Rutherford established this method of investigating the nucleus and the hope has been with increasing energies we would devine the secrets of the nucleus but I think this approach has reached it limits. The new tools of nuclear research are what has a traditionally been viewed as useful to only chemists and material scientists...plus a willingness to pose questions.
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 7:50 PM bobcook39...@hotmail.com < bobcook39...@hotmail.com wrote: > Regarding colliders studying subatomic particles, if the incident probing > beam of primary particles— for example electrons or positrons---is high > enough energy to scatter off the nucleon target, the scattering pattern can > tell something about the shape, charge, magnetic characteristics, mass and > maybe other real parameters of the target nucleon. Here a scattering > interaction is either elastic or inelastic. Nearly all collider > experiments are inelastic, only approaching true elastic interactions as > the target nucleon presents higher and higher inertia—resistance to > transfer of momentum from the incident primary particles of the probing > beam. > > > > These scattering interactions do not produce a “hodge-podge of > sub-nucleon particles and little information about the physical structure > of the target. The hodge-podge may identify some of the primary > particles making up the target. Many such scattering may give a food > statistical estimate of all the primary particles making up the target. > > > > Thus Jones’ comment: “ This prospect (fame) - in a way actually threatens > the geniuses at CERN - given the large disparity in funds employed. Thus > the lack of enthusiasm from that sector is evident and we can expect > intransigence to continue - plus an unwillingness to review own LHC data > for confirmation - since it should be there.” This comment is right on > IMHO. > > > > Bob Cook > ------------------------------ > *From:* H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, February 1, 2019 1:57:01 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:More on the novel particle > > I could learn about the structure of a watch by smashing it with a hammer > but chances are I will damage or destroy some parts of the watch in the > process. > > Do high energy colliders really offer a window into the structure of > matter or do they transform the very thing they are studying? > > Harry > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 10:49 AM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> >> Krasznahorkay and others from the Hungarian Institute for Nuclear >> Research, on a very limited budget, recently reaffirmed a spectacular >> discovery made 4 years ago and partially validated by others. If true, >> their findings could be complementary and perhaps even more important than >> the Higgs. >> >> This prospect (fame) - in a way actually threatens the geniuses at CERN - >> given the large disparity in funds employed. Thus the lack of enthusiasm >> from that sector is evident and we can expect intransigence to continue - >> plus an unwillingness to review own LHC data for confirmation - since it >> should be there. >> >> The mystery finding is apparently best explained as a ~16.7 MeV neutral >> particle -- not the dark photon, which was an early aim but "dark" >> nevertheless (weakly interacting). It is yet to be named but could help >> explain the results of Holmlid's experiments with laser irradiation of >> dense deuterium - where muons were suspected but not proved. That work is >> another earth-shaking discovery which is generally ignored by the >> mainstream, and discovered on even less of a budget. >> >> On the off-chance that this Hungarian discovery proves correct and >> explains Holmlid - here is suggested name for it, and a simple way to >> validate the connection. The suggested name is the "Zsa boson" in honor of >> another famous Hungarian. >> >> The data supposedly can be explained by a vector gauge boson that decays >> to e+e− pairs. Others have suggested the new particle cannot be an X boson >> which would mediate a fifth force. Yet there is one feature of interest >> that is apparently agreed - that being the coupling, which is present to up >> and down quarks AND electrons whereas proton coupling is suppressed. >> >> Thus a suggestion to Holmlid or replicators who are on a strict budget - >> look for simple electron coupling at a distance. How? Well one lowest-cost >> possibility with lots of "impact" so to speak would be simply to place a >> fully charged ultra-capacitor in various positions around the target and >> look for the expected explosion (being careful to provide adequate safety). >> "Duck and cover," as we were taught in the fifties :-) >> >>
