. But something has to be holding it together Tullio. This is not magic, its physics! Its real and its mathematical. You can't throw 10% into the bin and not worry about it. The 10% you throw away is what is holding the electron together. Consider the 10% as a type of "presure" from the outside holding the electron together.

In the real world, atoms with protons, neutrons and electrons don't just come apart by themselves. Something is holding them together Tullio. Its the 10% that we throw away when we plot the wave function is what is holding the electron together.

Do you understand this much?

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1281405 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 11:19:54 UTC - in response to Message 1281368.

No, but I know the Bell inequalities. That is the real question.
____________

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3085
Credit: 2,413,643
RAC: 2,775
Ireland
Message 1281473 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 15:13:38 UTC - in response to Message 1281405.
Last modified: 8 Sep 2012, 15:18:13 UTC

No, but I know the Bell inequalities. That is the real question.

Ok, don't worry about it.

John.
____________

Profile tullio
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 3594
Credit: 363,060
RAC: 183
Italy
Message 1281497 - Posted: 8 Sep 2012, 16:02:59 UTC - in response to Message 1281473.

Johnney, excuse me, but you said you don't understand equations. This is your real problem. Quantum mechanics cannot be understood without its equations. The rest is Talmud, that is comment.
Tullio
____________

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 . . . 13 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Results from the LHC soon?

Copyright © 2014 University of California