[Marxism] Large Hadron Collider: Swindle of the Century?

Jeff meisner at xs4all.nl
Mon Oct 19 16:58:10 MDT 2009


Hey, thanks for the physics lesson Les! (But I hope we're not tested on it
tomorrow  ;-)

>johnaimani wrote:
>>.... Indeed the forming of interference patterns even when 
>> electrons are fired one at a time through one of two open slits, an action 
>> that ought to produce no such interfence(diffraction)
No one said that it shouldn't. There is no difference in this respect
between photons and electrons: the same interference pattern will apply
regardless of the intensity of the beam. In each case it is an indication
(you could almost say "proof") of the particles being connected to a
wavefunction which determines the likelihood of one being present as a
function of position and time. The fact that this is unchanged when there
is only a single particle travelling at a time, is only an illustration
that there is no interaction between the individual particles involved in
interference. It is not surprising or paradoxical according to accepted
theories.

At 16:09 19/10/09 -0400, Les Schaffer wrote:

>the thing is, HOW these LHC papers are being thrown around now DOES
>say something about the politics/metaphysics of leading-edge physics.
You mean how they are being thrown around by the popular press? Yes, I
guess I'm not surprised that they would be attracted to some supposed
evidence of "god," as well as sensationalizing all the wrong things for all
the wrong reasons. (Or do you mean how they are described by the physicists
themselves? I would say to just completely disregard any
comments/observations which are not connected to scientifically
testable/meaningful propositions.)

>some "messing around" is required in physics to make advances. how
>this "messing around" is sold to the public is worthy of criticism.
What the popular press will present is almost always distorted. When I
watch/read about advances in some field of science where I have little
knowledge, I am awed by the conclusions. But then when the same source
talks about a field in which I DO have expertise, I notice so many mistakes
and misinterpretations I almost want to cry. And that's in the case of GOOD
science reporters who can hardly be blamed for not spending months/years
studying the specific field they're reporting on (especially in an esoteric
field like this). And when it is a source with an ideological agenda,
forget it!

- Jeff  





More information about the Marxism mailing list