In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists
to enlarge the target. Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping
to understand their inner structure. And they were surprised with
the results of this bombing. Several hundreds of completely new
strange particles appeared. They lived a very little time and do not
relate to our world. Our Earth needs its real constants of nature.
But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure
of the particles. The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator – is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs. He knows, that an accelerator – is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
========= .. ========.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
========== .. ===============.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
========== . ======== .
The Nature works very economical.
For example, biologists know 100 ( hundred ) kinds of
amino acids. But only 20 ( twenty) kinds of amino acids
are suitable to produce molecules of protein, from which all
different cells created on our planet. What are about another
80 % of amino acids? They are dead end of evolution.
The physicists found many ( 1000 ) new elementary particles in
accelerators. But we need only one ( 1) electron and one (1 )
proton to create first atom, to begin to create the Nature.
All another elementary particles (mesons, muons , bosons, taus,
all their girlfriends – antiparticles, all quarks and antiquarks…etc)
are dead end of evolution.
============.
What was before – “ the big bang” or the vacuum ?
The physicists created “ Europe’s Large Hadron Colider “
Please, look at how our physicists made this accelerator.
They made the vacuum and after they generated a big reaction
between two colliding particles in some small imitation of the
“big bang”. They didn’t make this process in the reverse.
So, what was prior in the Universe: “ big bang” or vacuum?
===========================..
The Universe as whole is Vacuum, first of all.

Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf
====================..
P.S.

Will CERN find the God – Particle?
Hawking bets CERN will not find the God Particle

http://www.physorg.com/news140161003.html
================..

Phil Plait, also known as the Bad Astronomer, has posted a number of stories from his visit to CERN and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) as well as a pretty nice video of his adventures. I repost it here but make sure you read his post on the visit!……

Yeah, everything went as planned.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/trinity_safety.htm

Well, asuming you are sincere and not simply stirring stuff up to get attention, I’ll try to address your concerns…

First off, CERN is an international cooperative effort. I do not know how many states have contributed, but billions of euros is a trvial fraction of the combined annual budgets of the CERN member states. I am sure that, if you really want to know the numbers, you could find out with a bit of research on the internet.

Second, it is no white elephant (unlike, say, the ISS, which does not look like ever returning any fundamental science). The LHC has the potential to give us a massive leap forward in our understanding of the fundamental nature of matter. If you read Phil’s posts about it, you may get some idea of what that is about. Additionally, if you want to know a bit more, there are plenty of resources on the web. Start with wikipedia and go from there.

Third, the EU member states do spend large sums of money on all sorts of projects to “help the poor”. At the end of the day, however, any country is run by politicians who will be concerned about getting re-elected, so their spending priorities will represent many interests, some of which will conflict from time to time. Everything is a compromise. However, if you feel that “the poor” are not getting a fair slice of the pie, perhaps you should write to your representatives (assuming you live in a democracy of some kind) rather than simply whinge about it on the web.

Fourth, science gets a significantly smaller budget than such things as defence, health care, agriculture, education and so on. Just because one very large project has been funded does not mean that science in general is given a large portion of tax spending. So, if you are going to rob Peter to pay Paul, there are other places from which one could take the funds to do so. Why pick on science in particular?

Fifth, science may be “loosing” (sic) popularity (something that you have not demonstrated to actually be the case, BTW), but I very much doubt that, if true, this is down to large projects such as the LHC. Many people (myself included) feel that science is losing popualrity because science education is being cut back and dumbed down. For instance, take the UK: whereas 20 years ago, it was obligatory to learn the three sciences from the ages of 11 – 16 (and sit exams for them), shortly after the introduction of the GCSE system, many schools were permitted to offer a “double science” GCSE instead of individual GCSEs in biology, chemistry and physics. More recently, I have heard that it is no longer obligatory to continue learning any science at all at the GCSE level (i.e. the students may give up science at the age of 14 or 15). Consequently, we have a new generation of citizens who have almost no understanding of science at all. Meanwhile, of course, science has not stood still. Many new things have been learned in the last 20 years. Thus, to many of the UK’s young adults, science is seen as a very hard topic and is of little or no interest to them personally. I am sure that the actual situation is more complex than I have here described it, but I believe that the factor I have highlighted is a significant one. By contrast, I believe the modest sum of money spent on building the LHC will at most be a contributory factor (as opposed to a main one) in the purported loss of science’s popularity.

I’ll definitely think less pourly of my government now (only a little bit less).

I will remeber both you and the LHC everytime I get my check with a smile.

Whoever decided to tested it in the desert must have been a real anti-science fool!

No, privacy. Someone may have noticed if they set if off at Caltech or MIT or NYU or somewhere…

B

I guess the A-bomb did cause a few unforeseen radiation poisonings and cancer, but so does smoking. Still I agree, it was very successful!

Whoever decided to tested it in the desert must have been a real anti-science fool!

I do think you are asking the wrong question here. It’s not something we can actually answer – while there may be some direct and predictable benefits to humanity as a whole form this research it is the unexpected way discoveries get used that tend to have the largest impact on our world. We may discover the Higgs Boson at the LHC and have an answer as to why matter has mass and in turn that may lead to a true understanding of gravitation which may in turn lead to ways to modify local gravity which could in turn lead to cheap and easy access to space and the ability to accelerate probes to large fractions of the speed of light and allow for direct close range observation of our nearest stellar neighbors adn discovery of extralosr planets capable of supporting life as we know it. Maybe. We just don’t know.

What we do know is that we will not continue to advance as a species if we don’t seek answers to the questions we find. We do know that previous “pure science” endeavours have resulted in improvements for mankind as a whole – visit any hospitals nuclear medicine wing for very direct examples.

So… I would say the right question to ask is not “What are the practical benefits of this research?” but rather “Are the practical results of past pure research enough to warrant continuing to do this sort of thing?” I would argue strongly that the answer is “Yes!”