Re: Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups	sci.physics
Subject	Re: Nuclei actually have near zero velocity when fusion occurs during beam fusion...
Date	2016-08-23 13:55 -0500
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<npi663$hm3$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)
References	(6 earlier) <77b93c3e-ab5a-4e9f-807a-8b488dd9505b@googlegroups.com> <npdcc9$1cd8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <205ad94c-1c8c-4164-b1f8-66b89c21347b@googlegroups.com> <nphsnv$1al$1@gioia.aioe.org> <1d1943e9-8137-4940-b331-27f48116de24@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/23/2016 1:41 PM, Sven Andersson wrote:
> Den tisdag 23 augusti 2016 kl. 18:13:55 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>> On 8/23/2016 10:59 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>> Den måndag 22 augusti 2016 kl. 01:10:06 UTC+2 skrev Odd Bodkin:
>>>> On 8/20/2016 11:56 AM, Sven Andersson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yes, I saw your arguments and they are not convincing. When you irradiate, say a solid lithium
>>>>>>>>> target with protons of high energy there is a lot of radiation flying around, some of it
>>>>>>>>> bremsstrahlung (from protons that make near misses) and some of it from fusion. Meaning, that
>>>>>>>>> the important radiation that I claim exists, will be missed by scientists. Remember; only one
>>>>>>>>> nucleus in a million is on a trajectory that leads exactly towards a target nucleus. Very precise
>>>>>>>>> measurements may be able to detect that radiation though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about collider experiments, not fixed target experiments. In
>>>>>>> a collider experiment you are directly looking at nucleon-nucleon
>>>>>>> interactions.
>>>>> The interaction of the charged particles, the nuclei, leads to kinetic energy being transformed into EM
>>>>> energy. Depending on the trajectory of the particles there will be created, sequentially EM quanta with
>>>>> increasing energy. Sometimes (one in a million) all of the kinetic energy, or almost all will go into EM
>>>>> energy. In that case the last EM quantum is probably a gamma ray photon. It will be missed, most likely,
>>>>> by investigators because there is so much other radiation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really think you should take a look at the instrumentation of a
>>>> collider detector. The entire interaction region is surrounded by EM
>>>> calorimetry, whose sole function is to NOT miss EM energy (usually in
>>>> the form of gammas and X-rays), except for a tiny aperture where the
>>>> beams pass through.
>>>>
>>>> The fact is, this bremsstrahlung radiation that you claim is associated
>>>> with the slowdown of the interacting hadrons would be easily observed in
>>>> the surrounding detector if it were there. But it is not seen, which you
>>>> will see if you actually looked at some experimental papers in the
>>>> field. This lack of evidence of something you definitively predict is
>>>> sufficient to rule out your theory.
>>>>
>>>> On a basic note, you should be concerned if you are presenting a theory
>>>> which has an explanation with observable outcomes, but the only way you
>>>> can maintain your hope in the theory is by claiming that the observable
>>>> outcome is not really observable. If the theory is not TESTABLE through
>>>> observations, then it isn't really a viable theory in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>> Alright, direct me to several such experimental papers so that I can read
>>> for myself. Thanks in advance, if you take the time to do this!
>>>
>>
>> I had presumed that you know how to do this:
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=DZero+collaboration&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CDF+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=ALICE+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMS+collaboration&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Point me to a review article or a book, instead! It's not that I can't do it myself but
> sometimes asking maybe a shortcut to finding the best information.
>

I think you need to come a little more halfway. I've given you oodles 
and oodles of links to experimental papers, because you were unable to 
even find them yourself.

Now you are asking for an easily digestible synoposis, so that you don't 
have to do the work that physicists do.

Here's the bottom line. You've presented a new (germ of a) theory and it 
is your job to reconcile its predictions against known experimental data 
that is relevant. I've pointed out the kinds of experiments where those 
data are available AND I've given you the lists of their papers AND I've 
summarized the results that are in conflict with your theory. Now, you 
have three options:
1. You can decide to check those data yourself by doing what other 
physicists do with their theories -- by reading those papers.
2. You can elect not to read those papers and abandon your theory on the 
likelihood that the data have shot it out of the water.
3. You can elect not to read those papers and stick to your theory, 
regardless of the the counterevidence in those papers, in which case you 
will quickly class yourself among the wannabe cranks who don't like the 
work involved in doing science.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Thread

csiph-web