"Neutron star material.." Ummm... Neutronium?


Or not.

A neutron walks into a bar and asks, "How much for a drink?" The bartender replies, "For you, no charge."

Energy Density, Wave Function Densities, The Fractal Nature of groups exploring their harmonics.

There is the SpaceTime Continuum, but its only inhabitant is Energy ! It's all Energy !
(tell me, what in this world is not reducible down to its most basic level as being just energy ?)

Energy manifests itself in 4 States:

1. The Radiative State - the EM spectrum of radiations: which move at the Ratio of Space to Time; otherwise known as the Speed of Light, but as Dobson says, "It isn't a speed of anything at all, it's the Ratio of Space to Time." Things are set-up that way from the outset. Light doesn't move at a 'speed' it moves at the Ratio of the Space-field to the Time-field when they overlap each other in forming the SpaceTime Continuum thru which it moves as we observe it.

2. The Special State called Matter - that Energy has the ability to assume. How Energy can assume the special state we call matter isn't understood yet, but it does. Protons and Electrons, and their still mysterious combination, the Neutron. For a neutron will spontaneously devolve into a proton and an electron in about 15 minutes if left unattended and not in an atomic nucleus.

3. The Electrical State - usually a flow of electrons, but sometimes protons. Electricity behaves in different ways than matter does, even tho it is made of the same 'particles'.

4. The Field State - the Electric Field and the Magnetic Field. Magnetic fields can permeate solid matter as if it wasn't there !, suggesting to my mind that it is perhaps partially in another 'dimension' simultaneously with this one. (not the best way to say it, but it's a start)

And another thing ! "Consciousness has an adjacency with the physical world, not an overlap."
I'm not fully able to explain or yet understand the implications of this statement, I need to ask Paul Dirac about it.

Funny guy. I wiki'd: He now writes for Nickelodian stuff incl Spongebob, Jimmy Neutron, Fairly Odd parents. he went to clown college with Penn Jillette and co-writes/collaborates with him on a lot of side projects.

this was just A.W.E.S.O.M.E,thanks for contributing to this thread my friend.
and remind me never to engage you in an argument.
till next time..
namaste

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

Interesting voodoo science here... any word on neutron production and detection, which would indicate an atomic rather than some weird, exotic chemical reaction?

wow! I'm SO glad that he is filming lectures for teh intarnets.

The analogy of a thimbleful of neutron star as weighing as much as 50 million elephants is pretty good, but honestly, it is very hard to imagine 50 million elephants. I have heard the analogy before as a thimbleful of neutron star weighing as much as the Rockie Mountains. That is more viscerally signifigant to me.

I have to say, I totally <3 his take on the infinite density of a singularity. "When I say that a singularity is infinitely dense, really I am just professing my own ignorance."
This video is a huge boon for Science. Bravo! Thank you for posting it mauz!

>> ^Ryjkyj:
I read a little while ago in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" that the most likely event (theoretically) that could've created the element, gold as we know it. Is the direct collision ograterwo neutron stars. Apparantly that's the only thing that could generate the required heat.

Actually, and incredibly, nearly all elements formed inside gigantic stars billions of years ago. The sun, whose massive internal pressure fuses 700 million tons of hydrogen into 695 million tons of helium every single second(the remaining 5 million tons are released as pure energy) isnt powerful enough to generate any other elements, they all formed in absolute massive explosions and collisions in the early universe.

When Carl Sagan said that we are all made of star-stuff, he wasn't being metaphorical, he was literally right.

I read a little while ago in "A Short History of Nearly Everything" that the most likely event (theoretically) that could've created the element, gold as we know it. Is the direct collision ograterwo neutron stars. Apparantly that's the only thing that could generate the required heat.

Since I read that, I find gold much more interesting. I mean, we can create diamonds in a lab now but we might never, ever, ever find a way to create gold.

(incidently, this is a great way to make your wife think that she'd rather have gold than diamonds.)

Keep living in your bubble DrPrawn, ignorance is bliss.
Because most of the right wing pseudo-scientists are now out of work (because their work can't stand up to peer review), does not mean that science has been hijacked, it means the attemped hijackers have been thrown off the plane and the pilot has regained control, you just don't like where the plane is going.
One thing you're at least partially right about, IF the population does get to 10 billion, we will consume the earths remaining resources. There's little question there.
Sad to say I'm a tough Moth*r F*cker, the bombs will likely kill you first, but I'm game. Anything that gets rid of more people is a good thing, if it doesn't doom the ones left. Can't someone develop the neutron bomb as described in Repo Man? "Eyes melt, skin explodes, everybody dies, but the infrastructure is left intact." If we could only make one that's human specific, war could be the next green movement!

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
At a March Meeting special session on Cold Fusion, the consensus was that Jones had either grossly misrepresented his data, made egregious errors in his data analysis or committed academic fraud. Many other researchers, including myself think the later.
Fraud may have been a strong word, but I stand by it.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion


The first article you posted is about the furor caused by Dr.Fleischmann and Dr. Pons, not Steven Jones.

"Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.

Physicists who have investigated Dr. Jones's report have been fairly restrained in their criticism, acknowledging that Dr. Jones is a careful scientist. But from the outset they have expressed profound skepticism of claims by Dr. Fleischmann and Dr. Pons."

The second article, from wikipedia, mentions him once:

"Indeed, the team led by Steven E. Jones achieved 150 d-t fusions per muon (average) at the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[31] Unfortunately, 200 (or 250 or even 333) muon-catalyzed d-t fusions per muon are still not quite enough even to reach "break-even," where as much thermal energy is generated (or output) as the electrical energy that was used up (or input) to make the muon in the first place."

In reply to this comment by EDD:
^ CONCERNING STRANGELETS:

First of all, strangelets are merely hypothetical type of matter. None have so far been observed or produced. We would see some corrution of Neutron stars more often if the stuff was actual and not theoretical. Lambda particles I think have happened, but they decay so fast it is not really a subject of much fear mongering

Secondly, the RHIC (Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider) in the US has been working for 8 years now and no strangelets have been produced there. In comparison, LHC collisions will have more energy, thus making it even less probable a strangelet might form (equivalent would be ice forming in boiling water). In addition, LHC quarks will be even more dilute than at RHIC.

Read this study on RHIC by MIT, Yale and Princeton physicists to find out more.


"It is believed that the higher energy of the lead-lead collisions of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), compared to the RHIC, will produce more strange quarks in the quark-gluon plasma (QGP) than are produced at RHIC's QGP. This higher production of strange quarks might allow for production of a strangelet at the LHC, and searches are planned for such upon commencement of collisions at the LHC ALICE detector."

"Angelis et al., "Model of Centauro and strangelet production in heavy ion collisions", Phys. Atom. Nucl. 67:396-405 (2004) arXiv:nucl-th/0301003 "

I thought that was an interesting read on the subject. It's all theoretical though, so far, we haven't really seen the stuff at all.

Sorry for the long gap between posts, the hurricane messed with my normal routine.

Please disregard my flawed neutron star conjecture above.

The neutron star and cosmic ray safety arguments in the 2008 LHC Safety Report were deemed "unverified" by CERN's Scientific Policy Committee, but not for the reasons above.

Credible arguments that neutron stars do not prove safety may be found in points 5, 6 and 7 of www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/spiritualottoeroessler.pdf

LHCFacts.org

Nice rap, super fly

Question: How many cosmic rays strike a neutron star in one Earth year?

Answer: Zero, the magnetic field of a neutron star is 1,000,000,000,000 times more powerful than Earths!

LHCFacts.org