|
User talk:OldnoahConcerns regarding your recent editsWhen you provide new information on wikipedia it is always a good idea to have external reliable external sources to support idea. If you don't provide any source for the additional information it will seen as original research and could be deleted. I am keeping your recent edits as it is but i put a template to inform anyone the possibility of original research until you find something that will support your claim. 116.240.150.67 (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC) AfD nomination of Ice-nine fusion An editor has nominated Ice-nine fusion, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice-nine fusion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Your recent editsI am afraid I have once again reverted your edits to the Hawking radiation article, since it still doesn't appropriately cite sources for the criticism (if you claim that the black holes FAQ is an appropriate reference, how does it support your material?), and there seems to be consensus against its inclusion (as evidenced by both its repeated removal from the article and talk page comments). In particular, that Hawking radiation has never been observed and its existence is not universally accepted by scientists is already mentioned in the article lead. As for the article Ice-nine fusion, I believe it is redundant, since the topic is adequately covered by Strangelet. (At the talk page of your IP address, I have asked you what you intended to do with the Ice-nine article; I would have advised you against creation of Ice-nine fusion.) Accordingly, I have nominated it for deletion. Regards, Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting vandals; please remember to warn them too
Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oldnoah for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Bm gub (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 Oldnoah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: I have no idea who "transcept" is, and he/she is no sock puppet of mine. A single new voter is construed to be a sockpuppet? The "solid case" is hogwash. I do know that there are lots of people I have been in communication with about the BLATANT editing by established Wikipedians who have no clear knowledge of nuclear physics, attempting to eliminate valid strangelet physics because it supports the contention that ice-nine fusion might be a real concern at the LHC. It is quite possible that one of them decided to post because of what he/she read. That certainly does not make that person a sock-puppet of mine. Then again, it could just as easily have been from someone I've not yet had communication with. I have no idea, but the subject covered by the purported 'sockpuppet' was new material, and valid. Namely, "transcept" pointed out the heavy editing at the "strangelet" article, and that the "ice-nine fusion" page was needed to provide more information than space being made available in the "strangelet" page for ice-nine fusion. There is but one anonymous poster who appears not to be a regular poster, namely "transcept", and on that flimsy evidence Bm gub, who has been one of the masterminds of the heavy-editing to eliminate ice-nine fusion purports that he has a "solid case" that transcept is a sock puppet. Further, Bm gub misrepresents the facts. There are at least three regular posters [including myself] to Wikipedia who say to keep. Deciding to keep is not necessarily a majority vote. Rather, it is a vote of whether there is sufficient evidence to support keeping the article. Here, the evidence clearly shows: The "strangelet" page provides insufficient space for the topic, which is constantly edited/pared down by Bm gub et al.;
The "ice-nine fusion" page is a disambiguation for the "ice-nine" page;
The "ice-nine fusion" page provides much unique information not available on other Wikipedia pages, in a coherent format;
The "ice-nine fusion" page has a term of art which might be relatively new in the lexicon [neologism], but one which is clearly readily understood and being used by professionals in the field in conversation.
Deletion of the "ice-nine fusion" page would be a form of science censorship.
Accordingly, due to Bm gub's misrepresentations, his 'vote' should be eliminated, essentially leaving the results at 6 to delete and 5 to keep, more than sufficient support to keep, or at least leave open for a month or so to get additional input. And, aren't we supposed to sign with 4 ~? I trust another administrator will review this abuse of the sockpuppetry policy. Apparently, someone contacted a Wikipedian administrator [Rlevse], who'd been away [quit Wikipedia] on a long break, and had only just come back one week ago, to initiate the block. This is unconscionable. Perhaps "Rlevse" will contact another administrator himself. Decline reason: Having looked at the suspected sockpuppetry case, I agree with Rlevse's findings of abusive sockpuppetry. When your block expires in one week, please refrain from using multiple accounts deceptively in the future. - auburnpilot talk 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Oldnoah (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: This "review" was done in under five minutes? How can you have reviewed anything? I have no idea where "transcept" has an ISP, but it is likely not mine, and is certainly not controlled by me. If "transcept" is one of the persons I told about the wacky science editing at Wikipedia, and decided to test/post him/herself, that does not make him/her a sockpuppet of mine. Don't you want new people jumping in and becoming involved? Isn't that what would make Wikipedia better? It seems strange that a select group can jump to an erroneous conclusion that I "control" some other ISP, when I have no control over that person or his/her ISP, and they have voluntarily elected to voice their own opinion, even adding new information not voiced by others. The policy of Wikipedia that new posters are given less weight/credibility than more established posters might come into play, but certainly designating any new poster as a "sockpuppet" is abusive, and untrue. Auburnpilot's exceptionally speedy "review" now needs full review. Decline reason: I too agree with the sockpuppetry evidence, so your block stands. — Stephen 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Righto. I'll try to remember to log in before editing. I usually do, but sometimes I forget. I don't like to leave my password on a computer, even my own, but maybe I should. Oldnoah (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah Fear and AngerThere's already a Hal Anger stub, which I fixed your link for, by creating a Hal O. Anger redirect. The aircraft: Oh, I see, the F-18. Wups. Thanks. By the way, I see you've run afoul of the old guilty-till-proven innocent sock-block. It's a real problem here on Wikipedia. Not that there's any fairness to it, but you can help lessen your chance of being caught up by the inquisition if you'll create a few personal details about yourself on your userpage. SBHarris 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Wilczek and ice-9I took your ice-9 reference out of the Wilczek article. If you could find sources showing that he is well known for this little remark than it might be OK to keep it. However, since I know him, his work, and the relevant part of the physics community very well, I am pretty sure you won't find sufficient evidence to justify it. I think your enthusiasm for the ice-9 analogy is probably a bit greater than its actual importance warrants, which is why you've run into some resistance on this topic. But there is one place you could legitimately add material on this, and that is the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth page. What do you think? Dark Formal (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I believe Frank is well known for coining that terminology's usage for strangelet fusion, but I don't have ready references at my fingertips, so I'll leave it alone for now. It certainly was chosen by him for that 1999 SciAm Letter to give an immediate impression for what a runaway fusion scenario would entail. I'm not certain that I would have chosen that word of art [since I envision such runaway fusion would be very nearly linear initially, rather than rapid exponential, due to the requirement of excretion of charge ("eat and burp", as Sandweiss called it) following each fusion, before another fusion could commence], but after he did publish it, it became quite well discussed. I don't believe the Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth page is particularly relevant, as almost all of that discusses risks from nature [ice ages, meteorite impacts, etc.] over which he have virtually no immediate control [excluding possible global warming, the cause of which is still debated, or whether we are simply in another little warm period like during the Viking days]. About all we can do now, for example, if we saw a large asteroid coming is the same as we're doing for that out of control satellite due to crash in a few weeks - - monitor the situation, and a few hours before impact give an estimated region of impact, which we could narrow down as it got closer. However, we've [or, more properly, our ancestors] survived every previous asteroid impact, and I don't believe any future ones could be much worse, particularly since we are a bit more advanced than were our primitive ancestors some 65 million years ago [still crawling around and hiding in the trees from the dinosaurs, no doubt]. However, I do know that page does discuss strangelet creation, and perhaps I may go in and amplify on that. In the meanwhile, I'm waiting on CERN's report. I received an email from their LSAG [LHC Safety Assessment Group] stating that it will be at least another month before they've finished it. I doubt that it will calculate probabilities properly, if they attempt to do so. I suspect it will more likely use artful terminology like "highly speculative" or "extremely unlikely" to hide our lack of knowledge. Also, I'm adding some good material to other articles in the nuclear field [e.g. nuclear medicine, health physics, alpha radiation, etc.], though at times I'm not certain how much to add, or whether I should start a new article for extensive amounts of material. Probably the latter. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah
Thanks for your comments, but I have been well aware of those facts for many decades. There are two main distinctions. In nature, the impacts are proton on Iron [on the moon]. This might be different than Lead on Lead, even if the energy is the same or greater in nature. This pertains to the strangelet argument [since charged strangelets will rapidly decelerate and come to rest, the argument below does not apply to them; unless they can be shown to be strictly neutral]. For the micro black holes (MBH) [which theory shows should be neutral], nature would produce them [IF they can be produced, and IF they don't evaporate via Hawking radiation] travelling at nearly c relative to earth. Theory shows they should be very minimally reactive at rest [because they are so tiny]. At nearly c, they would be very neutrino like [think of neutron reactivity at nearly c, compared to thermal; though it is an entirely different principle]. In other words, theory predicts that any produced by nature on earth would simply zip right on through with nary an interaction, and be extremely difficult to detect [which might account for why they haven't been found]. Conversely, the LHC would produce them [again, IF they can be produced, and IF they don't evaporate] "at rest" [they would have residual velocity, with an appreciable percentage with a velocity below 40,000 kph, i.e. escape velocity]. Thus, if they don't evaporate, they would endlessly orbit through earth, though possibly slowly growing. I've read some estimates that it would take billions of years for a single such MBH to incorporate one gram of nucleons. I tend to believe it would be far shorter, though still likely millenia. Like strangelets, the growth would be nearly linear at first, though over time [billions of years?] it would become more exponential. Production of such a particle at 1/second would not be a welcome idea. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah
Yes, I am aware that cosmic rays come with Z from 1 to 92 [and possibly even higher, though never detected]. I've seen many a high-Z cosmic ray track in high-Z cosmic ray searches seeking transuranic cosmic rays. I'm not trying to give a tutorial on the topic. Most all of the energetic cosmic ray impacts, with COM comparable to the LHC, are from proton on Iron [or other mid-Z on the moon's surface]. There is no evidence in any cosmic ray data that there are energetic Iron or higher cosmic rays with COM energies comparable to the LHC impacts. ZERO. The highest energy cosmic rays that have been actually directly measure are about 1E17eV, and they are all H and He. And these have 'error-bars' of several orders of magnitude at 2 standard deviations. These have a COM energy barely above the LHC at the center of the error bars. While some people might infer there are energetic high-Z particles, we have no evidence of such. The Pierre Auger high-E events are all believed to be high-E protons. The reason I use the term "at rest" in quotes is because I am also aware of the varying energies following collision. However, some of the energies are sufficiently low that they translate to a speed of under 40,000 kph, which I call "at rest" when compared to a speed of .9999+c. I am not concerned so much about the asymetric collisions, but rather those much rarer ones which are much more directly 'head-on', particularly the Pb-Pb ones, which can produce "at rest" product, whether it be a 'fireball', a 'strangelet', or a 'MBH'. Finally, I did not invent the term 'ice-nine fusion'. As I indicated above, I personally would not have chosen the term 'ice-nine' to describe strangelet fusion. Wilczek initially chose that term, others followed up on it. I simply followed suit. The fact that Google searches don't show the term in print is why I'm not pursuing trying to get that 'ice-nine fusion' page re-inserted, or at least not now. If others get it in print to where it's in more common usage, then perhaps that will change. And, I note that you make no comments about the relativistic nature of MBHs in nature, compared to "at rest" at the LHC. Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah incorrect, you must learn to use google properly and understand his algorythms of search, put 'ice-9 wilczek'and you get hundreds of hits, google has an 'inverse entropy arrow' in its search of information if you know what i mean... that is what makes it so good.. try those 2 words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.246.73 (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Back to LHC and heavy-ions: w/r/t lunar heavy-ion collisions I was still thinking of RHIC. With regards to the boost velocities of collision products: different strangelet formation models suggest either that strangelets are produced at rest (strangeness distillation from the fireball) or at/near the beam velocity (pomeron-mediated (insert handwaving) from the spectators) or at a large transverse velocity (coalescence). RHIC put the distillation idea completely to bed---the fireball is ultra-hot and short-lived, and the QGP transition doesn't cool it down in any way. There's no point speculating about it any more---we saw the transition, and it doesn't have strangelet-producing properties. Adding more energy will make it worse. The other options are (a) implausible in the extreme and (b) would produce large center-of-mass boosts. The situation is very different for black holes, which are presumed to be created by single hard-parton collisions in pp collisions. Look at the CM boost distribution for those parton collisions---remembering that LHC isn't really a 7 TeV parton beam on a 7 TeV parton beam, it's a broadband 0-7 TeV parton beam on another 0-7 TeV parton beam, and both with Fermi-momentum-smeared transverse velocities. Fewer than 10^-4 of these collisions are momentum-matched to give a CM velocity below 11e3 m/s, and that's for BH produced at rest in the CM---not recoiling off of anything, etc. Bm gub (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your comments. Your result of 1E-4 as the fraction that are momentum-matched to give velocity less than 1E4 m/s (escape velocity, roughly equivalent to 25,000 mph, or 40,000 kph) differs significantly from the reference I had that gave 1E-1. Do you have a citable reference? It would be interesting to see the calculation from your source. I did not see the calculation from the source I used. If your source is correct, then that would equate to a much lower number of MBH's being captured [if they don't evaporate], thus instead of a rate of 1 per 10 seconds, it would be at a rate of about 1 per 10,000 seconds, or 1 per 3 hours. This might be sufficiently low to prevent consumption of earth for millions of years, instead of decades, centuries or millenia [if MBH don't evaporate and if they can be created!]. As to the strangelet scenario, I'm not certain that what you stated is correct. Would not input of additional energy, some 30-fold more than for the RHIC, create lots more strange quarks [energy-to-mass conversion], even as much as 30-fold more? Isn't that what we're looking for in several of the proposed searches, or have we cancelled those search proposals as being wholly unrealistic without letting me know? I wonder if creation of so many more strange quarks might ease the ability for a strangelet to form, whereas at the RHIC energies the low number of strange quarks only makes for novel-type particles of only a few strange quarks (e.g. lambda). Regards, Oldnoah (talk) 02:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah Making strange particles is only the first of many barriers to actually making strangelets. A hot fireball with equal numbers of u,d, and s quarks is not the same thing as a strangelet---any more than a hot fireball of u and d quarks is the same thing as a lead nucleus. In order to become a stable object, those quark have to cool down to the point where the phase-space for s --> u decays is totally full; otherwise the decay will occur. That means that you have to get hundreds of quarks from their fireball energies (100-1000 MeV) down to nuclear-Fermi-sea energies. It didn't happen at RHIC; it's even less likely at LHC where the initial state is even hotter. It is incorrect to say that LHC makes "more strange quarks"---RHIC made plenty of lambdas and kaons and such----but, more importantly, both LHC and RHIC make strange as well as antistrange quarks, with net strangeness zero. You have to get rid of the antiquarks somehow in order to make a stable strangelet. At RHIC, you can maybe imagine the antistrange quarks hadronizing 10-20% faster than the strange quarks, since there's a net u,d excess from the projectiles. At LHC, the net u,d excess will be more like 1%---the fireball will have nearly perfect matter/antimatter symmetry. Bm gub (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Does that mean we've cancelled all searches for strangelets? I'll let others comment before I comment further. Oldnoah (talk) 22:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah Enthusiasm for strangelet searches at colliders is, indeed, extremely low---they've gone off of the list of "things to list in your letter of intent" and onto the list of "things to give to a single grad student who needs a thesis topic and some analysis practice". (Astrophysical strangelet/strange star searches are different, since the production mechanism is (IMO) marginally plausible.) Keep in mind that there is no "we" who centrally decides to "cancel all searches". Anyone sitting around Brookhaven (or any of 100 RHIC universities, or 500 LHC universities) with a computer is perfectly free to do a strangelet search in the data they can access. Anyone applying to the DOE asking for money to build a strangelet search machine, on the other hand, is probably going to be turned down. Bm gub (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC) Monopoles at LHCHi Oldnoah. See a comment in the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Large_Hadron_Collider#Magnetic_monopoles I apologize for never having heard of monopole searches at the LHC, but the simple fact is that in the past few years, having read numerous papers, attended numerous seminars, following the work of the major ATLAS physics analysis groups, and conducting my own research at CERN for several months now, I have never heard of monopole searches at the LHC until now, despite knowing Jim Pinfold and working at the CSR (which was recently renamed?) a few years ago. Of course, you hear about SUSY all the time so I thought that would be more appropriate and representative to be mentioned in the first paragraph. My concern was that in the first paragraph, the main areas of research should be quickly summarized - obviously one can not list every phenomenon and particle that is being sought at the LHC. Perhaps this personally offended you because of your area of research expertise? If that's the case, sorry - I did not intend anything like that. Also I think your monopole references, while impressive, are a bit of overkill. :) One or two would suffice. Rotiro (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Please note I removed the CDF reference for monopole searches, but did add a Symmetry magazine reference. I've recently communicated via email with Jim Pinfold about his intended monopole searches [which were also widely featured in the lay press, where I first read of them!] he intends for the LHC, so it's in my thinking a prominent search he's promoting. I have no qualsm about adding super-symmetry searches, and only 1 reference should suffice. Personally, I believe it's highly unlikely to find a magnetic monopole by such search, as I believe they are far more massive [on the order of 1E21+ eV] than what the LHC can produce, which is why they are so rare in nature [i.e. the searches in cosmic ray debris don't turn up much, do they.]. I'm not certain what a "main area of research" should entail. I believe introduction of all exotic particles never before seen, which are reasonably theorized to possibly exist or be creatable, for which searches are intended covers much of the "main area of research". Certainly Nobel prizes will be handed out to anyone who finds such a new particle, I suspect. Oldnoah (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Oldnoah
Black Holes and Baby UniversesHi, I am not an expert on this subject (but I am a physicist), and I think the material you added to Hawking Radiation#Black_holes_and_Baby_Universes is not established and accepted in the physics community. Therefore I have moved it to the article talk page for discussion, so that consensus can be reached. Of course the nicest thing would be that it is true, but (since nobody knows that for sure), we have to settle for it being securely linked to reliable outside references. Can you provide some of these? For a physics article they should really be primary research articles, published in refereed papers like Phys.Rev or other main line journals. It would be great if this can be established, but I am really in doubt that it can, at least not yet. I think only the primary papers are really necessary, but a reference to a less technical review or explanation (like the occasional Perspectives published in Science, say; or a good monograph or textbook from a university publisher) would be extremely helpful for those of us who are less expert. My apologies for reverting your edit, but unless I am misinformed, this is necessary for Wiki procedures. The danger of putting forth incorrect information to the world at large is greater than the harm in a bit of delay while getting the verification right. See WP:V, especially WP:SOURCES for further guidance on this. I am putting your text in the talk page, so it can be recovered or revised if necessary, and is not lost. Thanks, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Baseless sniping at LHCOldnoah, your edit comments on LHC [1] were inappropriate. You don't own the LHC page and you have no standing to demand credentials from other editors, whether you think they are "art majors" or physicists or whatever; I don't recall bringing up your credentials even in the face of extremely dubious physics ideas. Mjespe1's edit was factually correct from a physics point of view. Your preferred LHC-danger-is-notable viewpoint is indeed debatable under WP:NN or WP:UNDUE, and those are the grounds under which Mjespe1 edited. This was not vandalism by any remotely-plausible definition. You owe Mjespe1 an apology; I have left them a note saying so. Bm gub (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Information regarding composition of CERN's LSAG and SPCHi, just watching your additions to the article, which are very important but undocumented so far. They will clearly be removed unless some reliable sources can be given, but if they can be established their removal would be a great loss to the integrity of the debate. So I urge you to beef up the references as soon as possible. Also, the safey discussion has been moved to a separate article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, so can you please put the material there? Otherwise the argument gets fragmented and confused. Finally, the MNBC reference you gave for the court date was dated June 2008, but the original material claiming June 2009 was put there months ago, and I changed it to 2008 as an obvious typo. Note that there was in fact a further step in the proceedings within a week of June 16, 2008, so I still think that must have been correct. Anyway, can you check you sources and beef that up? We may have to go back to the original in the history to find the correct date. Best, Bill Wwheaton (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It is fairly clear that the trial date has to be AFTER the motion to dismiss in September. That puts it in 2009, not 2008. As it turns out, it is that court's procedure to schedule it one year to the day from the date of the scheduling conference, which was June 16, 2008. As to the other comments, I am expecting that there will be public information soon on the opposition to the LSAG Report. I will leave those reverts alone until then. As to Jose, as you might recall, his name was in the article almost since the accident, until just a few weeks ago when someone removed it. I put it back out of respect. If there end up being lots of deaths, then perhaps a separate section would be appropriate. As it is, I believe his name should remain there, and will revert that change. Regards, Oldnoah Edit warringPlease stop edit warring, especially when there has been discussion about the point you are warring over. If you want to provide input into the discussion, then please do so, but you'll be blocked if you continue reverting edits against the clear consensus. -- Mark Chovain 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Re: COIHey there, I asked James about a comment here he made about other CERN employees other than myself involved in the CERN articles, and wondered if you could let me know. Just curious, as I thought I was the only person involved. Cheers Khukri 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Safety of the LHCwait a bit and let's move the discussion to the talk page. I am writing a summary of the debated points. Cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC) please stop changing the article and discuss the issues on the talk page. I am particularly interested in the source of your claim on a kaon excess in the first LHC data. And can't you really understand that creating strange quarks is not the same as creating strangelets? Going to bed now, cheers Ptrslv72 (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC) So where is the summary? The excess kaons made the newspapers, and there is a published article about it already. I believe they indicated about 13% more than had been predicted. And yes, creating strange quarks is but the first step towards creating strangelets. In small numbers, they'll rapidly bind with up or down quarks (and anti-quarks), forming strange kaons. It will take a large surplus before we would expect to see strangelets - such as when PB-Pb is done at very high energy. I'll look for the cites. Try this. http://muon.wordpress.com/ It's 14%, not 13%. I particuarly like the quote from the blog two below the one referenced regarding Gell-Mann's talk, which reads: "This is not a shocking assertion, and I would bet that books have been written about it. Gell-Mann provided some nice illustrations, including the assertion that Mayan hieroglyphics were not writing aside from the texts associated with their calender, and the hygienic theories of Semmelweiss. Gell-Mann emphasized the need to pay attention to the facts – always nice to hear from a theoretical physicist in the days of anthropogenic and multi-verse explanations fundamental particle physics. Of course, he also added that most challenges to established theory are bogus – again, it is the facts and their interpretation which matter. Gell-Mann was a wonderful guest and his lecture was great. I could try to relate more of the interesting and amusing things he said while at Northwestern. But that is not the point of this post! Scientific orthodoxy kills truth. We certainly have an orthodoxy when explaining fundamental particles and their interactions, spanning the standard model and including low-energy supersymmetry and theories of extra dimensions, etc. If the LHC presents facts which belie this orthodoxy, will we be able to see it, and set aside the orthodoxy? Perhaps we should think carefully and seriously about that, unlike the generation of anthropologists who passed over Mayan civilization, and the generations of physicians who refused to wash their hands before performing surgery…" But be sure to go to the original arXiv article, too, to get the 14% charged hadron value being higher than predicted. So, what is your interpretation as to why there are more charged hadrons (which were kaons) than had been predicted? The LHC antagonists say it is because the fundamental particle orthodoxy is wrong, and increasing the energy increases strange quark production (and up, down, etc, quark production), rather than increasing the "temperature" (which is an electromagnetic concept not suitable for this energy regime in which energy can be converted into mass rather than kinetics). By the way, if you need any direct confirmation of information regarding Dr. Wagner, send him an email to his lhcdefense@hotmail.com address.
Why do I have to do your work for you? Try this link: http://www.rdmag.com/News/2010/02/General-Science-Record-breaking-collisions-at-LHC-produce-lots-of-mesons/ In it you will find this quote: "In the new paper, submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics by CMS, the physicists analyzed the number of particles produced in the aftermath of the high-energy collisions. When protons collide, their energy is predominantly transformed into particles called mesons — specifically, two types of mesons known as pions and kaons. To their surprise, the researchers (found) that the number of those particles increased faster with collision energy than was predicted by their models, which were based on results of lower-energy collisions." Having an unexpected excess of strange quarks producing an unexpected excess of kaons might well have something to do with unexpected strangelet formation at higher energies. As to Wagner's academic or non-academic credentials, the way that sentence reads pertaining to the daily show was designed to appear as an 'ad hominem' against him. Either drop it in its entirety, or correct his credentials to show that he has had scientific experience other than high school teaching. Likewise, allow the 'cutting room floor' material that the daily show edited out to be inserted as to how he calculates "50%". Or else, show how that is wrong, and what a correct percentage should be. Or better still, simply drop the whole sentence as irrelevant, unless you want to emphasize the risk as 50%.
In anticipation of squawking by Ptrslv72, here are the exact quotes from the two referenced articles showing a 14% increase in kaon/pion production compared to what had been predicted. I re-inserted the value of 14% (the arXiv article shows 14.5%) into the Wikipeida article to give a 'feel' for how much the increase was; just as the authors calculated the % increase and included it in their paper for the same reason, and described it as "significantly larger" than had been predicted based upon their prior model of how nuclear interactions would work at that higher energy: "The increase of (28.4 ±1.4±2.6)% from 0.9 to 2.36 TeV is significantly larger than the 18.5% (14.5%) increase predicted by the PYTHIA (PHOJET) model tunes used in this analysis." (arXiv article) "In the new paper, submitted to the Journal of High Energy Physics by CMS, the physicists analyzed the number of particles produced in the aftermath of the high-energy collisions. When protons collide, their energy is predominantly transformed into particles called mesons — specifically, two types of mesons known as pions and kaons. To their surprise, the researchers (found) that the number of those particles increased faster with (higher) collision energy than was predicted by their models, which were based on results of lower-energy collisions." I will leave his other reverts alone for a few days to see if anyone else agrees with his decision to delete the reference to the charged hadrons as having been kaons plus pions (as opposed to other types of 3-quark hadrons such as protons, neutrons, etc.), and the Wikipedia definition of a kaon; if not, then I will revert to the Wikipedia reference as to what a kaon is, and that the excess particle production was of kaons (strange + up/down) and pions (u + d).
Your recent edits
LHC-SafetyHello Noah, Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have send an email to professor Gunter and hope to get some reply. But I have to say I'm just a layman who is slowly picking up on this subject, as it shows in my comments, and perhaps someone with a particle-physics degree would be in a better position to get answers. I also have a few other questions, and if you don't mind I would like to pose them a bit later on, kind regards Michel_sharp (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC) I'll try to check here from time to time to see if you've posted questions. I don't usually check my talk page, so don't expect immediate replies.Oldnoah (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah I believe if there is an edit on the your talk page that there shows up a message on top of the wiki page you are visiting. Anyway, I'm a bit late with my question because I posted it to the editors of the website that "Ptrslv72" referred to link, but I got no answer, btw I also didn't get an answer from professor Gunter, he must be busy. Questions:
Michel_sharp (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The beam would normally run for several hours, once it is stabilized. The real problem as I see it is that if dangerous material is made, we won't know it. If we detect evaporating black holes, those are harmless. Non-evaporating black holes aren't detectable, so if we started making them by the millions, and didn't know it, we might create problems for future generations (assuming any one micro black hole takes billions of years to slowly drain away our matter). Oldnoah (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Oldnoah
May 2011
Your submission at Articles for creation {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article.)
Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Mitsuo Aoki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Founder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)  The article Monterey Bay Botanical Garden has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
Nomination of Monterey Bay Botanical Garden for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Monterey Bay Botanical Garden is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monterey Bay Botanical Garden until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notificationHi. When you recently edited Mitsuo Aoki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hawi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for January 9Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Todd pederson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Church and Founder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC) The article Todd Pedersen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Corrected 'problem' by adding numerous other links to newspaper articles and youtube videos establishing notability. Removed drive-by tag alleging lack of neutrality.Oldnoah (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Oldnoah Speedy deletion nomination of Todd Pedersen
A tag has been placed on Todd Pedersen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information. If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. FrankDev (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC) January 2013
Left you my reply on your talk page. Also left more reply on the Talk:Todd Pedersen page. Oldnoah (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Oldnoah Your submission at Articles for creation The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Basket Feudalist 07:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)Disambiguation link notification for January 30Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 10Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Miles Reiter, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sweet Briar and Clamshell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Vivint". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 23:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Alternative accountsWhile it is allowable to have alternative accounts like Youngnoah (talk · contribs), you should leave a link on the userpage of the alternative account to make it clear to people that both belong to you. I've added a note to Youngnoah's page indicating as such. Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mitsuo Aoki, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Your article submission Mitsuo Aoki Hello Oldnoah. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Mitsuo Aoki. The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Accusations of vandalism on Driscoll'sYou should read up on what vandalism is before you accuse me of it, friend. Good faith edits explained on the talk page are not vandalism. Your ad hominem innuendos on the article talk page aren't super-constructive either. The shape your talk page is in doesn't suggest that you have any particularly high ground to stand on when making accusations, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC) Hi, Proposed deletion of Neutron howitzerThe article Neutron howitzer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing Nomination of Todd Pedersen for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Todd Pedersen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Pedersen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. » Shadowowl | talk 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC) |
