Hi everyone! I just wanted to say that there have been some really great comments that have motivated on some fun discussions and new posts. I’d like to encourage people to continue to leave comments with questions and thoughts.
We unfortunately can’t always address all of them, but we do our best and it’s always great to get feedback and have a real discussion with our readers.
Two caveats:
- Facebook viewers: it helps if you to comment on the original posts at http://blogs.uslhc.us/ rather than on the Facebook feed. (This way authors are notified when there’s a new comment.)
- Comments are moderated by the WordPress spam filter and the US LHC admins who are different people than the actual bloggers. This is why your comments might not show up immediately. Since this is a family-friendly blog, inappropriate comments don’t show up at all.
Let us know what you’d like to read more about!
I just wanted to ask for your opinion on the Participatory Anthropic Principle “We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past, many don’t agree with John Wheeler, but if he’s right then we and presumably other conscious observers throughout the universe create our reality. Is it possible that the LHC results will be an image or reflection of what scientists are expecting to see, and not an independent reality from our expectations? Also, what has it been done to do this experiment as open-minded as possible without preconceived ideas? Would you be able to spot some aspects of the Universe that you were not expecting? or Are all the set ups of the LHC tied to a stablished understanding (such as string theory or the Higgs field)? Thanks in advance for your response.
Hi Paul, Wheeler’s “Participatory Anthropic Principle” (and really most ideas which contain the phrase ‘anthropic principle’) sound rather untestable. What this means is that as a scientist it doesn’t really matter what I think about it since it’s not something that can be studied via the scientific method. Ideas such as these may well be correct, but scientific inquiry won’t be able to say anything about it.
I could, for example, say that the entire universe is a dream that I’m having (e.g. the plot premise of “The Matrix”), but this doesn’t mean that this is an idea that can be tested and set against data.
Regarding the LHC: the machine is set up to find generic signals of new physics within a broad range of classes of new physics. These classes of new physics, however, are rather restricted to things that are at least somewhat motivated by past experiments and theory. (The question of whether or not a class of new physics signals will be visible at the LHC also has a lot to do with the triggering system, which has been discussed on this blog before.) So if there’s a “crazy idea” like ‘unparticles’ (conformally invariant dynamics) then there’s a good chance the LHC will see it. But if there’s a “crazy idea” like “The Matrix,” then no, don’t bet on it.
Hello Filip
New evidence has come to light in support of the reasoning presented in this E-mail sent to CERN on the 20 th of may 2009
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327210.900
You are presumably one of the about 6000 personer voting on the Cern experiment
But to broaden the debate, I want to make you conscious of the circumstance that a conception of the actual origination of black holes cannot be deemed complete without taking into account the interaction between:
A. known microphysical phenomena on one hand
B. local macrophysical so called cosmological environements on the other
Supposition A 1.
In the vicinity of heavy nuclei are formed out of gamma rays electron positron pairs.
this phenomenon shows according to Cerns own research that opposit charges actualy arise experimentally from high energy radiation.
Suposition A 2.
Such charges render possible the acceleration of particles: eg protons etc. through so called warping i.e heavy light.
“e.g There is a crater the size of a trailer on the lunar surface created by atoms accelerated to a near C velocity by means of pulsed laser.”
hypothesis H0:
A2 is facilitated by A1
Suposition A 3.
MBH micro black holes can interact with warping particles se A2,
through the linking of A1,A2,A3
Suposition A 4.
MBH arise by natural process and are the reason for a part of the observed so called redshift.
Suposition B 1.
Pulsars and black holes accretion discs are gamma ray sources that generate heavy light
Suposition B2.
Gammalight cones originating from pulsars or accretion discs contain generated high velocity MBH
Suposition B3.
Gammalight cones with diametrically oposit axiality can generate low velocity MBH compare forth LHC
Suposition B4.
The linking of B1,B2,B3 generates under the conditions A1,A2,A3 with
the result B4 the supermassive black hole CBH over time.
e.g:
http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/index.php with A4 as it’s signature
furthermore http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327210.900 shows the process of high velocity MBH induced redshift of heavy light or A4
Conclusion
CBH has arisen in the focalpoint of several pulsars/accretion disc light cones some diametrically oposit out of initial MBH condensation:
MBH condensation occurs in gravitational wells, and triggers BH formation
Do the math and consider the ramifications
With due regards Christer Svensson