Re: "The Flaw in High Energy Physics"


Alka wrote:
> "The Flaw in High Energy Physics"

Occasionally this nonsense is worth responding to.

>
> When it comes to particle physics a question arises. High
> Energy experiments have led to a plethora of short-lived high-energy
> products.
> As an example, a proton and an anti-proton, each having a mass equivalent
> energy
> of 1 GEV are accelerated to a velocity so close to that of light so that
> they
> each contain kinetic energy of hundreds of GEV. These particles are then
> induced
> to collide and, in so doing, produce short lived high-energy products having
> observable mass equivalent energies of hundreds of GEV. Where did the energy
> they represent come from?

It is mistaken to assume that energy must reside *inside objects*.

>
> A:- The energy certainly wasn't in the original particles,
> their rest mass indicates that their total energy was about 2 GEV.

Well, this isn't their total energy either individually or
collectively. Nor is their rest mass as a colliding pair equal to 2
GeV. Rest mass is not calculated as the sum of matter or the sum of the
rest masses of the objects in the system.

>
> B:- The only source of the excess energy represented by the
> collision products is the kinetic energy of the impacting protons. The
> observed
> total energy after the collision never seems to be reported as exceeding the
> input energy. If the excess energy was hidden in the original protons and
> did
> not come from their kinetic energy, then where did the kinetic energy go?

The kinetic energy is the source, but note that the kinetic energy of
the system does not reside *inside* the protons.

>
> C:- Experiment indicates that electrons, and the quarks that
> make up protons and neutrons have no solid structure down to the observation
> limit of 10^-18 meters, as indeed they cannot have. The more rest mass
> energy a
> particle has, the smaller it is.

This is not obvious at all. A neutrino is not smaller than an electron,
nor vice versa, as far as we know.

> If quarks contained smaller particles, the
> rest
> mass of those smaller particles would be greater than the rest mass of the
> quark
> and the proton or neutron would be more massive than it is. On the other
> hand,
> if particles making up the quark were less massive than the quark they would
> also be larger and would not fit within the nucleon.
>
> Rather than accept the fact that these particles contain no
> structure, theoreticians have resorted to Superstring Theory

This is not the reason for superstring theory.

> that asserts
> that
> reality consists of curled higher order dimensions having a radius 20 orders
> of
> magnitude smaller than the nucleon (a nice choice of scale since their
> observation is not likely to ever be possible). At this scale level, the
> combination of Quantum Theory and General Relativity is asserted to cause
> space
> to be a frothy foam. Unfortunately physicists would rather accept such a
> concept
> than accept the idea that there is an error in General Relativity, after all
> the
> quasi-religious "Faith" must not be challenged.

Well, one might ask reflectively why the reverse (a smooth space) is a
more desirable foundation.


> Once the error is admitted
> and
> the necessary corrections made, the merging of the two theories becomes
> obvious.
> The need for the activity at 10^-34 meters vanishes and space becomes
> smooth.
>
> Everything really does become much simpler when one follows
> the rules of evidence in Science as well it is done in other activities and
> recognize that it is necessary to consider the effects of possible changes
> in
> the size of the units of measurement used by instruments produced by a
> change in
> reference frame in addition to the results of those measurements. When one
> takes
> this step an entirely different view of reality results. This view of
> reality is
> much more straightforward and is capable of being understood by the average
> man
> since the operation of its mechanisms are clear.

The truth is also understandable by the average man, if one is willing
to examine some preconceived notions.

>
> The disturbing part of the present process is that the next
> generation of scientists is having their minds destroyed by being
> indoctrinated
> into the "True Faith".
>
> The source material for this posting may be found in
> http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
> http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
> http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
> EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
> WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
> IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
> REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
> THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
>
> All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
> http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
>
> Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
> monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
> same
> courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
> our
> parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
> you
> have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
>
> E-mail:- einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx
>
> The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
> over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
> THE
> MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
> individuals
> who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
> If
> anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
> the
> material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
> only
> the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
> provided.

.