Large Hadron Collider Concerns

Why would someone who doesn't have anywhere near the qualifications or experience with high-energy physics, feel compelled to make claims which are based on speculation and guesswork, which can't be backed by any real familiarity with the subject?
It's like asking an electrician about nuclear power generation, say. Or a plumber about building an oil pipeline.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mr. Wagner doesn't have those qualifications. Unfortunately I can't post links yet, but the New York Times states the following:

Coast to Coast further elucidates on the nature of his physics studies at the undergraduate level

So, the highest level of physics acceditation he has is a minor in physics. Based on this he has launched lawsuits against two supercollider projects, generated gobs of publicity for himself in a press that scarcely understands the science, and scared the crap out of countless people who don't know any better. There ought to be a law that says if you were wrong once about this kind of stuff you forever shut the hell up about it. Unfortunately there isn't and this man with a wafer-thin physics resume will continue this pernicious fear-mongering with ever increasing doting from a sensationalistic media.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those of you critical of Walter should remember Albert Einstein, who was a humble patent clerk in Zurich when he dreamt up his theories of relativity...so much for formal qualifications, huh?

No collider up to now has caused a problem, true. That does not mean that as we ramp up the energies dramatically, problems won't start in the LHC or subsequent colliders. That's the essence of Walter and Paul's message and it should make perfect sense..to anyone.

 

At some point the messenger's credibility is a front and center issue, particularly when the matters being brought to fore about him bare directly on his capacity to give a reliable message. This man is not grounded in physics! He cannot reliably supercede the authority of organizations such as LSAG, CERN, DPF, or the many independant scientists who've echoed the sentiment that there is nothing to fear here. Furthermore, we all know humans aren't calculators that deliver a message consistant with their programmed instructions. People bring highly irrational qualities, or even highly rational but alterior agendas in with them when they endeavor to produce work of public discourse. Why else do we look into the funding of tobacco studies if not the implicit acknowledgement that messengers sometimes lie to fulfill an agenda? Certainly this man has an incentive to mislead, lie, distort, and fear-monger. He would be a non-entity in the world of physics but for his lawsuits based in refuted theories and the sensationlism driven media that cover him in the name of "if it bleeds it leads." Predicting the doom of the entire earth has certainly garnered more publicity than the half dozen reports insisting it won't happen. So yes, I attack the messenger, and there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!

That's a conveniantly unfalsifiable position. It boils down to this "just because we were wrong this time doesn't mean we will be wrong any subsequent time we predict calamity." At some point the repeated demonstration of the safety of particle collision tests has to render the constant doomsaying conceptually false. This is especially the case when the argument at each stage against the new energy level is, ostesibly, the same one that didn't pan out on the last one.

At the last, I offer you all this challenge. The accelerator will fire up in earnest on Wednesday, with energy trials ramping up subsequently. Since "the end is nigh," I suggest this. Stop paying your bills. Default on your car payments, mortgages, utility bills, etc. Use the money to live it up in your last days on earth. I, on the other hand, will continue to pay may car note, utilities, etc. If you truly believe your own hype on this, you'll have no trouble guiltlessly committing to this frivolity while the rest of us go about business as usual. Somehow I've got a feeling we'll all be mailing in our checks tomorrow.

 

Einstein had a PhD in theoretical physics from one of the top universities in Europe and had so much spare time he could keep up with the latest journal publications easily. That was the reason he took the patent office job. Walter, if he does have plenty of free time, doesn't use it to keep up to date with physics. Heck, he's never been up to date with physics.

This is precisely the point I was making. You are misrepresenting yourself. You aren't lying, you just aren't telling the whole truth.

Now I can walk into a hospital, into the Xray/MRI section and find someone who is a technically a 'nuclear technician'. Does this mean they know the first thing about CERN? Nope. It means they have a bit of understanding about nuclear safety, since they don't want to be killed or kill anyone else by some accident involving the Cobalt 60 (if memory serves) used in XRay machines.

Operating a PET/CT scanner is a trillion miles away from grasping the AdS/CFT correspondence, you yourself pretty much admit that. We know the AdS/CFT correspondence. You know how to operate a PET scanner. We know how to calculate scattering cross sections for gluon mediated processes, precisely that which will occur at CERN, you know how to operate a CT scanner. So which of us is more educated, up to speed and relevently qualified to talk about the nuclear physics of CERN? Someone who can operate a PET scanner or someone who can understand, calculate and discuss the processes which CERN will be creating?

The world of 'nuclear physics' at CERN is not the world of 'nuclear physics' at your local medical centre. Do you need a PhD in theoretical physics to work where you do? Nope, otherwise you'd not work there since you don't have one. Do you need a PhD in theoretical physics to get involved with the mammoth task of the LHC? Yes (or you need to be doing that PhD at the very least)! You are using 'nuclear physics' as a catch all, that because you can operate a PET scanner, you know more about CERN than we do. Are you really that delusional/naive/stupid?

As I've said several times now and you've ignored, you are misrepresenting yourself. If you are an accomplished physicist in the relevant areas of collidor physics physics, let's see some publications. The only thing I can find of yours which you call 'published work' is a letter in 'Scientific American'. Sorry, that isn't published work, that's airing your views. You didn't get 'published' because of scientific accomplishment, you got a letter published because it sparks controversy and that's always good for selling magazines!

If you have nothing to hide, you will provide us with a CV with a full list of publications in the relevant areas of collidor physics and theoretical physics. Perhaps this is why you defended Paul Dixon so much when I said "None of his work is anything to do with theoretical physics", his publications are as related to theoretical physics as yours, ie none. Paul signs his posts 'Dr' or 'PhD' but he doesn't tell people his doctorate is in psychology, not physics. So while he's not lying, he's misrepresenting himself as someone who is educated in physics when he's nothing of the sort. Same goes for you. You are less educated in physics than someone who has a full physics degree. And what you were educated in is now decades out of date. When my father was an undergraduate, they were still trying to work out WTF protons were made of, they didn't even have the Standard Model nailed down fully. And since then you've done nothing to keep up to date with theoretical physics. You run a ****ing garden for pete sake!

If you think I'm sticking my neck out too far and insinuating you are 'twisting' the truth (I'm not calling you a liar, unless omitting the whole truth can be called 'lying'), show me wrong. Post a CV. Post a detailed derivation of how quantum processes can tunnel energy into the black hole when a black hole is surrounded by a region with \(T_{ab} \not= 0\). Stop just making wild claims and actually put your physics where your mouth is.

 

It's not an attack on the messenger but an attack on his lack of qualifications to be presenting his message.

Perhaps you don't understand that distinction - but most of us here do - and it's both valid and justified. An expert witness needs to present his qualifications in order to BE considered an expert, but he has NOT done so even though he's been given many opportunities.

 

Who are you suggesting was tried for embezzlement/fraud or personality theft?

 

I'm not sure either. But I strongly suspect Wagner of being guilty of fraud because he constantly ignores requests to show proof of his qulifications as a particle physicist.

If you so wished, you could claim to be a world-class brain surgeon - but claims with no proof are completely worthless.

 

Well Paul claims to have been nominated for the Nobel Prize in Physics 3 times and Walter sees no problem with Paul doing that, despite the nominations being officially secret for 50 years and Paul having published nothing in physics ever. Maybe that's why Walter said I was being a little too hot headed when I called Paul a liar, since I had no evidence (the complete lack of Paul contributing to theoretical physics is evidence!), because he knew that when we get around to saying "So why are you qualified to call yourself a physicist?" he'd have to admit he's got little more justification than Paul.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Read-Only, I'm 'officially' nominating you for the Nobel Prize in.... ah hell, all of them from now until the time you die (since you cannot be eligible after you die). Fancy doing the same to me so we can both '1-up' Paul's CV?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Absolutely - I'll support you all the way!!

Should be simple to do since it obviously has no (cough, cough) requirements.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

About qualifications...I accept Alphanumeric's point that when Einstein was in the patent office he had a PhD in theoretical physics. However, relativity was his baby and he had to run with it more or less alone at the start. The same is true whenever someone has a novel idea...the majority will disagree and the theory will remain just that until someone comes up with some repeatable experimental data.

The problems with Paul's (and Walter's theories..they are different), is that no real data yet exists to back them up. The problem also is, if their theories are correct, the proof will likely come from a non-existant Earth (or non-existant sector of the galaxy).

Why would these guys keep on beating the same drum if they weren't convinced of the validity of their ideas? It's not as if posting here or submitting affidavits makes them look good, after all.

 

That qualifies him to be able to post here. It doesn't have any requirements other than an email address, the ability to put in a password and (if memory serves) recognise a few symbols in a squiffy picture to check you aren't a bot program.

Given anyone with the command of English above that of a 5 year old and with an IQ of similar levels can pass such 'requirements', being a member of these forums doesn't really qualify you to have a well founded view on the LHC. It qualifies you to voice your opinion, well founded or not, on these forums provided you can keep your post clean and inoffensive.

This thread is on it's 5th page. I wonder how many of the posters here have a qualification in physics or applied maths which goes beyond high school? I imagine I can count them on one hand.

 

My IQ is around 150, and that is derived mainly from 'verbal reasoning'. I achieved the top high school grades in physics, math and statistics but I acknowledge that I can't contribute sensibly to the debate on 'is the LHC safe or not'.

What I can see, is that whether Paul and Walter have an appropriate qualification is actually irrelevant, and the argument is very much worth having. Even if there is only a 0.0000001% chance of them being right.

 

I will conclude from this that you can't read. I said I have more than one award in theoretical physics. I do know very well, however, that I'm far from an expert on most aspects of theoretical physics, and I've spent years studying just that. I find it incongruous when someone like yourself claims to just know something that they have never studied or published on, because I know that is simply not possible.

Rubbish. You are not a nuclear physicist, you are a medical physicist. I have a friend whom I did my degree with who is now a medical physicist and you're quite right, she knows a lot more about MRI scanning than I do, but she certainly wouldn't claim a knowledge of string theory or the Hawking process. You are claiming knowledge about things you have no right to claim such knowledge for.

I think establishing scientific credentials is a very important part of establishing the validity of your arguments.

I believe in a meritocratic form of control of CERN. Why should you be involved in anything to do with the LHC when you clearly do not understand collider physics?

Didn't you claim that RHIC would blow us all up?! Evidently, you don't understand quantum field theory well enough. Tell me Walter, what is the effective theory that models nucleons and the particles that bind them together? If you're a nuclear physicist this is probably something you should know about.

 

Prometheus:

"I believe in a meritocratic form of control of CERN. Why should you, who clearly does not understand collider physics, be involved in anything to do with the LHC?"

By this, do you mean moral merit or scientific merit?