The LHC's Record Energy at CERN Will Just Produce Record Nonsense

[@AnthonyAnalog]

"Continuing group think to ask for money" Literally what you're doing with this bullshit.

[@TheMachian]

I am doing fine, thanks, happy to send you a free pdf - if you show me the group I am belonging to :-)

[@AnthonyAnalog]

@@TheMachian ideological white supremacists whom are currently trying to refute the necessity of error and correction in the scientific method. I don't need any pdfs.

[@AnthonyAnalog]

@Inner Worlds I simply don't waste time with gaslight, and use corse language to shock the readers nervous system so as allow them (if they're not turned away altogether obviously) to be able to comprehend my points without the readers subconscious defenses of their preconceived notions overriding the sound data and logic I always try to resolve thru the scientific method. But you're not wrong, I'm rude as fuck.

[@andsalomoni]

And what group does Unzicker belong to?

[@gregmonks]

I quit physics in the early 70's because I wasn't convinced by the dogma (such as quarks, gluons, etc) and wasn't interested in wasting my one and only life going down the rabbit hole with everyone else. All these years later and a matter from those days has resurfaced- the quark model of the Proton is that same old dogma, not fact. When I called up an old friend from my college days, he cut me off, saying, "I was expecting to hear from you. You're calling about that article in Forbes. You're going to tell me that the quark model itself is wrong, that they're still bootstrapping." "Actually," I replied, "I live in the country now, and I have a few horses. D'you have any idea what became of the cart?"

[@ixinor]

Explain how its dogma

[@gregmonks]

@@ixinor All they know is what they can do to the proton and neutron, not what they're actually made of. Until you've nailed down your findings, you have no proof of anything. No one yet has nailed down the interior of either except for a few vague generalisations. Quarks are an hypothesis, not actual evidence pertaining to something real, aka they're dogma. We're expected to take their existence on faith. That's not how science is done. Just as suspicious are neutrinos, which display similar characteristics to quarks in terms of colour. The only other time I came across this phenomenon was in Linear Arithmetic Multi-Timbral Sound Technology, where you needed three Partials to make a Sound. How this works where quarks are concerned I have no idea, but suspect something similar is at work.

[@anonanon5146]

Nice schizopost, dud

[@ChrisAthanas]

Did you mean “down the dead end”?

[@jodaswisher]

Cool story bro. We don’t miss you

[@bruceli9094]

Particles will keep popping up, but without context.

[@andsalomoni]

"If you dream particles, you will see particles".

[@gillianc6514]

As an undergraduate in the late 1980s I remember being asked to accept without argument the findings of a HEP graph where the error bars were bigger than the axies, talk about a noise in data! High Energy Physics lost all glamour for me then and I pursued interests in Solid State instead... Thanks for all you do.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Don't feel bad. We get shown a map of the background radiation of the universe with the declaration this random noise is from the big bang. What it does not show is a contour map of concentric temperature rings with the hot spot at the point of origin of the bang.

[@adude9882]

Im not a scientist and my lay person's perception was always like this.

[@sereysothe.a]

@@donaldkasper8346 it's because you don't understand what the big bang theory even states. the universe was never a single point in space that expanded. the so-called singularity WAS all of space-time (i.e. there's no other space it was embedded in), so everything was of infinite density in all directions. that's why the cosmic microwave background is homogeneous across the universe (slightly shifted depending on your velocity through space)

[@donaldkasper8346]

@@sereysothe.a Of course that is what it was, then no it wasn't when it was shown to be totally stupid. There was nothing and then suddenly there was a formed universe. Bada bing. CMB as random noise proved there was no point of origin so the model morphed. There are no singularities like black holes and points of origin. Got it. And I agree. There are infinities in mathematics but not in the natural world.

[@donaldkasper8346]

@@sereysothe.a The socalled singularity was called a singularity until the stupidity of the idea became apparent. Whoa, Harvard Millenial now going to change the meaning of the words. Like we have a universe of protons, electrons, and neutrons we can measure and manipulate. They cannot be compacted. You cannot compact a marble to a singularity much less a universe. That is, you need several trillion levels of matter to make an infinity small thing but alas, we are stuck at PENs to observe and squiggles in hydrogen chambers to theorize about quarks. But since we can never test a quark we don't call that real. Real is something we can actually study. Now one trillion more levels of compaction to go minus two. Oh I see, having trouble. Hey, the next super duper really super and duper goo smasher might find one more level. See the problem? Yeah, it will takes more energy than the universe has to compact it to say 10 levels much less one trillion levels and it appears to get exponentially harder (more energy) to get to each next level. This is a model of kaka bullshit and just needs to stop. But at PENs of our known universe, just no, you are compacting nothing and there are no infinities as black holes or universe singularities to compact back to. It just does not work. I know, who cares, just scream.

[@Igbon5]

So CERN and the listeners are like those ghost hunters listening to radio noise to hear ghost voices in the static eh.

[@xecyc7951]

Yes lol, the higgs boson was never detected, they came to a conclusion based on a tiny bump on a chart. I didn't even know about this until I saw Cern's documentary about it. They were so excited and happy about a freaking little bump on a piece of paper, which meant nothing by the way, because according to their math, there's a very tiny probability about it being the higgs boson, they don't even know, but they still claim that it was detected.

[@LeandroConrado14]

People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right-especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong - Thomas Sowell

[@SoloRenegade]

I feel similar. When Sabine started voicing her opinions on the matter and gave good examples of how they do things wrong, I was jumping up and down inside with excitement that i wasn't the only one seeing it.

[@douginorlando6260]

Courageous Woman. I like her a lot

[@sdwone]

Yeah... Given the unreachable energy requirements involved which might hint at new Physics, I personally feel that budgets would be best served in Nuclear Fusion research or Space Exploration. Indeed, if we crack Fusion and Space, then that would fundamentally change our entire civilization anyway so that new, more powerful particle colliders could be constructed, perhaps in space, which could probably reach the energy requirements to further this endeavour. But yeah, time to put the breaks on new colliders for now. We are NOT going to find the answers here on Earth... But in the Cosmos Itself. So it's about time we focused our efforts to make this so!

[@v2ike6udik]

@@sdwone dude. they wash money and do nasty stuff in there. Control. Nothing about helping the civ. Psychopaths.

[@VenturiLife]

They kicked her out for these sorts of scientific opinions.

[@dananorth895]

The universe itself is already the grandest laboratory ever existed with which we can't compete.

[@danieladmassu941]

Thanks for addressing the biggest elephant in the scientific room.

[@hansfynbo7930]

This analysis is poor to say the least. 1) Up to and including the LHC, CERN has made lots contributions to the establishment of the standard model, which is one of the highlights of 20th century science. 2) CERN is more than the LHC, 3) the diagnostics of the crisis of particle physics (I agree there is a kind of a crisis) is poor to say it politely. To say that everything coming out of the field since the 1930s is bogus is just stupid. A couple of nuances to the diagnostic: I ould say much of physics is affected by the same tendency to oversell its benefits - take the nano bubble some years ago, and presently the quentum technology bubble. Another element of a proper analysis must be the changing role of physics after WW2 starting from the cold war, the end of it, and to the climate crisis and now finally the Ukraine crisis. Where this will lead is hard to predict.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

I would suggest that the LHC's most remarkable achievement has and remains the bringing together of a wide range of disciplines, a wide range of technologies, a wide range of national interests. The LHC is unique in the world of representing the power, utility and example that human cooperation can achieve. While I think a touch of humility and reality (and I mean that in the very real sense of the word...) would not go amiss in the LHC booster community, they do good work.

[@TheMachian]

7 mins are not intended to go deep into the matter. You start from the premise that the standard model is reasonable, I don't. You appear to have some slight scepticism, this is not bad. I can only recommend Pickering's book for particle physics. For the general development after WWII, there will be a translation of this book: www.amazon.de/Alexander-Unzicker/dp/3864893372/

[@triciaperry2234]

@@TheMachian The book you all need to be reading is the BIBLE. MAN ALWAYS trying to do and live outside his God made purpose. Wasting time

[@bluemonstrosity259]

@@triciaperry2234 LOL

[@lugyd1xdone195]

@@triciaperry2234 lmao

[@TheMemesofDestruction]

May the upgrades yield more significant digits?

[@leunam3434]

Lifetime employment is good enough.

[@zwiguy9494]

Thank you for sticking your neck out Alexander! I’ve been pondering on planck’s energy equation for some time and I can get over the fact that the frequency term in Hz really means “cycles per second” but we never really think of planck’s constant as “Energy per cycle”. I think this has caused massive misinterpretations in the fundamentals of quantum mechanics. If we interpret h as the energy of each wavelength of light then it gives us a path forward to define a quanta of _energy_ which is really just planck’s constant in joules as opposed to joule seconds. I’m pretty sure planck’s energy equation is hard coded to a one second measurement time as well… the equation should be E=htf where h is in joules per cycle t in seconds f in cycles per second. If you follow that path of reasoning further you’ll find that the fine structure constant actually has units- cycle*second

[@tomfritz2431]

What are you trying to say here? There is always a dimensionless number, no matter how you define the relevant parameters of your physical problem. Redefining h simply amounts to working in a different system of units. Nothing fundamental here.

[@zwiguy9494]

@@tomfritz2431 "There is always a dimensionless number..." Can you tell me how that comment is relevant to this discussion? I get that there is always some equation that somebody can pen down that will spit out a dimensionless number. What I am stating is that if it is indeed true that the units of planck's constant should be in Joules or Joules/Cycle then the fine structure constant has units of seconds or cycle*seconds if you balance units in other equations that involve the two constants. "Redefining h simply amounts to working in a different system of units." Redefining h does not simply amount to working in a different system of units. It changes the interpretation of quantum mechanics completely. No more mc^2=h*f nonsense, since the units don't balance. In the system I am proposing, the mass of a single oscillation of light is h/c^2. Light has mass. Nothing fundamentally different here? What I am trying to say here is that E=hf in the traditional units is actually calculating the energy emitted by a light wave of frequency f _over a period of one second_, and that photons do not exist. A photon is an arbitrary unit of account of energy that was accidentally interpreted into existence by getting the units of Planck's constant wrong. Light is a wave. Ignore the amplitude of the wave for now: Each wavelength of light carries the same energy, regardless of frequency, and the amount of energy carried by each oscillation of light is 6.26e-34 Joules. Now you don't have to tell people "welp the universe is super spooky" when they ask you why single photons interfere with themselves when they pass through a double slit.

[@donaldkasper8346]

I would predict socalled quanta are artifacts of undersampling (aliasing) and impact on the object being studied interacting with the energy we study it with, that is, interference makes quanta. Recall, most of the universe is in deep space near absolute zero and we have quanta in a world far from it. Then based on our no where near absolute zero observations, we make all these conclusions about quanta in a near absolute zero system.

[@zwiguy9494]

@@donaldkasper8346 right, observations of how light interacts with matter shouldn’t necessarily shape our understanding of how light propagates through the medium.

[@donaldkasper8346]

@@zwiguy9494 Medium is matter.

[@zyxzevn]

Stand-up maths just had a video about playing with 2 dice. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpCnlXqIn9mqd9E Rolling multiple dice and picking the highest gives a huge bias. So if 2 experts have the same bias, they will get a far higher chance to confirm their bias. This will affect particle physics, where they try to confirm their theories with millions of tries.

[@Mikey-mike]

Finally a voice of truth in the wilderness of bs.

[@luciusseneca2715]

A long time ago, Universities were about Education and Scholarship. Education - there is a curriculum, and the masters who know it teach it to students who don't - and Scholarship - masters wondering if the curriculum is true and complete. Starting in the US in the 1960's, Universities became an instrument for pushing social, political, and economic policy goals. Education doesn't matter any more; the important thing is getting a credential for your CV. Professors used to write papers when they had something to say; now, you write scholarly articles in a desperate attempt to fill a work quota for one of the rare Tenured professorships remaining. I assure you that it isn't just the Humanities and the Social Sciences that have been flushed down that toilet, and because the US is so big and influential, other countries followed us down the same path.

[@kmindeye]

Totally agree. It's not just physics. Big money institutions are governed by FEAR. When money, and fear become your motivation then creative ideas, and learning is destroyed.

[@cedricpod]

Us ?

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

Universities always pushed social, political and economic policy goals, if you think they didn't that's because you were aligned with the social, political economic policy goals they were pushing. What changed was the fact the US went down the route of commercializing Universities. Higher education became a profit centre and big business. The US let the profit motive enter the equation and corrupted the concept of a University.

[@luciusseneca2715]

@@crinolynneendymion8755 "Commercialize" is a propaganda buzzword. The US had 3.4 million college students in 1960, 1.9 percent of the population. In 2010, there were 22M students, 6.85 percent of population. Crank politicians sold college as a Cure-all medicine to all manner of policy issues - especially economics and globalization. Easy student loans led to a collapse in academic standards; most college students aren't qualified to be at a real school. Couple that with a complete take-over of college administrative posts by mercenaries and the complete loss of power by faculty, and college turns into a scam for administrators to feather their nests. "Commercialize" my foot, this is a racket, pure and simple.

[@TheBelrick]

USA now has more Nigerian women in university than European males. Anyone who understands race iq history, who provided all the advances , knows that this is a disaster

[@javiersoto5223]

I can already hear the headlines, "new particle discovered; new force discovered, etc.."

[@TheMachian]

That's what is to be expected, alas...

[@dinf8940]

smashing rocks harder produces more shinier sparks, aristotles classical elements confirmed yet again - physics cant seem to stop winning

[@antonparas4782]

thanks for communicating these issues to the general public

[@fritzhansen4495]

.. sorry for typo, of course David Jonathan Gross and not David Grossman

[@nickst2797]

The best question ever. When did the BS start? Thank you!

[@dehilster]

Big Bang did not happen. The universe is eternal.

[@peteparadis1619]

When the need for more and more funding was realized they could create a cottage industry doing it....LOL..LOL. One that most couldn't understand because they would baffle you with BS..

[@rosomak8244]

The BS usually starts where the real world applications end.

[@Discoverer-of-Teleportation]

exactly 😂

[@oqqaynewaddingxtwjy7072]

They were plannng to build one in Tohoku just to make 10,000 academics jobs so all this science is just jobs !

[@egilsjolander779]

I think You forgot to say, that if they build a lager collider it will "prove" that they need funding for a even larger collider;-)

[@TheMachian]

:-) That's how it works for decades ...

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

A lager collider? Undergrads work with those every day...

[@xecyc7951]

@@crinolynneendymion8755 but is it as large as planet earth? no? then we need a bigger one.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

When one human disagrees with the achievements of many, he or she most likely is a fool. When one human is critized by many while creating something entirely new, he or she most likely is a genius.

[@tenbear5]

Had wonderful heated arguments with the planks at CERN.

[@richardminick-okc]

Most of cern is just a money pit run by crazy materialists

[@Dra741]

If you don't see all the data that was created by the large hardware and collider than it's not the the collider it's you because you can't see all this data this is a gold mine for summertime particle physics, and he thinks it's useless I can't comprehend this right now

[@vincentrusso4332]

Sometimes, theorists have a hard time chasing the mathematical equations.. it doesn't necessarily mean the experimentation process failed... if you didn't know what to observe or verify to begin with. I highly doubt Edward Witten is wrong as he's definitely no dummy, and he's stated several times he had been wrong in previous years.

[@michaelhicks3030]

I got the idea, after listening to a physicist, that most collider results produce nothing that can be interpreted and all theories are based upon the few collisions that produce something that can be followed and therefore interpreted. Now I don't know if that is correct, or just my misunderstanding of what was said. If it were true they wouldn't be keen to tell us.

[@peteparadis1619]

IT'S ALL BS...

[@rosomak8244]

They pick and choose what fits ready made assumptions from data that has all but the characteristics of random noise well below the level of any true discernibility. Is is higher order BS.

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

How many Standard Model particles actually exist?

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon. Only the expanding electrons.

[@TheMachian]

Hard to count, since the model is under construction :-) The next candiateds are probably 4.-6. neutrino flavor...

[@andsalomoni]

I suspect that they can find an infinity of them, like you can see infinite different figures in a random distribution of points on a surface.

[@kenrowe167]

So, if collieders are not the way forward for experimental particle physics, then what is?

[@TheMachian]

It is an interplay of theory and experiment. The theoretical mess is the standard model, which needs to be dumped. Then, all key experiments need to be repeated with public access to the data.

[@zubairqureshi4958]

Is there a way that i can donate to your channel ? Like patreon or super thanks on you tube

[@MacLuckyPTP]

Particle physics is part of Clown World.

[@mkzhero]

Most of science nowadays is just a pointless waste of money and/or money laundering, sadly. Over half are inventing ludicrous theories and then 'work' on proving or disproving them, and doing other monkey business to justify the expenses and wage. And about another quarter are working on miniscule to small improvements to already existing stuff! Another rough quarter is working on 'sustain' science - things that are needed daily but that don't actually change anything, just aid doing daily tasks... And the amount of people actually trying to discover, change, considerably improve and generally drive humanity forward are in a stupidly tiny minority, worse than that, some of them are unable to do so because they don't have the degrees, papers and equipment... And/or some dogmas go against what they theorize and they get laughed out the water and ridiculed away from working on it! Sad, then again, its basically how the scientific world has always been, now its just much bigger, more well funded and recognized.

[@ryandelossantos2208]

We know that particle physics is correct to some extent. We have discovered new "things" which don't seem as if we can break them down any further. We have an equation for everything based up on the standard model. So why would we abandon a theory when there are only a few loose strands? While I can agree that you need to pace the upgrade to LHC with the upgrades in technology, saying that these searches are unscientific is not true. If you have a theory that works so well in the known cases, you either A.) need to provide a theory to replace it and provide the evidence or B.) you need to have thoroughly exhausted all other options. Since we are still waiting on A.) we continue on with B.). Not to mention the fact that the discovery of new particles is a tiny fraction of what actually comes out of particle colliders. The innovations that are needed to capture and evaluate the data effectively are honestly amazing, and at the very least the LHC provides a lot in those regions.

[@peteparadis1619]

Particle physics is BS....

[@ryandelossantos2208]

@@peteparadis1619 How so?

[@pronounjow]

"The innovations that are needed to capture and evaluate the data effectively are honestly amazing" This sounds like a good point. Tech is being driven forward at a faster pace now than ever before, and use-cases like LHC do help with that.

[@Dj_-zn5zl]

If we understand the smallest units that make up everything and how the universe works it could change the way we live if it’s big enough a discovery but we do need much more technological developments to aid their search the use now and “upgrades” isn’t worth the money it should go to other areas of science or at least another major project.

[@reframer8250]

It took me a long time to understand that it is not sufficient if a theory is "correct". Unfortunately it is no surprise/success to find a theory that describes all obervations that you have observed. From an epistemological point of view it is trivial to find such a theory: Most dully one could just define a theory by collecting and listing all done observations, which by construction would be a theory that describes all observations. With this consideration one realizes, that it is not sufficient to find a theory, that describes all your observation if you allow unlimited complexity to it. This is - lets say - the theoretical physics analogue of the phenomenon of overfitting. And this is exactly what happens with the standard model. If you count the number of independent parameters that are used to define it, you are not surprised that one can describe a bunch of observations that are done in experiments. But the only point where the standard model is better that this "we just write a list of all observations"-theory, is the ability to conceil that it does reflect absolutely no understanding about all these observations. Just as a 50 order polynomial fit of 40 measurement points does not reflect any understanding of them. If you add another point at the boundary, you can easily include this observation by adding another order with a further parameter. This is, what happens in a slightly more complex way with the standard model. You can not predict any mass of some of the new particles. But once you find something which you declare to be the new particle, you can adjust its mass to be the detected energy, by inserting another parameter. Einsteins success e.g. was not to formulate a theory, for which you need to add a parameter for the perihelion shift and another parameter for the light deflection, and another one for the red shift and so on. The success was to find one theory with one parameter (the gravitational constant), with which one is able to CALCULATE all these values.

[@rayoflight62]

Third run, is currently just a bit below 14 TeV. Between every run, they improve the superconducting magnets and enlarge the power supply. They are asking the billions of euro necessary to construct a bigger ring by building a completely new facility, in order to achieve 100 TeV and so discover Dark Matter... They are building a bigger and better Cathedral, with an unshakeable Faith in Science, while achieving the objective of replicating a Star on Earth. In contrast, I believe we need to develop a more advanced method of reasoning. Learning is made mostly of feedback, and a particle accelerator provide small amounts of it to the few people who design the experiment with the accelerator. A team of scientists with pencil and paper can achieve better results, just because of the great quality and amounts of feedback they provide to each other...

[@drsbutler]

‘They are building a bigger and better cathedral, with an unshakable faith in science, while achieving the replication of a Star on earth ‘ . OUCH !

[@odenwalt]

I always find it interesting when the math does not fit observations, something is invented to make the math fit. This is called a "prediction", and we can test for this prediction, if we can have another billion dollars. Any real scientific discoveries will lead to technology that we do not already have. How long did it take for electrical applications to become a reality after the work of Faraday and Maxwell? I believe true scientific discoveries creates wealth not squander it.

[@dinf8940]

what can you do when small mistakes of great minds of the past have compounded enough to build you a foundations that can rival mc escher works, combined with specialization utilized to offset deficiencies in cognitive faculties, throw in dysgenic drift and you end up with few snakeoil salesman running the church and bunch of aspiring clowns panhandling for pittance

[@lorandhorvath4466]

Indeed, as they say: 'The proof is in the pudding'.

[@odenwalt]

@@dinf8940 Well the first step is to acknowledge mathematics is not physics. Mathematics is a useful tool that has limits. If a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory is correct the math will be there, not the other way around. Kurt Godel knew mathematics is incomplete and inconsistent. Shut up and calculate does not work. Logically speaking, mathematics is used as a sort of reverse strawman argument. We should be looking at the interpretations of theories and testing correctness by predictions. If observations are misinterpreted, the math will match the misinterpretation. We also should be looking at interpretations of results. If something is fundamental it does not decay. Also, if fundamental part can be turned into different fundamental particles, then it seems like those wouldn't be fundamental either. This is why scientist are not calculating the mass of an electron. It seems people are wrapped up in dark matter and dark energy so much, they are biased to the point of failure. More speculative papers being published is not going to make it better. It would appear that the peer reviewed process has become a speculative process where checking math is all that counts, followed with big words that no one understands. The burden of proof falls on those that make the claims. Stop tweaking math and look at what it is supposed to represent. A model can never be what it represents, so start there. Time for real science and not bad philosophy. Don't talk about hidden dimensions if you can't measure them, either directly or indirectly. I have seen so many scientists claim that questions are not valid. Perhaps the interpretations are not valid. The scientific method would fare better, if it were a little more open source. No one is allowed to question the interpretations; this is where we fail as humans.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

I agree. Though I think it's very important to not confuse this to mean that math itself is subjective. I mean the language and symbol conventions we use to describe mathematical objectives, abd relationships can be changed to whatever we fancy, but the thing it is describing is objective.

[@odenwalt]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 Biased mathematics is subjective. So is arbitrary mathematics subjective, as well as imaginary mathematics. Equivocations in mathematics are also subjective. I am not saying mathematics is not useful, there is no algorithm for truth, and mathematics can represent something that does not exist as well and what exists. I am saying mathematics has its limits. There is always an epistemic barrier between mathematical proofs and truths. Just because a bunch of people agree on a convention does not make it true. I have yet to see anyone actually explain QED, QFT, or QCD without arbitrary representations or explain what the mathematics is representing in every step of the calculations in a nonmathematical way. Example: QCD "color charge" painfully obvious that that isn't what goes on. QFT, electrons are oscillations of the electron field. Ask what the electron field is, and you will be told it is a fundamental value in space. The farther one digs, the more subjective and speculative things become, but it is ok because we have the "F" word (fundamental) or an analogy that reverse strawmans the argument. I feel that science doesn't even understand what space is, or causality. Quantum mechanics isn't an explanation for anything, just a bunch of measurements and interpretations. It is not valid to even place QM in the same category as GR. If QM was correct about anything GR would be an emergence of QM. I am just saying, don't be fooled by the Mathamagicians, or wore down by the Mathathletes. It would appear that Physics seems to have philosophical issues that cannot be solved by math. Not everything is going to work out to some pretty equation. Forget finding a GOD Equation like Michio Kaku wants. We cannot even find an equation for the perimeter of an ellipse. I have yet to see any one definitively explain what a fundamental particle actually is, (Yes, I watched many videos on this including Sabine's), without using QFT (which hasn't been observed). The standard model of particle physics is a mess. If space can be curved, it is quantifiable as mass. Square one, figure out what space really is, because space at its smallest quantity will emerge into GR. It makes more sense for space to be causal mass at its lowest energy state. I am aware of what this implies, and the implication does not conflict with any observations. It also explains the universe without dark matter, because space itself is not a zero- mass quantity. This is the explanation behind inertia. I said enough for now, lol.... sorry for the rant (sort of).

[@ready1fire1aim1]

The definitions of new quantum physics words match up (by definition) to Leibniz's "contingent/not-necessary" universe. Quark/0D point/Monad "no spatial extension, zero size, location only". It's like we chose the wrong guy. Update Leibniz's lexicon to 2022 quantum physics words and add Hamilton 4D quaternion algebra, again updated, starting at 0D (not 1D) and BAM we have a workable Theory of Everything.

[@kellyjohns6612]

I have a gut feeling that CERN wasn't built for physics purposes so much as it was made for esoteric reasons; something extra dimensional, I fear.

[@Robby1971-g2j]

I unfortunately feel the same way about it. To much secrecy and conspiracy, Although what is the point? It's already done its job. Why must man do the things we know w3l shouldn't anyways??? I'd rather be a Lemar, whale or Evan a monkey. Having technology and stupidity is way worse than having simply neutrality and instinct...

[@OliverM-ry6io]

@@kellyjohns6612 the actual conspiracy is unfortunately a lot more boring tbh

[@silviogomez6478]

Excelent Alexander thanks.

[@hungryformusik]

Particle physics is an extraordinary attempt to describe interactions at the microscopic level. It is doing a good job at that, just recall the success of the Feynman diagrams best described in Veltman’s Diagrammatica. However, it is only a set of (very accurate) rules, and suffers from constructions such as renormalization and the like. Therefore, unfortunately, it is not a theory like General Relativity.

[@TheMachian]

I am skeptic with respect to Feynman diagrams (see video about Consa), Veltman and renormalization. Not useful concepts.

[@musashi4856]

Talk about begging the question…

[@rosomak8244]

And the Feynman diagrams are good for what actually?

[@rodocar2736]

@@TheMachian No cree usted en esos diagramas, que calculan con tanta precision el tiempo de emision espontanea de tres fotones por el atomo de hidrogeno?

[@donaldkasper8346]

Filtering and background removal key issue is the introduction of artifacts.

[@VenturiLife]

Looking for things, and not sure what they are... This is the opposite of how most scientific experiments were conducted for in the past. Sadly this has also translated into the Fusion energy builds. Get a load of money / funding, build it and see if it works.. Also creating a mini black-hole is probably a very bad idea.

[@trucid2]

Same for gravitational wave detection, I take it?

[@xecyc7951]

So what they do is make an experiment like colliding particles, or taking pictures of things and trying to look for invisible stuff in those pictures, they analyze some data, make some calculations according to the standard model, if the math doesn't add up they come to a conclusion, either the laws of physics are wrong, or there's a missing particle that explains the error, obviously it must be a new particle. Do I get a nobel prize now?

[@earthenscience]

When I first watched an official documentary about CERN, I became a skeptic. The documentary was in favor of CERN, but what I seen in the documentary made me question the validity of the measurements. Similar to Mach's skepticism of the atom, I have an opinion that I need to see the standard model's particles till I believe it. I am a skeptic of the standard model and its just woo to me until they can show me solid proof of each and every one of those particles. Even if the standard model is true, I am left with questions, questions such as why do these particles have color coding, why is there strong force in the first place, etc.

[@sereysothe.a]

just because you're not educated enough to understand something doesn't mean it's invalid. lay-people always expect that everything can be presented at their level but that's simply not the case with highly specific or complex experiments. I don't work in physics but I work in chemistry, and you just simply wouldn't understand the titles of papers I've worked on or be able to make any judgement about their validity. this has nothing to do with intelligence btw you just haven't spent a decade in my field, like I haven't in yours

[@vincentrusso4332]

​@@sereysothe.a, it's like Feynman said. If you can't break down a topic to your grandmother, then you don't know your subject material. If you can break down your theory to a journalist, then it's not Nobel prize worthy. - Surry Virginia

[@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459]

@@vincentrusso4332 I’m sorry, but I have to push back on your statement. That quote only applies to high-level summaries of a topic. You can’t just explain brain surgery to your grandma without the prerequisite topics 🤦🤦🤦

[@davidwilkie9551]

If a particle is defined as an object in a material world, and the objective under study is a particular coherence-cohesion e-Pi-i sync-duration resonance quantization in Actuality, then "there's your problem". It is possible to imagine a systematic analysis in the proper sense of Fluxion-Integral Condensates, but that is Math-Physics not the Physics-Mathematics used at LHC.

[@markdstump]

I've been thinking and saying this for years. An awful lot of Great Physics has been done w/out a billion dollars!

[@SoloRenegade]

Newton's gravity, Faraday's electromagnetism (backed up by Maxwell), Einstein's Relativity, calculus, Euler's work, etc.

[@markdstump]

@@SoloRenegade Yes! Somewhere else I joked that that money would be better spent cloning Einstein, or...

[@SoloRenegade]

@@markdstump yes, I saw that post 😃

[@YTscheiss]

Can you make a video on how Anton Zeilinger who works on Teneriffe, and beams particles and stuff. He seems to quite competent and presents results. Are these results true, when he beams and sends pictures over the ocean and through Vienna? He's convinced about the quantum computer. Or is this just a scam?

[@TheMachian]

Zeilinger is a serious guy, I know him. That business however is not in my expertise.

[@YTscheiss]

@@TheMachian thanks for the answer. So quantum entanglement is is possible and also beaming. It's not a hoax or misinterpretation of other physical events; and Dr. Zeilinger is maybe so convinced that he gives this interpretation. Well I will watch more about it, sounds really weired but interesting as well. 🙂👍🏻

[@patrickheredia1431]

... you'll have to excuse me for I am new to the comment section. I don't think I've ever really dug too much into comments on any video before today. I had no idea there was such a community that was against particle physics. The more I learn about all the people in the world and the more I hear the things that come out of their mouths and the things that they type on keyboards then more I realize that the biggest lie we've ever been sold was that everyone matters and everybody's voice counts. After reading the comment section of a couple videos related to the LHC I no longer believe in democracy and will now advocate for a monarchy or dictatorship of sorts. I would gladly give up my vote if it meant people of this mentality weren't able to have a say in how things are ran.

[@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459]

In America, your “vote” doesn’t mean much, anyways

[@patrickheredia1431]

@@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459 fair enough.

[@JakubVyoral]

I see your point but in my opinion even though they are probably chasing ghosts it is not just about physics. It is about collaboration. Many invetions have been made due to LHC like the internet you're using now (a direct consequence of the need for the data collection and visualisation). Superconducting magnets and multiple other technologies are researched and may be used in other fields. Money spent on collaborative research (non zero sum game) are better than money spent on the war (zero sum game). And after all they may find something unexpected. You may still argue that the money could be spent in a more wise way which is a probably true.

[@TheJara123]

Well said

[@rosomak8244]

Please just stop spreading BS like that the internet was invented at CERN. It was not!

[@ylst8874]

To which point is today's physics true ? I mean we use super technologic particle physics devices in everydays life , e.g. MR devices in medicine, What part of physics is behind them ? My English is bad , I hope I told what I wonder.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for answers.

[@TheMachian]

There is a video "On evidence", 2017.

[@minkis42]

Agree with everything here. But you are not proposing alternative ways to spend the funding. It’s difficult to put KPI’s on theoretical physics. I do like the idea of prizes for discovery’s. For example the Fundamental Physics Prize provided by Yuri Milner.

[@TheMachian]

Well, for alternatives see other videos here. Prizes: not bad as a matter of principle, but unfortunately, Milner awarded to bs theories that are worse than those honored with the Nobel...

[@mnemonyss]

I absolutely agree with you

[@jamalelliott5495]

Thank you

[@kennethcrandall8131]

So what would you guess the next real break through will be? Do you expect that we will ever see the various mass ratios explained from first principles? Or do you really think we have hit the end of the road?

[@mathrodite]

Less whizz bang technology and more parsimony and Occam's razor.

[@near2196]

It is true that the standard model as a lot of flaws and so does particle physics. But you need to recognize the discoveries made by physicists at CERN.

[@sjzara]

There are problems with particle physics, but the LHC is far from useless and the Higgs was certainly discovered. Poor signals are detected and rejected all the time. The Higgs detection turned up after all such filtering and at the right energies. Particle physics discoveries and measurements have been vital for physics. The detection of neutrinos from the Sun and cosmic events are examples. The nature and size of future detectors is certainly an issue, but that accelerators can produce vital results should be beyond doubt.

[@TheMachian]

May you give an example whcih of the discoveries were "vital", i.e. of any use for humanity except for keeping an academic field busy?

[@sjzara]

@@TheMachian your filter for good physics is value to mankind? Seriously? You are against exploration? Ok - value to mankind. The discovery of neutrinos and how the Sun works has been vital for understanding fusion, and so a potentially vital energy source. The discovery of the positron was initially very obscure, but PET is now a vital medical procedure. The nature of neutrino and high energy particles from cosmic events tells us about some dangers to life on Earth, such as supernovae and gamma ray bursters. The discovery of the Higgs has philosophical impact - it confirms that we are beings constructed of the Standard Model. It explains the nature of the world we are familiar with. You might as well ask what the value of palaeontology is. How is it vital to humanity to discover yet another relative of Tyrannosaurus? Fundamental discoveries are a source of life-changing excitement for millions. The issue should not be about easy to predict benefits, or even if it’s “make work” for scientists but if it’s good science. There are valid questions about expense, I agree. But fundamental research should surely continue. Without general relativity there would be no GPS many decades later.

[@rosomak8244]

@@sjzara The only current application of nuclear fusion came a long time before the "detection" of the neutrinos. Yep. It is the H bomb. So don't lie telling that it was something vital.

[@sjzara]

@@rosomak8244 I didn't mention practical energy generation. I was talking about the detection of neutrinos being vital for physics. Examples have been the confirmation of our theories of fusion processes in the Sun, the understanding of beta decay, and the recent discovery of the R-process in neutron star collisions - the main source of elements above iron.

[@Fab666.]

@@sjzara that’s the best reply on this comment thread, he’s bringing down scientific discovery and exploration with this attitude

[@greenstar9385]

So doctor, in general would you say that scientists today know no more how to do science, or maybe we are uselessly looking somewhere faraway while an obvious observation is right before our eyes. If cern is a waste of money, how and in what particular fields should money be invested in science? I remember Sabine suggesting fundamental quantum physics research if I am not wrong.

[@TheMachian]

Well almost anything would be better than particle physics. QM research is ok in principle, one has to be more specific however. In general, the system of contrmporary science is sick, I think. I recomment books by Bruce G. Charlton on this topic.

[@mmotsenbocker]

thank you very much for the Charlton reference. I just bought and am reading a book of his now...... I felt the same way back in 1980 when I discussed the degeneration of science into money and politics with much older professors then in my graduate program... it started in the US during the 1960s and has reached a cresendo wherein virtually everything "The Science!" nowadays is real bullshit. I made an advance in photon generation (both theory and practice) recently and have good data, and was finally published in an Eastern Journal. Still, everyone refuses to even look at my data, so I will just go around the physicists and build out commercial machines (improved communication devices) based on my discovery and bypass the Science! community. I plan to sell devices based on my discovery about 6 months from now to the DIY community. Science is dead and we need a workaround........................

[@waldwassermann]

The end of knowledge will be the simple realization that the purpose of life is love.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

It is very sad! I think what we need is a deeper understanding of why we have wave particle duality. If we think of the wave particle duality of light and matter (electrons) as forming a blank canvas that we, as atoms, can interact with then all we are doing at CERN is interacting with this process a higher energies.

[@McDaniel77]

At least they found out, that an Electron is made out of Electron.

[@TheMachian]

They have a hard time even to figire out this... :-)

[@McDaniel77]

@@TheMachian The conceptional problem behind all these "measurements" is that all the can measure is some electric potential of voltage and current. The machine is made out of atoms and electrons and they use ions in the machine accelerated by electrons current causing magnetic forces etc. Later on they claim they have found complete new fictional "particles" albeit they just used ions, protons and electrons doing all the fancy stuff. It's utterly ridiculous!

[@yaoooy]

I am baffled that there are institutions that even pay for this nonsense

[@McDaniel77]

@@yaoooy It's tax payers money.

[@trlavalley9909]

As just a normal Taxpayer, with a genuine love for science, one would like to believe they are getting more for their investment than a multibillion dollar hamster wheel.

[@douglasstrother6584]

It's an ultra-relativistic hamster wheel!

[@douglasstrother6584]

@@5678plm I did pretty well on the Physics GRE. I'll have to try that one as well.

[@Hello-vz1md]

Have you or anyone else published this criticism in top scientific journals?

[@TheMachian]

In case you happen to be an editor, I am glad to send you a paper.

[@andsalomoni]

Top scientific journals, and their method of selection of what can be published, are part of the problem. A new science will grow, like small mammals took the place of the dying out dinosaurs.

[@Hello-vz1md]

@@TheMachian unfortunately I'm not. But you should try to send them your papers and if they refuse to publish it then kindly engage with popular scientists and science communicators to discuss this important topic. Maybe request sabine hossenfelde for a podcast to discuss this in this channel or in her channel. You can ask famous science communicators and KZbinrs like Joe Rogan,lex fridman, veritasium, neil degrasse tyson,Sean Carroll etc etc for podcasts/interviews/discussion on this matte.there need to be more public awareness

[@一个说话大声的中国人]

Imagine shooting a whatever with a gun, are the pieces you got the parts that it is made? To find out what something is made of, one should take it apart very carefully, not smash it. I just put out a book. Please search the title: Blind Men’s Elephant and Schrodinger’s Cat: Know Yourself and Your Enemy. If add to my credibility, I have a math Ph.D. from Stanford U.

[@apepanthera]

Am no physicist, but I always had this view

[@apepanthera]

Since reading angels and demons by Dan Brown

[@Discoverer-of-Teleportation]

1) my Teleportation formula in vaccum is :- ExB = T * m; T is teleportation constant, E and b is electric & magnetic field, m is mass. ExB= E*B *sinΩ 2) free fall height of planet and stars :- R^4 / (V*n) = H , R radius - V volume - n a unknown number we have to find , n=15 for earth , Teleportation possible between two free fall boundaries

[@a1productionllc]

Truly, I did think that Fermilab did some valid work, but I see your and Sabine's point about bigger and bigger toys to play with, for them just to keep employment.

[@Diamond_Tiara]

6:00 at this point particles are made, and not discovered, that's what I fear. ( but why not anyways, no, it's not gonna make a nuke or end the world. stranglets/strange matter isn't anything because someone called his lvl2 quark "strange". )

[@TheMachian]

Your fear is justified... www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee-ebook/dp/B00FOU0CXG

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

.....which is why I don't believe that there is anything 'quantum' inside a black hole. the spacetime/vacuum that it is made from is too 'cold'/dense to vibrate at the required frequencies.

[@AroundPhysics]

We live in a postmodern world. Most of people do not even understand what that means. We live in certain cultural and econo-politico-socio-technical circumstances. The world we live in is a virtual creation of pseudo-intellectual elites. Their thinking is based mostly on principles of philosophy that have roots yet in Kant, Marx, Hegel, etc. They do not know the history of philosophy, however they were eager to adopt their thinking to what was is convenient for them to preserve the control over societies. Science functions for ages as a mixture of two components: 1) desire to control magic and 2) searching for the truth. At our times science converts back to magic. Truth is not needed anymore. A good example is using computers in science. When I was student of physics in around 1980, my choice of the subject was desire to search for the truth and understanding. Understanding means "what are relations between things". Now, around, AI (Artificial Intelligence) is used for that. All understanding of underlying physics is lost. Computer results are supposed to replace entire search process for finding relations and replace it by results. It does not matter what is behind. While for me the beauty is still behind finding these hidden relationships. It does not even matter much that what computer results may be contradictory to common sense. I work as a physicist. I see around a destruction of thinking. A degradation. A sort of return to Middle-Ages. Science controlled by the state, by state or international organizations. Teaching controlled the same way. And now we have even globally imposed fear control over disease that dos not obviously exists.

[@TheBelrick]

We were at war. A war to destroy humanity. And we’ve very nearly lost. Smart populations are crashing into extinction. Humanity has an enemy and if you study the younger dray, this has happened before...

[@Dra741]

Maybe I'm just drunk and I don't understand what you're saying but that s*** felt weak to me

[@TheMachian]

That explains a lot indeed.

[@cengland8941]

When LIGO announced its first detection of a gravity wave, I queestioned on the Physics Stack Exchange whether it was a proven result. As I understand it, proof requires independent confirmation, i.e., two laboratories. I was chastised for my impudence and not allowed further discussion. The moderator suggested that, if this were true, there should be questions about the Higgs boson. Age has not withered my wisdom, and I had been careful never to mention CERN in my discussion. I got demerits or whatever penalty they assess for my impudence. I sometimes question the interpretation and rarely the data. Herr Unzicker has taught me to be more careful in my acceptance. When the Higgs boson "discovery" was announced, I was reminded of the joy and spontaneity after a speech by a North Korean dictator. Let's all keep up the fight. I think we are inflicting some wounds. As to LIGO, I had been thinking of confirmation in space by LISA and had not heard of VIRGO.

[@paulg444]

I am agnostic regarding the LIGO detection of gravity waves, but I think you have a good point and one of issues that seemed clear to me at the time was that to declare such a detection, you must necessarily have an understanding of the null hypothesis model in the spectral band of interest to a very very high precision. I never got the impression that they demonstrated that level of accuracy in the null across the band of interest. Had they collected data for a few decades first before declaring a detection Id have fewer reservations. More scientific inquiry is needed, more data, it is a never ending process of refinement based on observations.

[@cengland8941]

​@@paulg444 Carl Sagan's “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” might be expanded to "Extraordinary claims by extraordinarily large teams with extraordinarily high funding require extraordinary skepticism." Big Science and Big Funding make for highly political projects - geographically, internationally, academically, you name it. Papers with hundreds of authors do not fill me with belief. I appreciate Herr Unzicker's illumination of issues and uncertainties.

[@EricTViking]

Science that can no longer tolerate being questioned, has in fact become religion.

[@hanszippert9468]

Actually the Higgs discovery was verified independently by two separate experimental collaborations ATLAS and CMS that are totally independent.

[@cengland8941]

@@hanszippert9468 Thanks for the info. I'll update my thinking.

[@bruceli9094]

Make Physics Energetic Again.

[@dananorth895]

Money corrupts everything. As all things are corruptible and will be over time. The only question remaining is in what form and to what extent. No exception.

[@ThePdeHav]

String Theorists Go Brrrrrr…..

[@johnl5316]

How about SLAC at Stanford

[@Trizzer89]

What about the Higgs boson? That seemed useful

[@TheMachian]

Hmm.. no. I wrote abook about it: www.amazon.com/gp/product/1492176249 But you may also read Pickering's excellent treatise.

[@rosomak8244]

The "Higgs boson" has not been convincingly demonstrated to exist. Only some random signal noise has been presented thus far.

[@danigomb]

my thoughts for years... collider is kind of Monty Python machine that goes- Ping!

[@johnl5316]

it does not "beg the question" It RAISES the question...

[@TheMachian]

Sure? I guess 12 million google hits cannot be wrong...

[@johnl5316]

@@TheMachian I don’t understand

[@richardboland1935]

Hey, particle physicists! Stop wasting my money!

[@allocation2179]

I officially seen it all.

[@Fi0raVanTi97]

I would really like to know what do you think about Nicola Tesla researches in electricity. I really wonder if a possibility of unlimited energy structure is possible... I wonder if you get what i mean and what is your think about it :) Oh and also the latest research in nuclear reaction as trasmutation (see Aureon energy, in origin called Project Safire if you wish). 👍

[@Fi0raVanTi97]

Thank you

[@uriel-heavensguardian8949]

Exactly exactly exactly 💯💯💯💯 I think they’re using this to fund their lifestyle.

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

I love this video and I am a huge fan of Sabine's videos. For me the issue is simple, the Standard Model is an amazing achievement but that's it, there is no more. Mass, gravity and time are related to the vacuum and are not 'quantum' at all. The question that I want answering is how does the vacuum create EM and why does it need to reach 0K to do so ?

[@johnm.v709]

Sir, May I turn your attention to : " The wonder universe " By John m. v Video on KZbin

[@AmbivalentInfluence]

@@johnm.v709 Thankyou, I enjoyed that a lot. It is gratifying to see others grappling with the mysteries around us. I disagree with much that was said but that means little until the true understanding is found, whatever that may be.

[@oznerriznick2474]

That's fair. Perhaps we should be looking outward. Could all particles be the intersection of three or more resonant energy fields originating from supernovae and other disruptions in space? Discovering which stellar bodies combine to form which particles could prove why their characteristics are standardized.

[@ahmetpehlivan7670]

Vielen Dank, daß Sie auf diese unzeitgemäße und dogmatische Herangehensweise in der heutigen "modernen" Elementateichenphysik hinweisen. Auf mich wirkt die CERN-Forschung eher so, als wenn jemand um an einem beliebigen Erdfleck riesige Goldmengen zu finden immer und immer größere Sprengungen durchführt, obwohl hierauf keinerlei Hinweise existieren. Die Gründe liegen wahrscheinlich daran, daß ich damals mein Physikstudium nicht durchgezogen und die Forschung solchen Einfallspinseln wie David G. und Edward W. überlassen habe. 🙂

[@ready1fire1aim1]

0D = (point) non-composite substance 1D = line, straight; composite substance; two points (now ends of a physical line in physical space) 《0D (point) is exact location only; zero size; not a 'thing', not a 'part'; Monad》 "He is the invisible Spirit, of whom it is not right to think of him as a god, or something similar. For he is more than a god, since there is nothing above him, for no one lords it over him. For he does not exist in something inferior to him, since everything exists in him. For it is he who establishes himself. He is eternal, since he does not need anything. For he is total perfection. A being can have a relationship with a God but not the Monad as that would be a contradiction." - The Apocryphon of John, 180 AD. Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the monad as an elementary particle. It had a geometric counterpart, which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people.

[@konradcomrade4845]

modern Physicists don't even know Newton's Constant of Gravity to a sufficient precision. BTW there is too much echo in Your room/microphone. interesting talk. The Politician's fascination with nuclear bombs explains all that fantastic funding!!

[@hildekaeka6064]

Hi, could you explain the cloud vortexes that were recorded over the LHC when they did a run or runs in 2016. I have seen a couple of different ones, but the ones that interested me (took place in a more evening setting kind of, one never thinks to backup things from the internet; a misconceived notion that it will forever remain there) and was everywhere being shoved as content to be consumed I seem to not find in 2022. Please, explain it more technical manner seeing that whatever is taking place one can in laymen's terms see it as sealed off 100km underground.

[@TheMachian]

Never heard of that. Reference?

[@mrwassef]

It was a storm that’s all haha. Has nothing to do with the LHC. And any other mention of cloud vortices over CERN being supernatural comes from footage by a UFO conspiracist that was published by The Mirror, which is a tabloid newspaper (sensational journalism). It’s just people trying to make correlation into causation to fit a narrative. If the clouds were being directly affected by the LHC it would be an easily replicable event and happen with much more regular frequency.

[@hildekaeka6064]

@@TheMachian I replied but it disappeared. Obviously, not going through that again. Secondly, have other independent individuals who have mediocre resources like a Santilli telescope or other equipment actually took the time to go to observe and do a few readings themselves while runs were done as someone said here something in the lines of, "An awful lot of physics have been done w/out it costing a billion dollars," or something. Rather than just taking a one-sided view that is 100% one-sided, the producer and fact-checker scenario.

[@rayarmijo4512]

The deeper you go into the rabbit hole, the deeper the rabbit hole gets.

[@tomasgrimm3086]

Sooner or later a new method will have to emerge

[@boriskaragiannis.7735]

i just raid Cern can produce and produces more powerful magnetic fields than earth...1 does this not sound kind of dangerous in any way? 2 how much energy does this machine burns to function? 3 some say colliders create new particles 24/7 instead of doing "experiments" here and there

[@bessokeks4006]

And do not forget the mother of all b.s. in physics: the BIG BANG

[@TheMachian]

I do not quite agree. There will be a video on this soon (VSL).

[@slsteinman292]

Easy. Solve dark_mattter. Explain away dark_energy. Then apply what you've learned to 'big bang' cosmology. ;)

[@gerblake9359]

Alexander, thank you. On this topic, you can compare: Eric Lerner has just published an interesting video, containing arguments regarding Big Bang theory. He also analyses why this theory keeps being propagated.

[@nathanielhellerstein5871]

The same generation of physicists - indeed, some of the same individual physicists - worked on both the Big Bang and the atomic bomb. So I suspect cultural neurosis projection. Perhaps in the future they'll come up with a "green" theory of the universe, based on recycling and computation.

[@SeminalSimian]

If we blew up a house with more and more explosives, would that help to understand how it was built? No. At first, yes but as you go higher you just create sawdust. This all rests on the big bang model being accurate anyway and that model, instead of making predictions, keeps needing major additions to survive.

[@GoetzimRegen]

It is useless for us, but there was one collider installed in the SII project in Ohrdruf, so it is not useless for them. The LHC must play a larger part in the "Wunderwaffen" program of the NATO 🙂 .

[@uncleclaw171]

Feynman Diagrams seem to be the source of a lot of nonsense. Have you ever looked into now they "identify" particle from the collider, based on these diagrams? Seems as much unscientific guesswork as economics. Squiggle to the left, then it's one thing; squiggle to the right, it's another particle. Seriously. So, if I were standing on the other side of image, then the particles are now the opposite of what they were when I was standing over there. Stupid. It's really bad bad 'science'.

[@TheMachian]

You are right. You may want to watch the video about Oliver Consa's findings on QED.

[@一个说话大声的中国人]

I just put out a book. Please search the title: Blind Men’s Elephant and Schrodinger’s Cat: Know Yourself and Your Enemy. If add to my credibility, I have a math Ph.D. from Stanford U.

[@davidrandell2224]

“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon.

[@一个说话大声的中国人]

@@davidrandell2224 Thank you!

[@dusankasivcevic4769]

You are absolutely right! They wouldnt aknowledge that they found or achieved nothing! But they are spending too much money for nothing!

[@freddyfozzyfilms2688]

academic flat earth is getting good

[@IamdeaththedestroyerofWorlds]

I thought he was talking about new types of pasta not particles