tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-132758952024-03-06T05:38:26.056+01:00Einstein's VoiceA blog created for the Einstein Year 2005...and beyond. "In light of knowledge attained ... any intelligent student can grasp [the theory of relativity] without too much trouble. But the years of anxious searching in the dark ... and the final emergence into the light -- only those who have experienced it can understand it." - Albert EinsteinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-6261887016708121592021-07-30T11:53:00.003+02:002021-08-09T11:11:15.221+02:00General Relativity Theory of Albert Einstein Proven Again as Stanford University Astronomers Detect Surrounding Light in Space Bent Behind the Black Hole I Zwicky 1<p>Once again, Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has been proven right, as Stanford University astronomers have detected for the first time ever that light surrounding a black hole in space (I Zwicky 1) is bent around that black hole and comes into view at its back, as predicted by Einstein's theory "<span style="color: #3d85c6;">that massive objects cause a distortion in space-time, which is felt as gravity</span>" (Libertore).</p><p>Stacy Liberatore has the story at <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-9835851/Scientists-observe-light-coming-black-hole-time.html">Dailymail.com</a> with useful accompanying graphics. The original article, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03667-0" target="_blank">Light bending and X-ray echoes from behind a supermassive black hole</a>, was published in Nature magazine just two days ago.<br /></p><p class="c-bibliographic-information__citation">See: Wilkins, D.R., Gallo, L.C., Costantini, E. <i>et al.</i> Light bending and X-ray echoes from behind a supermassive black hole.
<i>Nature</i> <b>595, </b>657–660 (2021). <a class="vglnk" href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03667-0" rel="nofollow"><span>https</span><span>://</span><span>doi</span><span>.</span><span>org</span><span>/</span><span>10</span><span>.</span><span>1038</span><span>/</span><span>s41586</span><span>-</span><span>021</span><span>-</span><span>03667</span><span>-</span><span>0</span></a></p><p class="c-bibliographic-information__download-citation u-hide-print"><a data-test="citation-link" data-track-action="download article citation" data-track-external="" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://citation-needed.springer.com/v2/references/10.1038/s41586-021-03667-0?format=refman&flavour=citation">Download citation<svg class="u-icon" height="16" width="16"><use xlink:href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03667-0?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=commission_junction&utm_campaign=3_nsn6445_deeplink_PID100032693&utm_content=deeplink#global-icon-download"></use></svg></a></p><ul class="c-bibliographic-information__list" data-test="publication-history"><li class="c-bibliographic-information__list-item">Received<span class="c-bibliographic-information__value"><time datetime="2020-08-14"> 14 August 2020</time></span></li><li class="c-bibliographic-information__list-item">Accepted<span class="c-bibliographic-information__value"><time datetime="2021-05-24"> 24 May 2021</time></span></li><li class="c-bibliographic-information__list-item">Published <span class="c-bibliographic-information__value"><time datetime="2021-07-28">28 July 2021</time></span></li><li class="c-bibliographic-information__list-item">Issue Date<span class="c-bibliographic-information__value"><time datetime="2021-07-29"> 29 July 2021<br /><br /></time></span></li><li class="c-bibliographic-information__list-item c-bibliographic-information__list-item--doi"><abbr title="Digital Object Identifier">DOI </abbr><span class="c-bibliographic-information__value"><a data-track-action="view doi" data-track-label="link" data-track="click" href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03667-0">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03667-0</a></span></li></ul>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-50884651443089462152020-10-04T12:58:00.002+02:002020-10-05T01:40:00.869+02:00Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity Confirmed Resoundingly by the First Astrophysics Photograph of a Cosmic "Black Hole"<p style="text-align: justify;">The coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic once again drives home the recognition that humankind inhabits a universe harboring many mysteries at microscopic but also macroscopic levels. "Viruses" that are 1000 times smaller than a human hair and that are <a href="https://www.dictionary.com/browse/by-definition" target="_blank">by definition</a> not even "<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/" target="_blank">alive</a>" can <a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wreak_havoc" target="_blank">wreak havoc</a> on our "living" biological organisms. As previously written at <a href="http://www.andiskaulins.com">andiskaulins.com</a> [moderately edited]:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">"<span style="color: #000099;">[Our]
theory of the universe derives from the observation that every human
being is a PART of the universe. We are neither "outside" looking "in"
nor "inside" looking "out".<b> We are inside looking inside.</b><br /><br />Our
structure -- whatever it is -- <b>must</b> be the same as the rest of the
universe.... For those more "physically" and/or "technically"
inclined, see [our] blog at <a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/">Einstein's
Voice</a>, which has some thoughts on various theories of Physics [i.e. explanations as to how the universe works].</span>"</blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">We started the blog <a href="https://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Einstein's Voice</a> many years ago to support the deceased Albert Einstein's incomparable theories about how the universe works against some -- in our view -- questionable recently formulated alternative theories, such as "<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/our-continued-existence-means-other-dimensions-are-probably-super-tiny-180970487/" target="_blank">string theory</a>". We adapted the blog name from the famed <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Master%27s_Voice" target="_blank">His Master's Voice</a>. <br /></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Albert Einstein's "<a href="https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html" target="_blank">General Theory of Relativity</a>" (to differentiate "<i>Big Al's</i>" Special Theory of Relativity) remains the primary cornerstone of modern physics, but overwhelming proof of the theory has been hard to come by, as we posted already in 2005 at <a href="https://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2005/10/nasa-gravity-probe-b-and-einsteins.html" target="_blank">NASA Gravity Probe-B and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity</a>, quoting Stanford University's Bog Kahn via the Stanford Newsletter as follows:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify;">"<span style="color: #000099;">For the past 17 months, NASA's Gravity Probe-B (GP-B) satellite has been orbiting the Earth using four ultra-precise gyroscopes, about a million times better than the finest navigational gyroscopes, to generate the data required for this unprecedented test....<br /><br />This year, physicists celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's "miraculous year," in which he received his doctorate in physics from the University of Zurich and published four seminal papers, including the special theory of relativity and a paper on light that garnered him the Nobel Prize in 1921. But Einstein's crowning achievement came in 1916, with his publication of the general theory of relativity, in which he expanded the special theory of relativity to include the elusive concept of gravity. With general relativity, Einstein forever changed our Newtonian view of gravity as a force, postulating rather that space and time are inextricably woven into a four-dimensional fabric called spacetime, and that gravity is simply the warping and twisting of the fabric of spacetime by massive celestial bodies. Even though it has become one of the cornerstones of modern physics, general relativity has remained the least tested of Einstein's theories. The reason is, as Caltech physicist Kip Thorne once put it: "In the realm of black holes and the universe, the language of general relativity is spoken, and it is spoken loudly. But in our tiny solar system, the effects of general relativity are but whispers." And so, any measurements of the relativistic effects of gravity around Earth must be carried out with utmost precision. Over the past 90 years, various tests of the theory suggest that Einstein was on the right track. But, in most previous tests, the relativity signals had to be extracted from a significant level of background noise. The purpose of GP-B is to test Einstein's theory by carrying out the experiment in a pristine orbiting laboratory, thereby reducing background noise to insignificant levels and enabling the probe to examine general relativity in new ways.</span>"</blockquote><p>
<b>As just reported, we now have the</b></p><p>"<b><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/02/world/einstein-black-hole-shadow-scn-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">First photo of a black hole [and it] supports Einstein's theory of relativity</a>"</b> as headlined at CNN by <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/profiles/ashley-strickland-profile" target="_blank">Ashley Strickland</a>. She writes, inter alia:
</p><blockquote style="text-align: justify;">"<span style="color: #000099;">"Using the gauge we developed, we showed that the measured size of the black hole shadow in M87 tightens the wiggle room for modifications to Einstein's theory of general relativity by almost a factor of 500, compared to previous tests in the solar system," said Feryal Özel, study coauthor and University of Arizona astrophysics professor, in a statement. "<b>Many ways to modify general relativity fail at this new and tighter black hole shadow test.</b>"<span style="color: black;"> [emphasis added by us]</span><br /><br />Now that researchers know they can use images of black holes to test the
theory of gravity, it opens up more possibilities for the future.<br /><br />"Together with gravitational wave observations, this marks the beginning of a new era in black hole astrophysics," said Dimitrios Psaltis, lead study author and University of Arizona astrophysics professor, in a statement.<br /></span></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">
The black hole shadow test of relativity discussed in the above article is illustrated by the following explanatory graphic, which is linked here from the <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/02/world/einstein-black-hole-shadow-scn-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN article</a>, with the following accompanying text (if the image fails, go to the <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/02/world/einstein-black-hole-shadow-scn-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">CNN article</a>):<br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #0b5394;"><i>"<b>This visualization, including the first image of a black hole, shows the new gauge developed to test the predictions of modified gravity theories against the measurement of the size of the M87 shadow.</b>"</i></span></p><p>
</p><center><img src="https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/201002125852-01-black-hole-image-simulations-einstein-exlarge-169.jpg" width="90%" /></center><p style="text-align: center;">Look especially at the differing sizes of the blue circles<br />drawn on the black hole by the researchers,<br />which emphasize the theoretical differences<br />between Einstein's General Theory of Relativity<br />and those proposing alternative theories.<br /><br />Even if the image above is not shown perfectly via the CNN link,<br />do ultimately <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/02/world/einstein-black-hole-shadow-scn-trnd/index.html" target="_blank">go that CNN article</a> to get the entire story!<br /> </p><p style="text-align: center;">For those statistically inclined,<br />we can say that the score here was<br /><br /><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Albert Einstein 500 Competitors 0</b></span>.<br /><br />Einstein's Voice Rejoice!</p><p style="text-align: center;">____________________ <br /></p><p style="text-align: center;"><b>Our image below was made by us<br />using Starry Night Pro astronomy software<br />and was added a few hours later<br />after posting the above material.<br /> The image shows the location of M87 in the starry sky. </b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4vEy9NCTSkKoD0ai2dQ9xsvIiYTrEaAtAf6ZvIlyFC7YBMH3QtX-Lzx3QOd6Fl5lMdrxOGhFxKs4JW7UmnIgtGizG4Jg_of07svPNlB7CQShI0OYCn4Qgl3C2IpZt2tvvHabluQ/s623/Messier+87+M87+Virgo+A+NGC4486+5++Oct+2020.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="623" data-original-width="607" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4vEy9NCTSkKoD0ai2dQ9xsvIiYTrEaAtAf6ZvIlyFC7YBMH3QtX-Lzx3QOd6Fl5lMdrxOGhFxKs4JW7UmnIgtGizG4Jg_of07svPNlB7CQShI0OYCn4Qgl3C2IpZt2tvvHabluQ/s16000/Messier+87+M87+Virgo+A+NGC4486+5++Oct+2020.png" /></a></div><br /><p style="text-align: center;"><br /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-44544721979316195872020-04-17T13:54:00.003+02:002020-04-17T13:54:49.299+02:00A Stellar Star Dance Marks Another Win for Albert EinsteinJackson Ryan writes at CNET:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">"Another win for Albert."</span><br />
<br />
See<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.cnet.com/news/astronomers-watch-star-dance-with-a-black-hole-proving-einstein-right-again/">Astronomers watch star dance with a black hole,<br />
<br />
proving Einstein right (again) - CNET</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-73408508258487438602019-11-06T10:56:00.001+01:002019-11-06T10:57:49.087+01:00General Relativity Made Albert Einstein an Iconic Idol of Science and the WorldThe Smithsonian mag online has an excellent article by Dan Falk titled <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/one-hundred-years-ago-einsteins-theory-relativity-baffled-press-public-180973427/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20191104-daily-responsive&spMailingID=41038412&spUserID=ODI5NjM0MzQxNTgwS0&spJobID=1640332790&spReportId=MTY0MDMzMjc5MAS2" target="_blank">One Hundred Years Ago, Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity Baffled the Press and the Public: Few people claimed to fully understand it, but the esoteric theory still managed to spark the public’s imagination</a>.<br />
<br />
As Falk writes:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #0b5394;">"After two eclipse expeditions confirmed Einstein's theory of general relativity, the scientist became an international celebrity....</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">"When the year 1919 began, Albert Einstein was virtually unknown beyond the world of professional physicists. By year’s end, however, he was a household name around the globe. November 1919 was the month that made Einstein into “Einstein,” the beginning of the former patent clerk’s transformation into an international celebrity.<br /><br />On November 6, scientists at a joint meeting of the Royal Society of London and the Royal Astronomical Society announced that measurements taken during a total solar eclipse earlier that year supported Einstein’s bold new theory of gravity, known as general relativity. Newspapers enthusiastically picked up the story. “Revolution in Science,” blared the Times of London; “Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.” A few days later, the New York Times weighed in with a six-tiered headline—rare indeed for a science story. “Lights All Askew in the Heavens,” trumpeted the main headline. A bit further down: “Einstein’s Theory Triumphs” and “Stars Not Where They Seemed, or Were Calculated to Be, But Nobody Need Worry.”<br /><br />The spotlight would remain on Einstein and his seemingly impenetrable theory for the rest of his life."</span></blockquote>
<a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/one-hundred-years-ago-einsteins-theory-relativity-baffled-press-public-180973427/?utm_source=smithsoniandaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20191104-daily-responsive&spMailingID=41038412&spUserID=ODI5NjM0MzQxNTgwS0&spJobID=1640332790&spReportId=MTY0MDMzMjc5MAS2" target="_blank">Read the whole article</a> ... which also contains several top photos of Einstein.<br />
<br />
As linked at the mag,<br />
"Read more: <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/one-hundred-years-ago-einsteins-theory-relativity-baffled-press-public-180973427/#RuP6wtKVrwKdqH9F.99">https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/one-hundred-years-ago-einsteins-theory-relativity-baffled-press-public-180973427/#RuP6wtKVrwKdqH9F.99</a><br />
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! <a href="http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv">http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv</a><br />
Follow us: <a href="https://twitter.com/SmithsonianMag" target="_blank">@SmithsonianMag</a> on Twitter"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-62561036542903960102019-09-19T00:01:00.001+02:002019-09-19T00:04:26.704+02:00The Gravitational-Wave "Revolution" Is Underway - Scientific American<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Was there recent talk of Einstein's "general relativity"?</span></span></span></b><br />
<br />
Yes, there was.<br />
It all dropped on us, as it were, as if by gravity -- at the speed of light.<br />
Read on.... <br />
<br />
At the Scientific American, Jonathan O'Callaghan tells us that:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-gravitational-wave-revolution-is-underway/" target="_blank">The Gravitational-Wave “Revolution” Is Underway</a><br />
<br />
writing in this regard as follows:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="color: #cc0000;">The first neutron star merger observed by LIGO and Virgo [...] has helped researchers probe some fundamental aspects of the universe itself.</span> Christopher Berry from Northwestern University notes that gamma rays from the event were detected by other telescopes 1.6 seconds after the gravitational waves, <span style="color: #cc0000;"><b>which allowed for an unprecedented test of the speed of gravity versus the speed of light.</b></span> “We’d expect a little difference in their arrival time because they weren’t necessarily created at the same time,” he says. “But the fact that it was 1.6 seconds<span style="color: #cc0000;"> <b>allowed us to test that the speed of light and the speed of gravity really are the same thing, as predicted in general relativity.</b></span>”<br />
As the fourth anniversary of the first detection approaches, the field continues to mature—with a bright future ahead.""</blockquote>
Read the full article at:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-gravitational-wave-revolution-is-underway/">The Gravitational-Wave "Revolution" Is Underway - Scientific American</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-gravitational-wave-revolution-is-underway">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-gravitational-wave-revolution-is-underway</a>/<br />
<br />
<a href="https://bit.ly/2lYqkPJ">https://bit.ly/2lYqkPJ</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-60546405000084924652018-07-27T23:44:00.001+02:002018-07-27T23:44:06.255+02:00Einstein Theory Again Confirmed: Starlight Warped by Black Hole GravityMichael Irving has the story at: <a href="https://newatlas.com/supermassive-black-hole-einstein-relativity-redshift/55653/">Einstein proven right again as black hole gravity warps starlight</a>.<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-42035230110402051182018-07-06T14:44:00.001+02:002018-07-27T23:46:20.964+02:00The Standard Model of Physics Viewed by Jonathan Link at Scientific American Blog NetworkIf you view the universe as experimentally defined "particles", then ... you may have the following conundrum....because particles follow: <br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-standard-model-of-physics-is-a-tyrant/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=space&utm_content=link&utm_term=2018-07-05_top-stories" target="_blank">The Standard Model of Physics [as] Viewed by Jonathan Link at Scientific American Blog Network</a><br />
<br />
But in an Einsteinian view, there are "fields" and "waves" of plenty....<br />
<br />
Indeed, if you look at "Space", the fields and waves would appear to dominate....<br />
<br />
Particles are only one (necessarily constrained) way of looking at the universe. But IN what are those particles moving viz. existing ?<br />
<br />
"Spaces" in the <a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2015/11/100-years-of-relativity-theory-is.html" target="_blank">universe</a> devoid of particles are still "something",<br />
<br />
otherwise they would be "nothing", so how could particles move in nothing?<br />
<br />
And that is the real issue. Just look at the "Space" below this sentence....<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
!!!<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-51127873269960446252018-06-28T23:02:00.001+02:002018-06-28T23:07:45.563+02:00Einstein's General Relativity Theory Validated on a Galactic Scale -- Contrary to Modern Cosmological CurveballsBig Al seems to have gotten it right.... <br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-greatest-theory-validated-on-a-galactic-scale/">Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has been validated on a Galactic Scale</a>,<br />
<br />
as reported by Maya Miller at Scientific American.<br />
<br />
General relativity thus, using Miller's language, correctly describes "<span style="color: #990000;">gravity at cosmological scales</span>".<br />
<br />
As Miller writes: "<span style="color: #990000;">The results also indirectly support the theory’s validity in the face of<br />
dark matter, dark energy and other cosmological curveballs.</span>" Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-78374997483549382172016-09-05T12:02:00.000+02:002016-09-05T12:02:15.079+02:00Dark Matter WIMPS Experimentally Non-Existent: Back to Gravity?No posited WIMPS of "dark matter" have thus far been found experimentally, according to an article at the Scientific American.<br />
<br />
See the article at <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physics-confronts-its-heart-of-darkness/?WT.mc_id=SA_SPC_20160901" target="_blank">Scientific American</a>. <br />
<br />
Well, we have said all along that "Dark Matter" can only be Gravity. The problem is its measurement. The Standard Model of modern Physics excludes gravity - i.e., in our view, the Standard Model may well explain a theoretical mathematical construct, but it represents a world that does not exist.<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-73093114617622075572016-02-12T19:25:00.001+01:002016-02-12T19:39:00.090+01:00LIGO Detects Gravitational Waves, Confirming Einstein’s TheoryLigo, ligo! The Baltics knew this all along, did we not ;-)<br />
<br />
As reported in an article by Dennis Overbye at the New York Times, Einstein's theory of the existence of gravitational waves has now been confirmed by <a href="http://www.ligo.org/" target="_blank">LSC, LIGO Scientific Collaboration</a>, in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html?action=click&contentCollection=Real+Estate&module=MostPopularFB&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article">Gravitational Waves Detected, Confirming Einstein’s Theory - The New York Times</a>.<br />
<br />
Do we have ESP? Apparently, given our last posting on this blog in November, <a href="http://1/" target="_blank">100
Years of Relativity Theory - Is the Universe its Own Singularity? -
What is the Speed of Gravity at Work and is Gravity the same as Dark
Matter? </a><br />
<br />
The gravitational waves themselves are said to travel at the speed of light, but how fast is the actual speed of gravity itself? Instantaneous? <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>Here is the offical press release by LIGO:</b></span><br />
<h1>
<span style="font-size: small;">"<span style="color: #073763;">Gravitational Waves Detected 100 Years After Einstein's Prediction
</span></span></h1>
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span>
<span style="color: #073763;"><b>
News Release
•
February 11, 2016
</b></span>
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><br />
<h4>
<span style="color: #073763;">Visit <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/detection">The Detection Portal</a></span></h4>
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">See also: <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/310/original/LHO-NewsRelease-11Feb16-Final.pdf?1455201669">LIGO Hanford Press Release</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><i>LIGO Opens New Window on the Universe with Observation of Gravitational Waves from Colliding Black Holes</i></span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">WASHINGTON, DC/Cascina, Italy</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">For the first time, scientists have observed ripples in the fabric of
spacetime called gravitational waves, arriving at the earth from a
cataclysmic event in the distant universe. This confirms a major
prediction of Albert Einstein’s 1915 general theory of relativity and
opens an unprecedented new window onto the cosmos.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Gravitational waves carry information about their dramatic origins
and about the nature of gravity that cannot otherwise be obtained.
Physicists have concluded that the detected gravitational waves were
produced during the final fraction of a second of the merger of two
black holes to produce a single, more massive spinning black hole. This
collision of two black holes had been predicted but never observed.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">The gravitational waves were detected on September 14, 2015 at 5:51
a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (09:51 UTC) by both of the twin Laser
Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors, located
in Livingston, Louisiana, and Hanford, Washington, USA. The LIGO
Observatories are funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and
were conceived, built, and are operated by Caltech and MIT. The
discovery, accepted for publication in the journal Physical Review
Letters, was made by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration (which includes
the GEO Collaboration and the Australian Consortium for Interferometric
Gravitational Astronomy) and the Virgo Collaboration using data from the
two LIGO detectors.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Based on the observed signals, LIGO scientists estimate that the
black holes for this event were about 29 and 36 times the mass of the
sun, and the event took place 1.3 billion years ago. About 3 times the
mass of the sun was converted into gravitational waves in a fraction of a
second—with a peak power output about 50 times that of the whole
visible universe. By looking at the time of arrival of the signals—the
detector in Livingston recorded the event 7 milliseconds before the
detector in Hanford—scientists can say that the source was located in
the Southern Hemisphere.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">According to general relativity, a pair of black holes orbiting
around each other lose energy through the emission of gravitational
waves, causing them to gradually approach each other over billions of
years, and then much more quickly in the final minutes. During the final
fraction of a second, the two black holes collide into each other at
nearly one-half the speed of light and form a single more massive black
hole, converting a portion of the combined black holes’ mass to energy,
according to Einstein’s formula E=mc<sup>2</sup>. This energy is emitted as a final strong burst of gravitational waves. It is these gravitational waves that LIGO has observed.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">The existence of gravitational waves was first demonstrated in the
1970s and 80s by Joseph Taylor, Jr., and colleagues. Taylor and
Russell Hulse discovered in 1974 a binary system composed of a pulsar in
orbit around a neutron star. Taylor and Joel M. Weisberg in 1982 found
that the orbit of the pulsar was slowly shrinking over time because of
the release of energy in the form of gravitational waves. For
discovering the pulsar and showing that it would make possible this
particular gravitational wave measurement, Hulse and Taylor were awarded
the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1993.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">The new LIGO discovery is the first observation of gravitational
waves themselves, made by measuring the tiny disturbances the waves make
to space and time as they pass through the earth.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“Our observation of gravitational waves accomplishes an ambitious
goal set out over 5 decades ago to directly detect this elusive
phenomenon and better understand the universe, and, fittingly, fulfills
Einstein’s legacy on the 100th anniversary of his general theory of
relativity,” says Caltech’s David H. Reitze, executive director of the
LIGO Laboratory.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">The discovery was made possible by the enhanced capabilities of
Advanced LIGO, a major upgrade that increases the sensitivity of the
instruments compared to the first generation LIGO detectors, enabling a
large increase in the volume of the universe probed—and the discovery of
gravitational waves during its first observation run. The US National
Science Foundation leads in financial support for Advanced LIGO. Funding
organizations in Germany (Max Planck Society), the U.K. (Science and
Technology Facilities Council, STFC) and Australia (Australian Research
Council) also have made significant commitments to the project. Several
of the key technologies that made Advanced LIGO so much more sensitive
have been developed and tested by the German UK GEO collaboration.
Significant computer resources have been contributed by the AEI Hannover
Atlas Cluster, the LIGO Laboratory, Syracuse University, and the
University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee. Several universities designed,
built, and tested key components for Advanced LIGO: The Australian
National University, the University of Adelaide, the University of
Florida, Stanford University, Columbia University of the City of New
York, and Louisiana State University.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“In 1992, when LIGO’s initial funding was approved, it represented
the biggest investment the NSF had ever made,” says France Córdova, NSF
director. “It was a big risk. But the National Science Foundation is
the agency that takes these kinds of risks. We support fundamental
science and engineering at a point in the road to discovery where that
path is anything but clear. We fund trailblazers. It’s why the U.S.
continues to be a global leader in advancing knowledge.”</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">LIGO research is carried out by the LIGO Scientific Collaboration
(LSC), a group of more than 1000 scientists from universities around the
United States and in 14 other countries. More than 90 universities and
research institutes in the LSC develop detector technology and analyze
data; approximately 250 students are strong contributing members of the
collaboration. The LSC detector network includes the LIGO
interferometers and the GEO600 detector. The GEO team includes
scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert
Einstein Institute, AEI), Leibniz Universität Hannover, along with
partners at the University of Glasgow, Cardiff University, the
University of Birmingham, other universities in the United Kingdom, and
the University of the Balearic Islands in Spain.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“This detection is the beginning of a new era: The field of
gravitational wave astronomy is now a reality,” says Gabriela González,
LSC spokesperson and professor of physics and astronomy at Louisiana
State University.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">LIGO was originally proposed as a means of detecting these
gravitational waves in the 1980s by Rainer Weiss, professor of physics,
emeritus, from MIT; Kip Thorne, Caltech’s Richard P. Feynman Professor
of Theoretical Physics, emeritus; and Ronald Drever, professor of
physics, emeritus, also from Caltech.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“The description of this observation is beautifully described in the
Einstein theory of general relativity formulated 100 years ago and
comprises the first test of the theory in strong gravitation. It would
have been wonderful to watch Einstein’s face had we been able to tell
him,” says Weiss.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“With this discovery, we humans are embarking on a marvelous new
quest: the quest to explore the warped side of the universe—objects and
phenomena that are made from warped spacetime. Colliding black holes and
gravitational waves are our first beautiful examples,” says Thorne.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Virgo research is carried out by the Virgo Collaboration, consisting
of more than 250 physicists and engineers belonging to 19 different
European research groups: 6 from Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique (CNRS) in France; 8 from the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica
Nucleare (INFN) in Italy; 2 in The Netherlands with Nikhef; the Wigner
RCP in Hungary; the POLGRAW group in Poland; and the European
Gravitational Observatory (EGO), the laboratory hosting the Virgo
detector near Pisa in Italy.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Fulvio Ricci, Virgo Spokesperson, notes that, “This is a significant
milestone for physics, but more importantly merely the start of many new
and exciting astrophysical discoveries to come with LIGO and Virgo.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Bruce Allen, managing director of the Max Planck Institute for
Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), adds, “Einstein
thought gravitational waves were too weak to detect, and didn’t believe
in black holes. But I don’t think he’d have minded being wrong!”</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“The Advanced LIGO detectors are a tour de force of science and
technology, made possible by a truly exceptional international team of
technicians, engineers, and scientists,” says David Shoemaker of MIT,
the project leader for Advanced LIGO. “We are very proud that we
finished this NSF-funded project on time and on budget.”</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">At each observatory, the two-and-a-half-mile (4-km) long L-shaped
LIGO interferometer uses laser light split into two beams that travel
back and forth down the arms (four-foot diameter tubes kept under a
near-perfect vacuum). The beams are used to monitor the distance between
mirrors precisely positioned at the ends of the arms. According to
Einstein’s theory, the distance between the mirrors will change by an
infinitesimal amount when a gravitational wave passes by the detector. A
change in the lengths of the arms smaller than one-ten-thousandth the
diameter of a proton (10<sup>-19</sup> meter) can be detected.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“To make this fantastic milestone possible took a global
collaboration of scientists—laser and suspension technology developed
for our GEO600 detector was used to help make Advanced LIGO the most
sophisticated gravitational wave detector ever created,” says Sheila
Rowan, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Glasgow.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Independent and widely separated observatories are necessary to
determine the direction of the event causing the gravitational waves,
and also to verify that the signals come from space and are not from
some other local phenomenon.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Toward this end, the LIGO Laboratory is working closely with
scientists in India at the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and
Astrophysics, the Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology, and the
Institute for Plasma to establish a third Advanced LIGO detector on the
Indian subcontinent. Awaiting approval by the government of India, it
could be operational early in the next decade. The additional detector
will greatly improve the ability of the global detector network to
localize gravitational-wave sources.</span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">“Hopefully this first observation will accelerate the construction of
a global network of detectors to enable accurate source location in the
era of multi-messenger astronomy,” says David McClelland, professor of
physics and director of the Centre for Gravitational Physics at the
Australian National University. </span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;">Additional video and image assets can be found here: <a href="http://mediaassets.caltech.edu/gwave" target="_blank">http://mediaassets.caltech.edu/gwave</a></span><br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>Caltech</b><br />
Kathy Svitil<br />
Director of News and Content Strategy<br />
626-676-7628 (cell)<br />
ksvitil@caltech.edu</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>MIT</b><br />
Kimberly Allen<br />
Director of Media Relations<br />
Deputy Director, MIT News Office<br />
617-253-2702 (office)<br />
617-852-6094 (cell)<br />
allenkc@mit.edu</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>NSF</b><br />
Ivy Kupec<br />
Media Officer<br />
703-292-8796 (Office)<br />
703-225-8216 (Cell)<br />
ikupec@nsf.gov</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>Virgo</b><br />
Fulvio Ricci<br />
Roma +39 06 49914261 (Office)<br />
Cascina +39 050 752 345 (Office)<br />
+39 348 3187354 (Cell)<br />
fulvio.ricci@roma1.infn.it</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>GEO</b><br />
Susanne Milde<br />
Phone +49 331 583 93 55<br />
Mobile: +49 172 3931349<br />
milde@mildemarketing.de</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>UK Science and Technology Facilities Council</b><br />
Terry O’Connor<br />
+44 1793 442006<br />
+44 77 68 00 61 84 (Cell)<br />
terry.o'connor@stfc.ac.uk</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><b>Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics Hannover</b><br />
Benjamin Knispel<br />
Press Officer<br />
+49 511 762 19104<br />
benjamin.knispel@aei.mpg.de</span><br />
<br />
<h3>
<span style="color: #073763;">Read the Press Release in</span></h3>
<span style="color: #073763;">
</span><span style="color: #073763;"><a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/286/original/Press_Release_Bengali.pdf?1455060791">Bengali</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/287/original/Press_Release_Catalan.pdf?1455060825">Catalan</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/307/original/press-release-chinese.pdf?1455163479">Chinese</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/288/original/Press_Release_French.pdf?1455063100">French</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/289/original/Press_Release_Gujarti.pdf?1455063140">Gujarati</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/290/original/Press_Release_Hebrew.pdf?1455063206">Hebrew</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/291/original/Press_Release_Hindi.pdf?1455063234">Hindi</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/292/original/Press_Release_Hungarian.pdf?1455063268">Hungarian</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/293/original/Press_Release_Korean.pdf?1455063294">Korean</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/294/original/Press_Release_Marathi.pdf?1455063318">Marathi</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/295/original/Press_Release_Odia.pdf?1455063345">Oriya</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/296/original/Press_Release_Portugese.pdf?1455063378">Portugese</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/308/original/press-release-russian.pdf?1455163549">Russian</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/298/original/Press_Release_Spanish.pdf?1455063438">Spanish</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/309/original/press-release-swedish.pdf?1455163695">Swedish</a> | <a href="https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/299/original/Press_Release_Thai.pdf?1455063460">Thai</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><b>LIGO Caltech</b><br />
MC 100-36<br />
California Institute of Technology<br />
Pasadena, CA 91125</span>
<span style="color: #073763;"><br />
Information: (626) 395-2129<b> </b></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #073763;"><b>LIGO MIT</b><br />
MIT NW22-295<br />
185 Albany Street<br />
Cambridge, MA 02139<br />
<br />
Information: (617) 253-4824" </span><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-52764622340716720602015-11-25T20:20:00.001+01:002016-02-12T19:10:14.125+01:00100 Years of Relativity Theory - Is the Universe its Own Singularity? - What is the Speed of Gravity at Work and is Gravity the same as Dark Matter?<div dir="ltr">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/a-century-ago-einsteins-theory-of-relativity-changed-everything.html?ref=topics&_r=0" target="_blank">A Century Ago, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Changed Everything</a> is the title of an article by Dennis Overbye at the New York Times in celebration of one hundred years of relativity theory.<br />
<br />
Our take on relativity theory 100 years later, especially in view of the postulated Higgs Field, which reminds of the "fudge" of Einstein's cosmological constant, is that theoretical
physics consists of "measurements" and formulas, and special "constants" in those formulas to cover up the unknowns.<br />
<br />
To us, the primary questions in comprehending the universe then are:</div>
<ul>
<li>what are we measuring?<br />and</li>
<li>what are our measurement rulers?</li>
</ul>
Ultimately, the universe we
describe by sheer observation and the shorthand of mathematical notation is limited by our measurement stick, a limit which thus far consists of
light itself. If anything traveled faster than light, how could one measure it? in the dark.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, however, we have the famous equation E=mc2 where c is the velocity of light <b>squared</b>. Now that is FAST. But that defines energy <i>per se</i>.<br />
<br />
We think that the key force in the universe is gravity, i.e. the force by which matter is attracted or repelled, which was Newton's main realm of inquiry.<br />
<br />
We ask:<br />
<ul>
<li>what is the velocity viz. speed of gravity (is it a constant?),<br />or, put differently, and more to the point,</li>
<li><b>at what distance does gravity stop working "instantaneously"</b>?</li>
</ul>
We postulate that the answer to the identity of so-called "dark matter" that
is currently said to permeate the universe is none other than gravity.<br />
<br />
Energy is defined by the equation E=mc2 where m is "mass" so that c2 must include everything else, including "dark matter". <br />
<br />
The Higgs so-called "standard model" equations leave out
gravity (!), and replace it with the so-called "Higgs field", a quantum mechanics (and Nobel Prize-winning) slight-of-hand running along the lines of: "Hey, guys. We know how the universe works. We just have to leave out gravity." LOL. On the other hand, when dealing with particles of small mass at infinitesimally short distances, gravity may be a tough thing to measure, but not zero.<br />
<br />
We think that the Higgs Field is nothing other than gravity as the primal attracting and repelling force of the universe, which we think is its own singularity in the universe and thus impossible to measure directly. Only if an object is attracted or repelled can it have mass, given to it by gravity.<br />
<br />
Quite obviously to us, gravity permeates
everything and moves so fast it covers the known universe
instantaneously in terms of "possible" measurement. <br />
<br />
See in this context the discussion at <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html" target="_blank">Does Gravity Travel at the Speed of Light?</a><br />
where it is noted that gravity must be assumed to work instantaneously, rather than travel at the speed of light, or the equations on the movement of bodies in our own Solar System fail.<br />
<br />
Is the actual velocity of gravity then possibly the same as c2 (the speed of light squared) in Einstein's equation (that is about 35 billion miles per second)? Or is the force of gravity a changing constant measured at a given distance?<br />
<br />
<div dir="ltr">
We refer here in this context to a discussion of "gravity waves" at <a href="https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/velocity-of-gravity-wave.429166/" target="_blank">https://www.physicsforums.com/<wbr></wbr>threads/velocity-of-gravity-<wbr></wbr>wave.429166/</a>
where "measurable effects of gravity" are perhaps confused with gravity itself.<br />
<br />
It might be true that <b>measurable</b> "gravity <b>waves</b>", like "light <b>waves</b>" may have a base velocity of "simple c", the speed of light, because we can not measure beyond that speed. How could we? <br />
<br />
"Gravity waves" are merely the "<b>effects</b>" of gravity and not the same as gravity itself, much like the ripples viz.
waves of water from a boat traveling on a river are not the speed of the
boat nor that of the water current. <br />
<br />
If the universe is its own singularity and gravity its primal force, then the Higgs Field in our view can only be "gravity" and everything else can only be "relative" to that.<br />
<br />
Hat tip to CaryGEE.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-83804669440209701662013-12-21T17:32:00.001+01:002013-12-21T17:32:01.753+01:00"Higgs Boson" Scientists Win Nobel Prize in PhysicsWe are a bit late on this, but James Morgan at BBC News has the story at <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24436781">Higgs boson scientists win Nobel prize in physics</a>, where the following explanation is given for what a Higgs boson is in the context of the "mass" of particles:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #0b5394;">"Scientists' best theory for why different things have mass is the "Higgs field" - where mass can be seen as a measure of the resistance to movement. The "Higgs field" is shown here as a room of physicists chatting among themselves.</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: #0b5394;">A well-known scientist walks into the room and causes a bit of a stir - attracting admirers with each step and interacting strongly with them - signing autographs and stopping to chat.</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: #0b5394;">As she becomes surrounded by admiring fans, she finds it harder to move across the room - in this analogy, she acquires mass due to the "field" of fans, with each fan acting like a single Higgs boson.</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: #0b5394;">If a less popular scientist enters the room, only a small crowd gathers, with no-one clamouring for attention. He finds it easier to move across the room - by analogy, his interaction with the bosons is lower, and so he has a lower mass." </span></blockquote>So that's the new standard model of the universe, allegedly, in modern theoretical physics, without gravity of course, which turns out to be a bother.<br />
<br />
If gravity were added, we suspect the floor under the scientists in the above model would collapse at some point of idolizing boson accumulation and then what would we have?<br />
<br />
The Guardian wrote more recently in <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2013/nov/26/higgs-tau-tau-lepton-masses-cern">The Higgs boson does a new trick (probably</a>):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="color: #0b5394;">"In the Standard Model of physics, the fundamental building blocks of nature are quarks (which live inside hadrons) and leptons (such as the electron, and its heavier siblings, the muon and the tau). These building blocks interact with each other via fundamental forces carried by bosons - the photon carries electromagnetism, the W and Z bosons carry the weak nuclear force, and the gluon carries the strong force.</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: #0b5394;">All those particles (except the photon and the gluon, which are massless) acquire their mass by interacting with the Higgs boson, the discovery of which was announced last year on the fourth of July."</span></blockquote>We always wonder where those "fundamental forces" that are taken as givens come from, or where the boson gets its "interactive" power, but this does not appear to bother the physicists. The main thing is that the current math formulas work and they get enough "bumps" in the hadron colliders.<br />
<br />
Somehow, we think these epicyclic-type theoretical models do not yet really explain the "real" universe. Give it another few thousand years, at least.<br />
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-50334629001999365532013-12-21T16:41:00.001+01:002013-12-21T16:41:51.104+01:00The Universe Viewed as a Hologram, i.e. a ProjectionRon Cowen and Nature Magazine<br />
have the story at the Scientific American<br />
in <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=universe-really-is-a-holo&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20131218">The Universe Really Is a Hologram, According to New Simulations</a>.<br />
<br />
See the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle">Holographic Principle</a> at the Wikipedia.<br />
<br />
A holograph is a "projection".<br />
<br />
Whose?<br />
<br />
The universe, by definition,<br />
is as we see it,<br />
and we can see it<br />
only by the means<br />
we use<br />
to measure it. <br />
<br />
<br />
Can the mystery be solved in that way?<br />
<br />
Or is our knowledge always limited to<br />
and by<br />
the methods of measurement we use?<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-4795064409445565352012-09-05T21:25:00.001+02:002012-09-05T21:25:38.282+02:00Higgs Boson Quest Enters New Phase: We Remain SkepticalSee <br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120904161554.htm">Quest for Higgs boson enters new phase</a><br />
<br />
University of Chicago (2012, September 4).<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com%c2%ad/releases/2012/09/120904161554.htm" target="_blank">ScienceDaily</a>. Retrieved September 5, 2012.<br />
<br />
We remain skeptical of the existence of the Higgs boson or field,<br />
unless that field be gravity.<br />
<br />
A theory that does not account for gravity leaves out the strongest force in the universe and the idea that allegedly massless particles with a life span of next to nothing make up the foundation of our universe is quaint, but hardly believable, to put it bluntly.<br />
<br />
Then there is allegedly an endless field of something which can not be nothing but which is not identifiable that allegedly gives massless particles mass, and so on. Alice in Wonderland physics.<br />
<br />
To us that sounds like physicists in the kitchen measuring not what they know.<br />
Half-baked.<br />
<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-66562507732196944702012-09-05T21:02:00.002+02:002012-11-01T15:30:00.048+01:00Albert Einstein Patents and Invention<a href="http://creatingminds.org/quotes/invention.htm" target="_blank"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index2.html" target="_blank">Einstein worked at the Swiss Patent Office</a> as a patent clerk before making his mark on the world in physics.<br />
<br />
The quote we feature below tells us a lot about how
Einstein viewed inventors, patent applications and prior art. <br />
<br />
See:<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.albert-einstein.org/.index2.html" target="_blank">Albert Einstein Archives</a><br />
PBS NOVA - <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/einstein-the-nobody.html" target="_blank">Einstein the Nobody</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<img src="http://www.brandautopsy.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/AlbertEinstein.jpg" /><br /><span style="font-size: x-small;">Albert Einstein on Creativity linked from <a href="http://www.brandautopsy.com/2011/09/alberteinstein_creativity.html" target="_blank">Brandautopsy.com</a> "Borrowing Brilliance"</span></center>
<center>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" frameborder="0" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w8WfCFLf0OY?rel=0" width="640"></iframe></center>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"> Jenson: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8WfCFLf0OY" target="_blank">Albert Einstein Quotes</a> - The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. </span></div>
<br />
<b>Utility Patents and Design Patents </b><br />
<br />
The United States Patent and Trademark Office, pursuant to U.S. federal laws and decisions of the courts, grants utility and design patents, <a href="http://www.uspto.gov/main/faq/p120011.htm" target="_blank">defined by the USPTO at its website as follows</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #990000;">
"A utility patent may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, compositions of
matter, or any new useful improvement thereof. A design patent may be
granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for
an article of manufacture."</blockquote>
Essentially, an invention viz. discovery can thus be patented for its FORM (design, the way it looks and feels) and/or FUNCTION (what it does), given the legal limitations on "prior art" and "obviousness" found further below.<br />
<br />
Pro-patent forces argue that "<a href="http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2106.htm" target="_blank">anything under the Sun that is made by man</a>" can be patented, but that rose-colored rainbow standard meets inter alia the Biblically recorded reality barrier that "<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1%3A9&version=NIV" target="_blank">there is nothing new under the Sun</a>":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span class="text Eccl-1-9" id="en-NIV-17325">What has been will be again,</span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Eccl-1-9">what has been done will be done again;</span></span><br />
<span class="indent-1"><span class="indent-1-breaks"> </span><span class="text Eccl-1-9">there is nothing new under the sun" - Ecclesiastes 1:9 <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes+1%3A9&version=NIV" target="_blank">NIV Bible</a></span></span></blockquote>
<br />
<b>Patent terminology: Utility and Design, Function and Form</b><br />
<br />
<center>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2">
<tbody>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115"><b>Place of<br />Application</b></td>
<td width="115"></td>
<td width="115"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Patent Parameter</span></b></td>
<td width="115"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Patent</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Parameter</span></b></td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115">At the<br />
USPTO</td>
<td width="115"><br /></td>
<td width="115">Utility</td>
<td width="115">Design</td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115"><br /></td>
<td width="115"></td>
<td width="115"><b>Normal<br />Terminology</b></td>
<td width="115"><b>Normal</b><br />
<b>Terminology</b></td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115">In Arts &<br />
Architecture</td>
<td width="115"> </td>
<td width="115">Function</td>
<td width="115">Form</td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115">Laymen's<br />
Language</td>
<td width="115"></td>
<td width="115">What it<br />
Does</td>
<td width="115">How it Looks and Feels</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
<br />
<b>What are the two basic requirements for patentability?</b><br />
<ul>
<li><b>Nondisclosure in Prior Art</b></li>
<li><b>Not Obvious to a Phosita (a person of ordinary skill in the art)</b></li>
</ul>
<br />
<center>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2">
<tbody>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115"><b>Place of<br />Application</b></td>
<td width="115">Commentary</td>
<td width="115"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Patent Rule</span></b></td>
<td width="115"><b><span style="font-size: small;">Patent</span></b><span style="font-size: small;"><b> Rule</b></span></td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115">At the<br />
USPTO</td>
<td width="115"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The "business" of the USPTO is "patents" and who is going to sabotage their own business?</span></td>
<td width="115">The claimed invention can not be disclosed in prior art</td>
<td width="115"><br />
The invention can not be<br />
obvious to "a person having ordinary skill in the art", a so-called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_having_ordinary_skill_in_the_art" target="_blank">phosita</a>"</td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115"><br /></td>
<td width="115"></td>
<td width="115"><b>Normal<br />Terminology</b></td>
<td width="115"><b>Normal</b><br />
<b>Terminology</b></td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115">In the Arts &<br />
Architecture</td>
<td width="115"><span style="font-size: x-small;">No comparable patents exist in art or in architecture and thus these disciplines are more creative</span></td>
<td width="115">Original</td>
<td width="115">Avant-garde</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
The blog <a href="http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2009/06/chief-justice-roberts-and-the-federal-circuit.html" target="_blank">The Prior Art</a> referred a couple of years back to a wry comment made in oral arguments by United States Supreme Chief Justice Roberts about the U.S. Circuit Courts (including the Federal Circuit) being obligated to follow U.S. Supreme Court decisions:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="blockquote" style="margin-left: 40px;">
"<b style="color: #3d85c6;">Chief Justice Roberts</b><span style="color: #3d85c6;">: Well, they
don't have a choice, right? They can't say, I don't like the Supreme
Court rule so I'm not going to apply it, other than the Federal Circuit.</span></div>
<div class="blockquote" style="color: #783f04; margin-left: 40px;">
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">(Laughter in the court.)<br /> </span></div>
<span style="color: #783f04;">This rebuke seems to indicate that as Roberts sees it, the Federal Circuit has a habit of blowing off Supreme Court precedent.</span>"</blockquote>
The <i><b>Stanford Technology Law Review</b></i> has a note on<br />
<a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/pdf/McEldowney-Obviousness.pdf">New Insights on the "Death” of Obviousness:<br />An Empirical Study of District Court Obviousness Opinions</a>"<br />
by Sean M. McEldowney which concludes<span style="color: red;">:<br />"On the surface, these results
seem to support the notion that the Federal Circuit has effectively
gutted the standard of obviousness.</span>"<br />
[McEldowney then goes on to suggest it may not be so simple.... (but we suspect it IS that simple).] 2006 STAN. TECH. L. REV. 4
<a href="http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_4">http://stlr.stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/06_STLR_4</a><br />
<br />
The Federal Circuit in the USA is made up primarily of persons with technical degrees. This is a regrettable error in the make-up of this court, because their technology interests make them biased in favor of patents. The Federal Circuit has in fact been all but ignoring recent U.S. Supreme Court dictates, and have been getting reversed regulary for so ignoring them.<br />
<br />
Those dictates are, here via the Wikipedia article on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex" target="_blank">KSR v. Teleflex</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span class="mw-headline" id="KSR_v._Teleflex"></span><span style="color: #783f04;">Main article: </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex" style="color: #783f04;" target="_blank" title="KSR v. Teleflex">KSR v. Teleflex</a><br />
<div style="color: #783f04;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #783f04;">
The Supreme Court reversed a decision by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit" title="United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit">Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit</a> based on how the lower court defined the capabilities of a PHOSITA. <i>KSR v. Teleflex</i> was decided by a unanimous Supreme Court on April 30, 2007.</div>
<div style="color: #783f04;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #783f04;">
Importantly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy" title="Anthony Kennedy">Justice Kennedy</a>'s
opinion stated, "<span style="color: #3d85c6;">A person of ordinary skill is also a person of
ordinary creativity, not an automaton.</span>" Although the Court's opinion
acknowledged other Federal Circuit cases that described a PHOSITA as
having "<span style="color: #3d85c6;">common sense</span>" and who could find motivation "<span style="color: #3d85c6;">implicitly in the </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art" title="Prior art">prior art</a>,"
Kennedy emphasized that his opinion was directed at correcting the
"<span style="color: #3d85c6;">errors of law made by the Court of Appeals in this case</span>" and does not
necessarily overturn all other Federal Circuit <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent" title="Precedent">precedent</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #783f04;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #783f04;">
Once the PHOSITA is properly defined, <i>KSR v. Teleflex</i> described how <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness" title="Inventive step and non-obviousness">obviousness</a> should be determined:</div>
<dl style="color: #3d85c6;"><dd>In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is
obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the
patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If
the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103. One of
the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by
noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for
which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.</dd></dl>
<div style="color: #783f04;">
which was applied to the facts before the Court with the following:</div>
<dl><dd><span style="color: #3d85c6;">The proper question to have asked was whether a pedal designer of
ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs created by developments
in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit to upgrading Asano
with a sensor." </span></dd></dl>
</blockquote>
<b>What are the consequences of KSR? </b><br />
<br />
At LawPundit we previously quoted the unanimous decision in <a href="http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/2007/05/supreme-court-redefines-obviousness-in.htm" target="_blank">KSR</a> in an opinion written by Justice Kennedy:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: black; font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans serif; font-size: small;"><span style="color: #663333;">"Often,
it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of
multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community
or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by
a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine
whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in
the fashion claimed by the patent at issue. To facilitate review, this
analysis should be made explicit.... As our precedents make clear,
however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to
the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ."</span><br /><br />Kennedy <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdf" style="background-color: transparent;">hammers the new standard home</a> with a clear rejection of the formalistic conceptions attaching to the previous "<span style="color: #663333; font-style: italic;">helpful insights</span>" of the TSM test:<br /><br /><span style="color: #663333;">"Helpful
insights ... need not become rigid and mandatory formulas; and when it
is so applied, the TSM test is incompatible with our precedents. The
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of
the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on
the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued
patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology
counsels against limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it
may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or
combinations, and<b> it often may be the case that market demand, rather
than scientific literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent
protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without
real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents
combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their
value or utility.</b>"</span></span> <span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>[emphasis added by LawPundit]</b></span></blockquote>
What are the consequences of KSR when properly applied in cases like Apple v. Samsung and to Apple's claims to exclusive proprietary patent rights in "bounce-back" software code applications or to various obvious "man-machine interactions" such as human touch controls of digital displays?<br />
<br />
It is quite clear that the Supreme Court would throw those Apple patents out without blinking an eye as being no different in principle as a pedal designer of ordinary skill adding a sensor, i.e. a combination of previously known elements.<br />
<br />
There is no inventive step in such compositions and no invention worthy of patent protection. The law can not permit a situation in which obvious developments in normal course of the state of the art become proprietary exclusive rights of greedy monopolistic companies who are just combining various features of prior art. However, that is a wisdom that the judges on the present <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Federal_Circuit" target="_blank">Federal Circuit</a> -- uniquely RESPONSIBLE for patent appeals -- are having difficulty understanding.<br />
<br />
<br />
<center>
<table border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2">
<tbody>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115"><b>Place of<br />Application</b></td>
<td width="115"></td>
<td width="115"><b><span style="font-size: small;">KSR</span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Standard </span></b></td>
<td width="115"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>KSR Standard</b></span></td>
</tr>
<tr border="1">
<td width="115">United States Supreme Court </td>
<td width="115"><br /></td>
<td width="115"><span style="color: #663333;"><b>Advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation are obvious</b></span></td>
<td width="115"><b><span style="color: #663333; font-size: small;">A phosita of ordinary skill has common sense, ordinary creativity and is not an automoton</span></b></td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</center>
<br />
<br />
<b>Conclusion, Quo Vadis?</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Maybe legislators in reforming patent law and judges in handling patent cases should heed the <a href="http://creatingminds.org/quotes/invention.htm" target="_blank">words of Henry Ford</a> :<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: red; font-size: large;">"I invented nothing new. I simply combined the inventions of others into a car. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed."</span><br />
<br />
— Henry Ford</blockquote>
<br />
Modern smartphones or PC tablets or similar electronic gadgets are no different, being combinations of thousands of inventions and ideas of others to which no one should be able to claim any kind of proprietary exclusivity.<br />
<br />
In fact, modern electronic devices trace their origins back to ancient writing <b>shapes and surfaces</b> as well as to the carving, wedging or stamping of <b>iconic symbols</b> into wood, stone, clay, or other earths or materials.<br />
<br />
Today these data <b>surfaces</b> are called electronic displays and icons, but in fact, as far as invention is concerned, they are the same.<br />
<br />
Transistors and microprocessors have enabled the micromanufacture of solid state elements that manifest more modern display possibilities in <b>obvious utility</b> and <b>obvious design</b>, all anticipated by prior art, long, long ago.<br />
<br />
See also:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-pinch-gesture-as-ancient-non.html" target="_blank">The Pinch Gesture as an Ancient Non-Patentable Natural Physical Historical and Technological Hand Mechanism With Prior Pinch Pot Art Galore as Obvious as the Hand in Front of Your Face : Our Modern Patent Systems are Operating in a Fantasy World</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digital-picture-frame-2006-is.html" target="_blank">Samsung Digital Picture Frame 2006 is Clear Designer Prior Art to the Later "Design" of the iPhone and iPad</a> <br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/apple-iphone-as-design-copy-of-first.html" target="_blank">The Apple iPhone as a Design Copy of the First Pharaonic Cartouche of the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt: A Design in the Public Domain as Prior Art for 4500 Years</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/09/ancient-rectangular-mirrors-with.html" target="_blank">Ancient Rectangular Mirrors With Rounded Corners as Image Inventions Precede the iPad by Thousands of Years: Apple Did Not Invent These Basic Designs</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/08/old-california-speed-limit-sign-is.html" target="_blank">Old California Speed Limit Sign is Virtually Identical in Design to Apple iPad</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/08/massachusetts-first-standardized.html" target="_blank">Massachusetts First Standardized License Plate 1957 as Nearly Identical Prior Art for the Apple Phone</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/08/motor-vehicle-registration-plates.html" target="_blank">Motor Vehicle Registration Plates - License Plates - As Your Most Obvious Prior Art for Text and Graphic Information Displays on Rectangular Surfaces with Rounded Edges Enclosed in Bezels</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/07/in-year-2525-you-wont-be-able-to-move.html" target="_blank">In the Year 2525 ... You Won't Be Able to Move a Finger Without Paying Apple LOL</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/us-sales-of-samsung-galaxy-tab-101.html" target="_blank">U.S. Sales of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 Blocked by Preliminary Injunction Because of Patent Suit : Infringement Actions As THE Legal Weapon of Choice to Block Potential Competition</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/minimalist-rounded-corner-design-is.html" target="_blank">Minimalist Rounded Corner Design is Ubiquitous, So Why Should One Company be able to get ANY Rights to That Design </a><br />
<br />
<br />
Only an inventor knows how to borrow, and every man is or should be an inventor. — <a href="http://creatingminds.org/quotes/invention.htm" target="_blank">Ralph Waldo Emerson</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-25086245161687510142012-07-10T14:06:00.000+02:002012-07-10T14:57:52.371+02:00The Revised Periodic Table of Chemical Elements and New Insights About the History of Alternative ModelsThis is an update to my recent postings (<a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2012/07/higgs-aether-gravity-periodic-table-of.html" target="_blank">Einstein's Voice</a>, <a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-periodic-table-of-chemical-elements.html" target="_blank">LawPundit</a>) and my website page as originally posted in the year 2000 at <a href="http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi4.htm" target="_blank">LexiLine</a> -- <a href="http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi4.htm" target="_blank">see the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive</a>.<br />
<br />
A reader has alerted me to the fact that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Janet" target="_blank">Charles Janet</a> came up with the same so-called "left-step" periodic arrangement of chemical elements that I found in 1972 already in the year 1928 . Indeed, there is a recent article referenced at the Wikipedia article on Janet referencing "<i>Stewart, Philip (April 2010). "Charles Janet: unrecognized genius of the Periodic System". Foundations of Chemistry 12: 5–15. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10698-008-9062-5" target="_blank">DOI:10.1007/s10698-008-9062-5</a></i>".<br />
<br />
As written at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Janet" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #3d85c6;">
"In 1927 [Janet] turned his attention to the periodic table and wrote a series of six articles in French, which were privately printed and never widely circulated."</blockquote>
Even a French biography of him online currently does not have the table as far as I can tell. <a href="http://soc.acad.oise.free.fr/janet.htm" target="_blank">Biographie synthétique de Charles Janet</a>. I do not speak French to this day so even if I had done any kind of deep research back in those days in 1972, prior to the Internet, the likelihood I would have found Janet's work in the USA is small.<br />
<br />
Indeed, back in 1972 I would not have imagined that someone had come up with the same arrangement as I had found and thus I really had no reason to look for previous discoverers since I would have assumed that if someone had had the same idea, it would be well known. I myself sent off a letter to the Scientific American about my "discovery" of the revised periodic table but they paid no attention to it.<br />
<br />
Accordingly, as it was just a hobby anyway, I went on with my life and only put up my discovery on the Internet at <a href="http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi4.htm" target="_blank">LexiLine</a> in 2000 when I started my first website online, and when, to my knowledge, there was nothing at all online about alternative models of the Periodic Table, as far as I know. Amazingly, no one, prior to today, has ever paid any attention to my revised period table or commented about it.<br />
<br />
That attitude in science epitomizes one of the reasons that I left the study of Biology, Physics and Chemistry in high school and college, by the way, and went on to law and legal studies, leaving the sciences as a hobby.<br />
<br />
I was good in the sciences in pre-college studies, already earning college credits in Chemistry in high school, for example, and was sent off as a young student to a science fair where they presented an electron microscope that showed we had 46 chromosomes instead of 48. I dutifully reported on that development in class upon returning to school, whereupon the teacher said to the class immediately afterward that this information was fine but that 48 would be the correct answer for the final exam in that class and for any other test purposes until it was changed in her Biology textbook. That is a true story. That was it for me for Biology. Who wanted to live in the past?<br />
<br />
My experience in Physics in high school was much the same. I came up with an algorithm for a complicated class assignment involving the calculation of total resistance in a circuit and my solution was correct, taking half the paper that the accepted method required. Rather than the teacher showing interest in the algorithm, the teacher tried to ridicule the solution in class, unsuccessfully, as I defended the clear logic of it, but that was it for me for Physics. Too much inertia.<br />
<br />
And then I had an excessively long hours-long Chemistry lab early on Saturday mornings -- not in my circadian rhythm at all -- where the emphasis was on writing nice-looking <a href="http://www.ehow.com/how_5371709_write-chemistry-lab-report.html" target="_blank">lab reports</a> and playing with moles and valences and the like rather than on examining the basic theoretical questions that were of interest to me. That was it for Chemistry. Too many vials.<br />
<br />
So the study of law (jurisprudence) it was, where the emphasis was on the reasoning behind the laws and on problem solutions, rather than on repetition of what people already knew (excepted here in law are bar exams and similar, which primarily test knowledge memorized through law review courses and not through Socratic law study, and it is mostly knowledge that any idiot can look up and seldom needs in law practice). But to return to the periodic table ....<br />
<br />
I am in fact quite pleased to find that someone in fact came up with the same periodic table arrangement as I did, because it does seem to me to be quite logical "in the broad view" to view the chemical elements this way.<br />
<br />
Hence, it is gratifying to see "like minds" out there and I will definitely be doing some study of Charles Janet in the future, although it is clear from his alternative tables that he did not really understand what he had found.<br />
<br />
The reader -- already cited above -- writes that a certain L.M. Simmons had the same arrangement idea in 1947 (<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed024p588" target="_blank">A modification of the periodic table</a>, but that publication even today is not accessible to me online because I am not an ACS member -- that's science! ... sadly). That same reader also notes that <a href="http://www.chemheritage.org/discover/collections/collection-items/archives/edward-g.-mazurs-collection-of-periodic-systems.aspx" target="_blank">Edward Mazurs</a> "publicized" the "left-step arrangement" in 1957, but in fact it was a "<a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ed052pA436.1" target="_blank">private printing</a>" titled <i>Types of Graphic Representation of the Periodic System of Chemical Elements</i>, to which I could not possibly have had access. A revised accessible edition was first published in 1974 as <i>Graphic Representations of the Periodic System During One Hundred Years</i>.<br />
<br />
I find online now that there is even a detailed article at the Wikipedia on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_periodic_tables" target="_blank">Alternative periodic tables</a>. See also <a href="http://elementsunearthed.com/2009/08/21/periodic-tables/" target="_blank">Periodic Tables</a> by David V. Black. where Black notes that Mazurs collected all sorts of alternative periodic tables and -- to my great astonishment -- was a fellow Latvian as a Professor at the University of Riga. As Black writes, and this is the important thing:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<b><span style="color: #45818e;">Mazurs came to the conclusion – and so have I – that a left-step table works best....</span></b>".</blockquote>
I am not now going to research all the myriad other alternative tables presented in the interim, but wish to point out that apparently none of these previous researchers realized the significance of the "left-step" revised periodic arrangement in showing how the underlying principle is gravitational for the elements<b> as a whole</b>, rather than viewing each element individually or in some "category", as chemists are wont to do, based on their "properties". I was not interested in chemical properties. I was interested in the underlying principle of physics that governed chemical element formation. All periodic tables -- even if useful -- that depart from the underlying gravitational principle are in my opinion not fully accurate.<br />
<br />
A most recent article from July 20, 2011 at ChemistryViews.org in <a href="http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/1247399/At_Last_A_Definitive_Periodic_Table.html?page=22" target="_blank">At Last A Definitive Periodic Table?</a> (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chemv.201000107" target="_blank">DOI: 10.1002/chemv.201000107</a>) by David Bradley reports essentially that some observers currently still virtually reduce the 1, 4, 9, 16 sequence to mere "numerology", talking about odd numbers and all sorts of irrelevant extraneous things, thus showing that chemists and physicists are still unable to get away from their familiar world of electron shells, rather than trying to find the "basic" force of nature underlying those shells.<br />
<br />
In other words, even though there have been predecessors to my own arrangement of the periodic table as far back as the year 1928, scientists still do not "get" what the periodic table revised in this way means.<br />
<br />
The principle of chemical element formation is the same as the acceleration of an object in a vacuum, except that we have no "distance" (in the accelerative sense) but rather instead increasing "mass" -- well, that is the same as the idea of the relation between the Higgs Field and mass, and therefore, the Higgs Field is no different than this basic GRAVITATIONAL PRINCIPLE, which the Higgs Boson Theory ignores completely.<br />
<br />
Physicists and chemists in explaining the inner workings of the elements do not stick to the gravitational principle but create artificial constructs such as "the weak force" or "the strong force", which in my opinion merely shows that they do not understand how to measure gravity at the atomic and subatomic level.<br />
<br />
I.e. the elements in my opinion are created according to the gravitational principle internally, and it is up to Physics and Chemistry down the road to put their concepts of strong and weak forces into that basic gravitational system -- and this also applies to the Higgs Field and the Higgs Boson. If there is a Higgs Field, that Higgs Field is gravity.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-22669746017406159062012-07-08T20:27:00.001+02:002012-07-08T20:27:48.936+02:00Simple Cartoons Explaining the Higgs Mechanism & Dark MatterBen Parr via PHD Comics on Vimeo has two exceptionally useful cartoon videos on <a href="http://benparr.com/2012/07/particle-physics-the-higgs-boson-dark-matter-explained-by-awesome-cartoons/#">Particle Physics, the Higgs Boson & Dark Matter Explained</a><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-39611891236306367082012-07-06T21:07:00.000+02:002020-05-20T17:37:52.209+02:00Higgs, The Aether, Gravity, The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements Revised, and the Gravitational Principle of the Universe"<b>Since there is no DISTANCE involved in the building of the elements,<br />
the gravitational effect exerts itself on the mass of the elements.</b>"<br />
- Andis Kaulins, February 13, 1972<br />
<br />
We see this process in the spectral emission lines of hydrogen (Bohr model)<br />
that are in the clear relationship<b> 1, 4, 9 and 16</b>, i.e. <b>1², 2², 3² and 4²</b><br />
as below (<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Emission_spectrum-H.svg/500px-Emission_spectrum-H.svg.png" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>), representing the electron orbits in the <a href="http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch6/bohr.html" target="_blank">Bohr model</a>,<br />
i.e. "<span style="color: #990000;">the energy of an electron in any one of these orbits</span><br />
<span style="color: #990000;">is inversely proportional to the square of the integer </span><i style="color: #990000;">n</i>."):<br />
<br />
<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Emission_spectrum-H.svg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Emission_spectrum-H.svg/500px-Emission_spectrum-H.svg.png" /></a><br />
<br />
....1²....2²........... 3²............................................. 4².........<br />
<br />
I wrote the first line found now at the top of this page 40 years ago when I came up with a suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements (shown below), a revision based on the hypothesis that what the spectral lines of hydrogen showed was applicable to <b>ALL elements taken to together</b>, as the basic gravitational principle of their construction. That Table has been online at <a href="http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi4.htm" target="_blank">LexiLine</a> for many years and no one has paid any attention to it.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">[please read this page first and then see the <a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-revised-periodic-table-of-chemical.html" style="color: #3d85c6;" target="_blank">update</a> to this page on previous similar alternative tables - I am not the first to find the "left-step" model] </span><br />
<br />
In the aftermath of the alleged Higgs Boson discovery, I drew a new illustration as below, and the original revised chart you will find further below that in this posting:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5NjeAbeCyRFvIIl25OrcHtIaygSLFIBX0R-RzFDjZdS6XP_NcGhOdaIfPC3iiaMQYSsyolE4JLN7pL-gNfkStuWjkMTOqGVDAcRko3cgGFPAfc8Lly548gjqJ3-okhvD4uGEY/s1600/GravitationalPrincipleUniverseAndisKaulins1972and2012.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="630" data-original-width="613" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5NjeAbeCyRFvIIl25OrcHtIaygSLFIBX0R-RzFDjZdS6XP_NcGhOdaIfPC3iiaMQYSsyolE4JLN7pL-gNfkStuWjkMTOqGVDAcRko3cgGFPAfc8Lly548gjqJ3-okhvD4uGEY/s320/GravitationalPrincipleUniverseAndisKaulins1972and2012.png" width="311" /></a><br />
<br />
The gravitational principle is similar to the alleged Higgs Boson in The Standard Model, with the difference, of course, that as far as The Periodic Table is concerned, electrons are fermions and not bosons, as Jon Butterworth explained last year at The Guardian's Life & Physics in <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/aug/13/1" target="_blank">Bosons and Fermions</a>:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #45818e;">"Chemical elements consist of an atomic nucleus surrounded by electrons. <br />
Because electrons are fermions, not all the electrons can be sucked into<br />
the lowest energy level around the nucleus.... So as more electrons are added around a nucleus, they have to sit in higher and higher energy levels - less and less tightly bound to the nucleus, in general. <b>The behaviour of a chemical element - how it reacts with other elements and binds to form molecules, and where it sits in the periodic table - is driven by how tightly bound its outermost electrons really are.</b>"<b style="color: black;"> [emphasis added]</b></span><br />
<br />
We regard that binding force to be gravity -- on a subatomic scale, regardless of how one labels it. Indeed, internal GRAVITATION was the basis of our suggested revision of the Periodic Table of Chemical Elements, 40 years ago:<br />
<br />
<b>THE PERIODIC TABLE<br />
OF CHEMICAL ELEMENTS:<br />
A SUGGESTED REVISION</b><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Originally Discovered February 13, 1972 by Andis Kaulins</b></span><br />
<br />
The Periodic Table of Chemical Elements used in mainstream science<br />
is more than 100 years old and severely outdated.<br />
It is retained because mainstream chemistry is used to it.<br />
It does not correctly represent nature.<br />
<br />
Below is the standard mainstream version from 1972<br />
showing "God's footnotes" (typical for the academics)<br />
the actinides and lanthanides.<br />
For the current status of the periodic table see<br />
<a href="http://www.webelements.com/">Webelements.com - Period Table of Chemical Elements</a><br />
<br />
<b>Mainstream Periodic Table 1972</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVdJ6djKoIqvCoSC3AYhIDGWjURy84u1z8JgdHvL2M1qRqhY3zp-YJTWefkIuWc9Gw0-X68aHMMEykx4mTdIh2PUVvN3KZNGGMijBOAKz8TsnOGnTVLjjUtV0FzUfbVuPpaT0p/s1600/element6.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="254" data-original-width="315" height="321" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVdJ6djKoIqvCoSC3AYhIDGWjURy84u1z8JgdHvL2M1qRqhY3zp-YJTWefkIuWc9Gw0-X68aHMMEykx4mTdIh2PUVvN3KZNGGMijBOAKz8TsnOGnTVLjjUtV0FzUfbVuPpaT0p/s400/element6.gif" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
The above table is disorderly and requires<br />
"God's footnotes"<br />
for the actinides and lanthanides.<br />
Nature can not possibly work this way.<br />
The simplicity has been camouflaged<br />
and replaced with unnecessary complexities. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitri_Mendeleev" target="_blank">Dmitri Mendeleev</a><br />
originally made the above table using the chemical elements then known<br />
by arranging cards on his living room floor.<br />
<br />
In his era, it was a great step forward.<br />
Today, it is a Model-T Ford,<br />
but people are used to using it,<br />
and have retained it for that reason.<br />
Convenience is a higher priority than correctness.<br />
<br />
A "correct" table of the elements<br />
would show the general laws of nature immediately.<br />
It is in fact possible to construct such a corrected table,<br />
showing the gravitational law at the root of all of matter,<br />
<b>for this process extends in both directions!</b><br />
<br />
<b>The Kaulins Revised Periodic Table of the Chemical Elements</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIDSK9lN0kuKHhN-ux9W7c2kkk2dDne_D4w_gmQ5xLxlhuanYrZ4gdxm96ynXatfONDWSoP2QwacoxSCMOwMmLv0hDTxz6d45FWO99-wT7YVhWcD37uEr7RChyDHj7x1CjG_iJ/s1600/element3.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="227" data-original-width="541" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIDSK9lN0kuKHhN-ux9W7c2kkk2dDne_D4w_gmQ5xLxlhuanYrZ4gdxm96ynXatfONDWSoP2QwacoxSCMOwMmLv0hDTxz6d45FWO99-wT7YVhWcD37uEr7RChyDHj7x1CjG_iJ/s1600/element3.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
The above graphic stems from the year 1972.<br />
<br />
Since then more elements have been discovered, all fitting into this scheme.<br />
For the current status see<br />
<a href="http://www.webelements.com/">Webelements.comPeriod Table of Chemical Elements</a><br />
<br />
The principle at the root of the periodic table of elements is gravity.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLOC3cxKxi1jfYSfz4cZFYiZxYlbgVJUehQgVWaT21ZTf497jUXPCRKcub_xbi6dOIebz2PNUmSlH8TrZ1LOVWLKzVFVzBJ4kV3yULLAcTKx35-MfVJ-k6qLjLCMcmznXPW0YF/s1600/element4.gif" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="162" data-original-width="482" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLOC3cxKxi1jfYSfz4cZFYiZxYlbgVJUehQgVWaT21ZTf497jUXPCRKcub_xbi6dOIebz2PNUmSlH8TrZ1LOVWLKzVFVzBJ4kV3yULLAcTKx35-MfVJ-k6qLjLCMcmznXPW0YF/s1600/element4.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
The elements are formed by internal gravity,<br />
as in the spectral lines of Hydrogen,<br />
where the intervals are 1, 4, 9, 16<br />
-- those are --<br />
the numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 squared<br />
i.e. 1², 2², 3² and 4².<br />
<br />
The 4 elements from H to Be<br />
build one entity of 4<br />
so that 4 divided by 4 = 1 = 1².<br />
<br />
The 16 elements from B to Ca build the next entity of 16<br />
so that 16/4 = 4 = 2².<br />
<br />
The elements from Sc to Ba<br />
build the next entity of 36<br />
so that 36/4 = 9 = 3².<br />
<br />
The elements from La to No. 120<br />
build the next entity of 64<br />
so that 64/4 = 16 = 4².<br />
<br />
What we see in the spectral lines of hydrogen<br />
thus applies to all the chemical elements viewed as a whole<br />
and subsequently also the structure of the universe generally.<br />
The electron rings show how matter in the universe distributes itself.<br />
<br />
The process of element-building is comparable<br />
to a mass which falls under the influence of gravity as follows:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqOGxyktfN8YHd_ndbxzmUXOl0vHqGhNdonmMCHbmu_v-dL1xtHQquyZV4YflKceY1ac600Lws28QkDqoGPcK5KzvdHTsdU11OPLLOBngUDeyLl4PjcLHaaUXvks2Mu-S8vCkr/s1600/element5.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="256" data-original-width="526" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqOGxyktfN8YHd_ndbxzmUXOl0vHqGhNdonmMCHbmu_v-dL1xtHQquyZV4YflKceY1ac600Lws28QkDqoGPcK5KzvdHTsdU11OPLLOBngUDeyLl4PjcLHaaUXvks2Mu-S8vCkr/s1600/element5.gif" /></a><br />
<br />
The above chart is Galileo and Newton revisited,<br />
but at the atomic level, it accords with Einstein's E=mc2 energy analysis,<br />
which is calculated -- as explained by physicist Dr. William Watson, DEO,<br />
U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information --<br />
in <a href="http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/nuggets/einstein/speedoflight.html" target="_blank">Celebrating Einstein: E=mc2 - What's the Speed of Light Got to Do With It?</a><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">"<span style="color: #0b5394;">Since the velocity of the object as seen by the moving observer,</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">"v", is the same after it emits the energy as it was before,</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">the only way its kinetic energy can change is if its mass changes.</span><br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;">Evidently, <b>the mass changes by L/c</b><b><sup style="color: #3d85c6;">2</sup></b> -- by the energy the object emits (in our frame of reference), divided by the speed of light in a vacuum squared. Since, as Einstein pointed out, the fact that the energy taken from the object turns into light doesn't seem to make any difference, he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of <i style="color: #3d85c6;"> any</i> type, its mass diminishes by L/c<sup style="color: #3d85c6;">2</sup>, so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains .</span>"</blockquote>__________<br />
<br />
<b style="color: #990000;">Update</b>, 40 years later....July 4, 2012....in the days of the Higgs Boson....<br />
<br />
The basic logic of my illustrations above corresponds to the more modernly called "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_Higgs_field" target="_blank">Higgs Field</a>", a theoretical construct which corresponds in its root conception to what the Ancient Greeks called the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_%28classical_element%29" target="_blank">aether</a>".<br />
<br />
Forty years ago I thought that the <i>aether</i> of the Greeks was -- and I also think now that the posited <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_the_Higgs_field" target="_blank">Higgs Field</a> is -- nothing other than our familiar (but unexplained) all-pervasive <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation" target="_blank">gravity viz. gravitation</a>, which governs the motion and interaction of all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_body" target="_blank">bodies</a> (collections of "mass") in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space" target="_blank">space.</a> Indeed, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation" target="_blank">gravitation</a> "accelerates all objects at the same rate" if there is no resistance.<br />
<br />
In the metaphysical sense we might view such <i>physical bodies</i> as "something" and the corresponding <i>space</i> as "nothing" in which "somethings" are found.<br />
<br />
<i>Space</i> for physicists is often defined in terms of "<b>extension</b>" -- similar and with no more accuracy than Lewis Carroll's definition of his term "WABE" (quoted from <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/12/12-h/12-h.htm#2HCH0006" target="_blank">Through the Looking Glass</a>):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">'And "THE WABE" is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?' said<br />
Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.<br />
'Of course it is. It's called "WABE," you know, because it goes a long<br />
way before it, and a long way behind it—'<br />
'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.<br />
'Exactly so.'</span></blockquote>Bodies in space are neither particles nor waves <i>per se</i> and that is why Physics speaks modernly of a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave" target="_blank">matter wave</a>, combining the two concepts. A unified concept like <b>matter wave</b> is necessary because the terms "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics" target="_blank">particle</a>" (viz. "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter" target="_blank">matter</a>") and "<a href="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_%28physics%29" target="_blank">wave</a>" merely describe what we are able to observe (i.e. particles, and the way particles move) -- <i>but not both at the same time</i> -- something called the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle" target="_blank">uncertainty principle</a> in physics.<br />
<br />
Einstein used the example of a moving locomotive. Where is that locomotive at any given time when moving, and do we look to the front, back or middle of the locomotive when we make our measurements?<br />
<br />
At the subatomic level, physicists face this problem all the time -- <b>everything is motion</b>, and maybe what their experimental results show is in fact either the front or the back or the middle of any given body, or wave of motion - like the differing poles of a magnet - which may account for things like electromagnetism and the weak interaction being viewed as two different things, whereas in fact they are the same as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction" target="_blank">electroweak reaction</a>.<br />
<br />
Indeed, perhaps the "three color flavors" of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark" target="_blank">quarks</a> are nothing more than measurements of one or more identical quarks in different positions as a "particle" viz. "wave" located at different parts of the locomotive, so to speak, top, front, back, bottom, sides, etc. We suspect as much, since no single quark or equally elusive companion <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon" target="_blank">gluon</a> has ever been isolated, allegedly because they are glued together too strongly. -- <b>Or because the theoretical model is flawed.</b> -- The physicists see the flavored and colored quarks like this (two "up" quarks (U) and one "down" quark (D) -- surely one of the most forced, and surely erroneous, theoretical explanations of nature you will ever see:<br />
<br />
<img src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Quark_structure_proton.svg/225px-Quark_structure_proton.svg.png" /><br />
<br />
The Scientific American had the following image including the gluons, via the <a href="http://es.quimica.wikia.com/wiki/Glu%C3%B3n" target="_blank">Química</a> wiki:<br />
<br />
<img src="https://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081128042625/quimica/es/images/thumb/6/6a/Gluon.jpg/280px-Gluon.jpg" /><br />
<br />
What is important to emphasize time and again is that all of these are merely purely theoretical constructions that aid scientists to explain how things work.<br />
<br />
Human theories of matter and space in Physics must also be able to account for things like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light" target="_blank">light</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation" target="_blank">electromagnetic radiation</a>) or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy" target="_blank">energy</a>, which are fundamental "relations" in a cosmic world that has no singularities, i.e. no objects that are fully independent of other objects in the universe.<br />
<br />
Everything is interconnected.<br />
<br />
Physical "bodies" in the larger sense are not only things like suns, planets or distant galaxies, but also include the chemical elements, which<br />
-- <b>in our view</b> --<br />
provide us with essential information about how the universe works, for the rules that operate here will be the same as operate throughout the universe, only on a smaller scale.<br />
<br />
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-79213575500188984142012-07-05T20:57:00.002+02:002012-07-05T21:12:29.240+02:00New Scientist TV has One-Minute Illustrated Higgs Physics Short-Course Animation that In Our Opinion Shows Why Extreme Skepticism is Warranted on the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field, Both Essentially being Artificial ConstructionsLaws of physics are also "laws", and that is why we also cover them
at LawPundit, when warranted, to those of you out there who may be
wondering.<br />
<br />
Sandrine Ceurstemont, editor of New Scientist TV, has the report with the physics animation by Henry Reich in <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2012/07/one-minute-physics-why-the-higgs-is-the-missing-link.html" target="_blank">New Scientist TV: One-Minute Physics: Why the Higgs is the missing link</a>.<br />
<br />
See the hadron collider "blip" at Eufisica here:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://eufisica.blogspot.de/2012/07/hst2012-cern-day-4.html" target="_blank">http://eufisica.blogspot.de/2012/07/hst2012-cern-day-4.html</a><br />
<br />
and the proposed explanation at DailyKos here:<a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/04/1104739/-Higgs-Boson-Announcement-v5-0-DISCOVERY" target="_blank"><br /><br />http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/04/1104739/-Higgs-Boson-Announcement-v5-0-DISCOVERY</a><br />
<br />
So,
as you can read there, the whole thing is basically a bit like a
slight-of-hand scientific Houdini trick, positing at the start of the
experiment an invisible, unproven UNIVERSAL Higgs Field everywhere in
the universe that allegedly gives elementary particles mass by slowing
them down and the bigger the particles are, the more they are slowed
down<br />
-- <b>gee, the alleged Higgs Field looks like gravity to us</b>.<br />
<br />
Significantly, all-pervasive gravity is excluded from the Higgs explanation of the
"universe" -- a rather considerable exclusion, we think, throwing great
doubt on the veracity of a theory that excludes the parameter of
gravity.<br />
<br />
But then again, we are not excited wishful thinking physicists dancing the "<b>bosonova</b>" (sic) about finding an alleged "God particle".<br />
<br />
People
have to distinguish what has actually been measured from what they WANT
that measure to represent. There is a significant difference there.<br />
<br />
All the hype in the mainstream media is totally misplaced.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/07/a-higgs-boson-or-blip-what-is-probative.html" target="_blank">BLIP ! (see there)</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-51633511366115339782012-07-04T22:04:00.001+02:002012-07-04T22:31:31.545+02:00Alice in Wonderland Physics: BLIP: The "Boson Boys" Return: CERN At It Again With Alleged Invisible Massless Particle That "Acquires" Mass in an Invisible Higgs Field<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;">TIME, Real and Imaginary</span> </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
An Allegory by Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834)</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
ON the wide level of a mountain's head</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
(I knew not where, but 'twas some faery place),</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Their pinions, ostrich-like, for sails outspread,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Two lovely children run an endless race,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
A sister and a brother</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
This far outstripp'd the other;</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Yet ever runs she with reverted face,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And looks and listens for the boy behind:</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
For he, alas! is blind!</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
O'er rough and smooth with even step he pass'd,</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And knows not whether he be first or last. </div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
via <a href="http://www.bartleby.com/101/553.html" target="_blank">Bartleby.com, Great Books Online</a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>The Oxford Book of English Verse: 1250–1900</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Arthur Quiller-Couch, ed. 1919</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
__________</div>
<br />
We found another one of those "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosonic_string_theory" target="_blank">bosonic</a>" announcements in the news today by the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson" target="_blank">boson boys</a>". Here is a picture of what can only be regarded to be absurd "<a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2007/06/just-stringing-along-physics-and-string.html" target="_blank">bosonic string theory</a>" - i.e. the Universe as sort of like a sow's ear.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<center><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Calabi-Yau-alternate.png/600px-Calabi-Yau-alternate.png" /></center>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
They are at it again with the alleged Higgs Boson, determined to find what they want to find, masterfully tweaking, shifting, adjusting, and combining data sets of several experiments, and now once again alleging the find of an "invisible" particle faster than the speed of light:</div>
<br />
<a href="http://mashable.com/2012/07/04/cern-higgs-boson/#">CERN Confirms Existence of a Particle Consistent With Higgs Boson</a><br />
<br />
Here's the theory -- an <b>allegedly</b> <b>invisible massless</b> <b>particle</b>, the Higgs Boson, moves through an <b>allegedly invisible Higgs Field</b> and acquires "mass".<br />
[<b>This could be just a form of cosmic stalking -- as the "boson" massless particle just sails eternally in the field until "mass" finds it</b>, <b>and presto, love at first sight</b>].<br />
<br />
Higgs had to assume the invisibility of both the particle and the field since we would otherwise have seen these rare birds by now would we have not?<br />
<br />
Before their molted emergence from invisibility they are just that -- invisible.<br />
Gone yesterday, here today.<br />
<br />
<b>Hence, an electronic "BLIP" of sorts</b> is the explanation of the universe i.e.<br />
invisible particles move through invisible fields and presto -- chameleon wonders - there they are, as the massed particles we know.<br />
It is a magical transformation that reminds of the works of Lewis Carroll. <br />
<br />
Yep. Alice in Wonderland physics.<br />
<br />
Let us look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson" target="_blank">Wikipedia definition</a> of these unseen bosons. We have added the bracketed material to better explain what in fact are merely "theoretical constructs" and not actually particles <b>observed</b> in nature, although we suspect, that, once found, they will necessarily be a "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Purple" target="_blank">deep purple</a>" virtually heavy metal, like the ensuing money that the physicists will obtain to continue upon and expand their research of the invisible after finding their first invisible particle:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<b style="color: #351c75;">Bosons</b><span style="color: #351c75;"> contrast with </span><b style="color: #351c75;">fermions</b><span style="color: #351c75;"> [<b style="color: #990000;">no one has ever seen either of them, of course</b>] which obey </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics" style="color: #351c75;" title="Fermi–Dirac statistics">Fermi–Dirac statistics</a><span style="color: #351c75;">. Two or more fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state (see </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle" style="color: #351c75;" title="Pauli exclusion principle">Pauli exclusion principle</a><span style="color: #351c75;">) ... [but] bosons with the same energy [</span><b style="color: #990000;">that's E</b><span style="color: #351c75;">] can occupy the same place in </span><b style="color: #351c75;">space</b><span style="color: #351c75;"> [</span><b style="color: #990000;">a place that is simply empty (!), unless it is occupied</b><span style="color: #351c75;"><b style="color: #990000;">, but by two at once?</b>]</span><span style="color: #351c75;"> [so that] bosons are often<b> </b></span><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier" style="color: #351c75;" title="Force carrier">force carrier</a></b><span style="color: #351c75;"> particles [</span><b style="color: #990000;">forces of what</b><span style="color: #351c75;"><span style="color: #990000;"><b>?</b></span>]. In contrast, fermions are usually associated with </span><b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter" style="color: #351c75;" title="Matter">matter</a></b><span style="color: #351c75;"> [</span><b style="color: #990000;">and not its opposite, of course</b><span style="color: #351c75;"><b style="color: #990000;">, not that we have ever seen it</b>] (although in </span><a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics" style="color: #351c75;" title="Quantum physics">quantum physics</a><span style="color: #351c75;"> the distinction between the two concepts is not clear cut [<span style="color: #990000;">that is the </span></span><b style="color: #990000;">Matter"horn" of physics</b><span style="color: #351c75;">]).</span><br />
<div style="color: #351c75;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #351c75;">
Bosons may be either <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle" title="Elementary particle">elementary</a>, like <b>photons</b>, or <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_particle" title="Composite particle">composite</a>, like <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson" title="Meson">mesons</a></b> [<b style="color: #990000;">hadronic subatomic particles, one quark plus one antiquark, bound by strong interaction -- well, a weak interaction just might not hold them together</b><span style="color: #990000;">.</span>].</div>
<div style="color: #351c75;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #351c75;">
All observed bosons have <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer" title="Integer">integer</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29" title="Spin (physics)">spin</a></b>, as opposed to fermions, which have <b><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-integer" title="Half-integer">half-integer</a> spin</b> [<a href="http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00562.htm" style="color: #990000;" target="_blank"><b>well, no one really knows what this spin is</b></a><b>, </b><b style="color: #990000;">but it looks to us like half-a spin, uh</b>....]... in accordance with the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin-statistics_theorem" title="Spin-statistics theorem">spin-statistics theorem</a> ... in any <b>reasonable</b> [<b style="color: #990000;">God forbid unreasonable!</b>] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity" title="Theory of relativity">relativistic</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_field_theory" title="Quantum field theory">quantum field theory</a>.... [<b style="color: #990000;">so that as for "spin", the physicists rolled the dice and that is what they came up with</b>].</div>
<div style="color: #351c75;">
While most bosons are composite particles, in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model" title="Standard Model">Standard Model</a>, there are six bosons which are elementary:</div>
<ul style="color: #351c75;">
<li><b>the four <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_boson" title="Gauge boson">gauge bosons</a> (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon" title="Photon"><span class="unicode;" style="white-space: nowrap;">γ</span></a> · <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon" title="Gluon"><span class="unicode;" style="white-space: nowrap;">g</span></a> · <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_boson" title="W boson"><span class="unicode;" style="white-space: nowrap;">W<span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 85%; line-height: 1.2em; margin-bottom: -0.3em; text-align: left; vertical-align: 0.8em;">±</span></span></a> · <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_boson" title="Z boson"><span class="unicode;" style="white-space: nowrap;">Z</span></a>)</b> [<b style="color: #990000;">Photons</b><span style="color: #990000;"> as carriers of the electromagnetic interaction, </span><b style="color: #990000;">W and Z bosons</b><span style="color: #990000;"> as carriers of the weak interaction and </span><b style="color: #990000;">Gluon</b><span style="color: #990000;">s as carriers of the strong interaction, except at low energies "because they are color-charged, and subject to color confinement</span>"] [<b style="color: #e69138;">well, they are then perhaps not "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Purple" target="_blank">deep purple</a>", but more of a "Clockwork Orange</b><span style="color: #e69138;">"</span>]</li>
<li><b>the Higgs boson (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson" title="Higgs boson"><span class="unicode;" style="white-space: nowrap;">H<span style="display: inline-block; font-size: 85%; line-height: 1.2em; margin-bottom: -0.3em; text-align: left; vertical-align: 0.8em;">0</span></span></a>)</b></li>
<li><b>the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton" title="Graviton">graviton</a> (G)</b>. [<b style="color: #990000;">this is my favorite but I have hopped up and down trying to find it</b><b style="color: #990000;">, with no particle appearance yet, and nobody else has ever seen one yet either</b>]"</li>
</ul>
<span style="color: #351c75;"></span></blockquote>
So, there you have it. "The basic words" of modern physics. Lewis Carroll told us essentially the same thing in different words in <a href="http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/through-the-looking-glass/chapter-06.html" target="_blank">Through the Looking Glass</a> in the year 1872, as Humpty Dumpty gave "the word" to Alice on "words", "semantics" and "pragmatics", much like understanding hadrons, bosons, fermions, quarks, photons, mesons and gravitons --- which no one has ever seen of course -- but the physicists swear they are there, and they have "words" for them, much like Humpty Dumpty explains "<b>glory</b>" -- which after all, is what the "boson" physicists are after, sort of a royal "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Purple" target="_blank">deep purple</a>", the heavy metal compensation of "glory":<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #351c75;">
"`I don't know what you mean by "<b>glory</b>,"' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't --
till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for
you!"'
<br />
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice
objected.
<br />
`When <i>I</i> use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful
tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less.'
<br />
`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you <i>can</i> make words mean
so many different things.'
<br />
<b>`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -
- that's all.'
</b><br />
...</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div style="color: #351c75;">
[as for cosmic things and the parameters of physics]</div>
<span style="color: #351c75;">'And "THE WABE" is the grass-plot round a sun-dial, I suppose?'</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">said Alice, surprised at her own ingenuity.</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">'Of course it is. It's called "WABE," you know, because it</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">goes a long way before it, and a long way behind it--'</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">'And a long way beyond it on each side,' Alice added.</span><br />
<span style="color: #351c75;">'Exactly so. "</span></blockquote>
Well, now what about all that talk about bosons and ENERGY and SPACE. How come they are all flying around with no mass at all in something that is nothing at all? We have assumed up to now that if E=mc2 then m can not be zero, now can it, so the problem here, as always with these instrument measurements is just WHAT are they measuring?<br />
<br />
<b>Well, BLIPS of energy.</b><br />
Sort of like "THE WABE" of Lewis Carroll "here, there, and everywhere".<br />
Exactly.<br />
<br />
Strangely, the "particle" out of which the entire universe is allegedly made is "elusive" -- which makes sense -- since the particle is invisible, as is the field in which it moves. But mathematical constructs "demand" it.<br />
<br />
Let us be frank.<br />
It is much more fun to measure what can not be seen<br />
-- the religions do this all time, by the way, in their way.<br />
<br />
So the physicists now seek their own "<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sciw-god-particle-20120704,0,871581.story" target="_blank">God particle</a>", as it were,<br />
a particle with no mass, flying around in the middle of nowhere.<br />
Just as God created all, out of the void.<br />
Get the picture?<br />
<br />
But how do you measure invisibility?<br />
Maybe these invisible particles are the size of elephants.<br />
Good grief. What would we do then?<br />
<br />
After all, if they have no mass, then size is not even an issue.<br />
They can be any size they want -- just as words could mean anything he wanted to Humpty Dumpty, as he said, "'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, '<b>which is to be master--that's all</b>.'"<br />
<br />
And of course, that is what these modern "words" in physics are all about. <br />
<br />
Modern scientists have their "master" and billion-dollar machines to prove it (such as CERN's atom smasher, the $10 billion <a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/science-technology/large-hadron-collider-experiments-EVHST0000224.topic" id="EVHST0000224" title="Large Hadron Collider Experiments">Large Hadron Collider</a>, used for finding "a Higgs Boson") -- and to prove their "words".<br />
<br />
So, as could be expected, the scientists now announce that they can in fact tell us -- <a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2012/03/science-of-wishful-thinking-cern-higgs.html" target="_blank">once again after an initial false start</a> -- that a Higgs Boson visited THEM -- leaving a BLIP on their desk ... moving at faster than the speed of light, not visible of course, but with a "shadow" of a message to the world.<br />
BLIP.<br />
<br />
What more do you want? <br />
<br />
Happily we can say, that we too are expecting a "boson" type of speed visitation this coming Christmas, when "more rapid than eagles" Santa Claus "the invisible caller" calls, in the words of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Clarke_Moore" target="_blank">Clement Clarke Moore</a> in <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/25/twas-the-night-before-christmas_n_801194.html" target="_blank">'Twas the Night Before Christmas</a>:<br />
<blockquote style="color: #990000;">
"<b>More rapid than eagles</b> his coursers they came,<br />
And he whistled, and shouted, and call'd them by name:<br />
"Now! Dasher, now! Dancer, now! Prancer, and Vixen,<br />
"On! Comet, on! Cupid, on! Dunder and Blixem;<br />
"To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!<br />
"Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"<br />
As dry leaves before the wild hurricane fly,<br />
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky;<br />
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,<br />
With the sleigh full of Toys - and St. Nicholas too:<br />
...<br />
He sprung to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,<br />
<b>And away they all flew, like the down of a thistle</b>:<br />
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight-<br />
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good night."</blockquote>
Now, that is FAST.<br />
BLIP.<br />
<br />
And we did not even get to the heavyweight Twinkie of physics,<br />
<a href="http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000955" target="_blank">the muon</a>, which may be used for an even more expensive physics elementary particle collision machine in the future, <a href="http://www.fnal.gov/pub/muon_collider/" target="_blank">the muon collider</a>, but that is for another date.<br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Update: Just for information</b><br />
<br />
Just for general facts and information....<br />
<br />
The Muon Collider and the Higgs are discussed at the <br />
<a href="http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2009/09/24/muon-collider/">Quantum Diaries</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-55694184664111304512012-06-17T21:00:00.004+02:002012-06-17T21:00:47.140+02:00US Immigration Information about Albert Einstein via One-Step Genealogy by Stephen P. Morse andHere we find Albert Einstein U.S. Immigration information<br />
using the Stephen P. Morse <a href="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3.htm">One-Step Portal for On-Line Genealogy</a>,<br />
where he creates the following record using his well-known <br />
<a href="http://stevemorse.org/index.html" target="_blank">One-Step Webpages for Genealogy</a><br />
(some of which use sources that are not cost-free, look for the $ sign):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #3d85c6;">
<h2>
"Albert Einstein</h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suppose we wanted to find Albert Einstein’s ship record.... </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Using the White Form, we enter his name and nothing more and submit the request.</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="81" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image010.jpg" width="522" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We get the following results:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="85" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image012.jpg" width="321" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The one from Berlin seems the most promising so let’s bring up his manifest</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="122" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image014.jpg" width="601" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
...</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We’ll need some additional information about the well-known Einstein before we can draw any conclusions about whether this is the correct ship record. If we do a google search for biographical information on Albert Einstein, we find the following:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="60" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image016.jpg" width="403" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Below are some of the highlights of this chronology. For simplicity I removed a lot of unnecessary items....</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="18" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image018.jpg" width="288" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Date of birth looks good and matches the record that we found.</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="21" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image020.jpg" width="216" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
More confirmation. That’s good.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="19" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image022.jpg" width="312" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
That’s bad. The ship record says his wife’s name is Elsa</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="26" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image024.jpg" width="564" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Ok, this is looking promising and it’s good news (bad news for Mileva but good news for us).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="23" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image026.jpg" width="228" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Bingo. That’s the ship record that we found. And apparently it was the first of several of his visits to the U.S.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<img height="22" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image028.jpg" width="492" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And in 1933 he came to live permanently in the U.S. This confirms that we found the correct record.</div>
... </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="color: #3d85c6;">
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Gold Form allows us to search on a traveling companion, so we can enter Elsa.... </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="132" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image030.jpg" width="550" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Now we get the following match:</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="110" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image031.jpg" width="477" /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
... now let’s search for Einstein using the All-New-York-Passengers Form, which accesses data that goes up to 1957. Although we can’t enter Elsa on this form, we now know Albert’s year of birth so we will use that information to narrow the search.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="127" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image033.jpg" width="538" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
And when we do the search we get the following results.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<img height="201" src="http://stevemorse.org/onestep/onestep3_files/image035.jpg" width="374" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There’s the 1921 arrival that we’ve seen and the 1933 arrival that we were hoping to find. There’s also a 1930 arrival, and further research shows that he had spent a year teaching at Stanford from 1930 to 1932....</div>
</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-44643292792752985982012-06-15T17:20:00.000+02:002012-06-15T17:20:37.276+02:00Nature's Tiniest Particles as Modern Science Currently Views ThemKarl Tate at LiveScience presents a visual view of how science currently views elementary particles at <a href="http://www.livescience.com/13613-strange-quarks-muons-nature-tiniest-particles-dissected.html">Strange Quarks and Muons, Oh My! Nature's Tiniest Particles Dissected (Infographic)</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.livescience.com/13613-strange-quarks-muons-nature-tiniest-particles-dissected.html"> <img alt=" standard model infographic" border="1" src="%20http://www.livescience.com/images/i/15889/i01/standard-model-physics-particles-infographic-110406g-02.jpg?1302199371" width="575" /></a><br />
Source:<a href="http://www.livescience.com/">LiveScience</a><br />
<br />
The essential problem with this modern view of "elementary particles" is that all essentials of the universe are relations and it is always relations that we are measuring. There is no such thing as "a particle" of any kind that stands motionless somewhere in nature and that is why the "tiniest" particles of the universe also act as "waves". It is like measuring a moving locomotive at the tiniest of levels. The locomotive has a front and a back and a middle too, so that establishing its location "precisely" even at rest is a function of the size of the measurement. The further away we are, the smaller the locomotive is relative to the rest of the measured world and the more "precisely" we can measure its location. The closer we get, the larger the locomotive is relative to the rest of the measured world, and the less "precisely" we can measure its location. When we get really close, we have to say what part of the locomotive is where to get it really right. When motion is added, it becomes even more difficult.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-26860060040935585792012-05-12T18:09:00.000+02:002012-05-12T18:09:51.947+02:00Penn Astrophysicists' Study of Stars in Nearby Galaxies Confirms Einstein's Theory of General RelativitySee the report at Phys.org at <a href="http://phys.org/news/2012-05-penn-astrophysicists-gravity-theory.html#firstCmt">Penn astrophysicists zero in on gravity theory</a> where it is written <i>inter alia</i>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="color: #3d85c6;">
"By innovatively analyzing a well-studied class of stars in nearby galaxies, Jain and his colleagues — Vinu Vikram, Anna Cabre and Joseph Clampitt at Penn and Jeremy Sakstein at the University of Cambridge — have produced new findings ... published on the Arxiv, [which] are a vindication of Einstein’s theory of gravity. Having survived a century of tests in the solar system, it has passed this new test in galaxies beyond our own as well."</div>
</blockquote>
<a href="http://phys.org/news/2012-05-penn-astrophysicists-gravity-theory.html#firstCmt">Read the full report</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-24866986451653177342012-05-06T14:50:00.000+02:002012-05-06T14:56:32.190+02:00Albert Einstein Archives Online: High Resolution Document Scans Available<br />
The Einstein Archives Online<br />
at <b><a href="http://alberteinstein.info/">alberteinstein.info</a></b>,<br />
are a joint project of the<br />
<ul>
<li><b> <a href="http://www.albert-einstein.org/" target="_blank">Albert Einstein Archives</a></b><a href="http://lib-authority.huji.ac.il/" target="_blank"><br />The Library Authority</a><br /><b><a href="http://www.huji.ac.il/huji/eng/index_e.htm" target="_blank">Hebrew University of Jerusalem</a></b><b><br /><a href="http://www.huji.ac.il/huji/index.htm"><img alt="The Hebrew University of Jerusalem" src="http://alberteinstein.info/e-main_files/hujiheb11.gif" style="border: 0px solid; height: 11px; width: 174px;" /></a></b>, and the</li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.einstein.caltech.edu/" target="_blank">Einstein Papers Project</a></b><br /><b><a href="http://www.caltech.edu/" target="_blank">California Institute of Technology</a></b><br />with the support of<br />the <b><a href="http://press.princeton.edu/einstein/" target="_blank">Princeton University Press</a></b></li>
</ul>
and now, <a href="http://alberteinstein.info/about.html" target="_blank">as part of a 2012 digitization project</a>,<br />
high resoluton document scans are being made available<br />
for <b>free</b> viewing or browsing.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://alberteinstein.info/database.html" target="_blank">Keyword search of the Archival Database</a></b> is provided<br />
together with a <a href="http://alberteinstein.info/finding_aid.html" target="_blank">Finding Aid to the Albert Einstein Archives</a>,<br />
which includes Einstein's Biographical Timeline.<br />
<br />
Hat tip to the just published print version of the German computer magazine CHIP, 06/2012, p. 11. See also online <a href="http://www.chip.de/" target="_blank">chip.de</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13275895.post-12642570587319695872012-04-16T00:20:00.001+02:002012-05-09T00:37:44.121+02:00The Hiccups Boson Revisited: Discovery News Reports that 'Faster-Than-Light' Neutrino Team Leaders Resign<br />
Discovery News Reports that <a href="http://news.discovery.com/space/opera-leaders-resign-after-no-confidence-vote-120404.html">'Faster-Than-Light' Neutrino Team Leaders Resign</a>.<br />
<br />
We posted about the Hiccups Boson previously at LawPundit in<br />
<br />
<a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/03/evidence-and-science-of-wishful.html">Evidence and The Science of Wishful Thinking: CERN Higgs Boson a Loose Cable: Faster than Light Neutrino is Nothing But a Fata Morgana -- a Mirage</a><br />
<br />
and at <a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Einstein's Voice</a> in<br />
<br />
<a href="http://einsteinsvoice.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-on-god-particle-hiccups-boson-oops.html" target="_blank">More on the God Particle - the Hiccups Boson, oops, Higgs Boson</a>.<br />
<br />
As usual,<br />
we were one of the FEW voices of outspoken reason<br />
remaining <b>in the world</b><br />
at a time when the gullible mainstream media<br />
were busy drumming up yet another "wishful thinking" story in science,<br />
a story which has turned out NOT to be true.<br />
<br />
Again, the LawPundit urges some of you out there to read my books and publications written about similar, <b>still existing MAJOR FLAWS </b>in current unfounded mainstream theories, especially in the archaeological and historical sphere.<br />
<br />
If the LawPundit while just sitting at his desk can spot flaws in high-tech theoretical physics where even the physicists do not initially see them, then maybe there is more credence than meets the eye to some of his other observations.<br />
<br />
Take a look at my most recent book:<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: ms reference sans serif,georgia,verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica;"><a href="http://www.epubli.com/shop/autor/Andis-Kaulins/3682">Ancient Signs The Alphabet & The Origins of Writing</a>,<a href="http://www.epubli.com/shop/autor/Andis-Kaulins/3682"><img align="left" alt="Ancient Signs" border="0" height="284" src="http://www.lawpundit.com/blog/Ancient%20Signs%20Front%20Book%20Cover%20For%20Blogs%20Websites.png" width="208" /></a> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: ms reference sans serif,georgia,verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica;">a <a href="http://www.epubli.com/shop/autor/Andis-Kaulins/3682">print</a> & <a href="http://www.epubli.com/shop/autor/Andis-Kaulins/3682">ebook,</a> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #333333; font-family: ms reference sans serif,georgia,verdana,tahoma,arial,helvetica;">which shows modern alphabets derive from ancient alphabets as derived from <i><b>syllabic scripts</b></i> (Sumer, Egypt, Iran, Anatolia, Crete, Cyprus). The book includes several key examples of consummate errors made by the mainstream humanities in erroneous analysis of critical issues of mankind's history.</span></span><br />
<br />
Crossposted from <a href="http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2012/04/hiccups-boson-revisited-discovery-news.html" target="_blank">LawPundit</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com