What will LHC give us: the particle of God, or magnetic trap

Ivan Gorelik · **Joined:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:59 am **Posts:** 43

What will LHC give us: the particle of God, or magnetic trap of Devil?

Magnetic trap is an axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole. It is 10^36 stronger than spherically symmetric gravitational black hole.
CERN’s specialists do not know about the magnetic trap yet. If microscopic magnetic trap will be made in CERN's LHC, the Earth will be transformed into an infinitely thin emptiness, surrounded by circular current of 6 meter radius. Compare: Schwarzschild radius of such mass is 0,009 meters. Half of Earth’s mass will be transformed into magnetic field of magnetic trap, and another half will be transformed into radiation.
Minimal possible magnetic trap has mass, which is equivalent to 1 TeV, or about 1055 masses of neutrons. It has magnetic field, which is equal to 3*10^16 teslas. Magnetic trap is a magnetic dipole, which can be imagined as an infinitely thin coil, creating the critical magnetic field.
Neutrons are smallest neutral magnets and they can be captured by magnetic trap, ejecting neutrino. Protons are also magnets and they can also be captured by the trap, ejecting positrons. Neutrons and protons are fermions, but after neutrino or positron ejection, they become bosons, - the quanta of stationery magnetic field of neutron hole.
Half of mass of captured particles goes to the energy of ejected particles, and the second half goes to the magnetic trap’s magnetic field. As a result of particle capture the radius of magnetic trap becomes bigger. It looks as widespreading magnetic soliton.
If magnetic trap of Devil will be made on collider, if the process of it’s growth will be slow (months, years), you will cry from pane, and your aggression towards big-bangers, who had made the experiment, will be much more, than mine aggression now.
Only crazy people can try to create particles with the rest mass more then 1000 masses of nucleon. It is possible that in the region from 1000 to 7000 aum, there can be created hundreds types of particles and resonances. It is clear, that the most of them will decay. But some of them will grow, capturing the ordinary matter.

Different types of growing particles will work on different forces, and on combinations of forces.
I hope that mBHs, connected by gravity force, are impossible and safe.
But magnetic traps are 10^36 stronger, and they are the most probable candidates to explain the majority of cosmic catastrophes – novae, supernovae... I had understood this only this September.
Academician Migdal wrote 30 years ago about pion condensation in strong fields. As a result he had come to conclusion that neutron stars can have any masses. My approximate computation shows that the minimal possible neutron star has a mass, equal to 1055 masses of nucleons, and such embryo of neutron star can by made in collider.

A month ago the article were published that new strange unexpected particle was discovered at Tevatron. It decays at several muons, up to eight units. Somebody had already named it the Halloween particle. I named it the muon hole.

What will be made the next, the magnetic trap of Devil? It will not decay, but it will transform us into it’s magnetic field.

Astronomers see magnetic traps in the sky but think that they are black holes.

SN 1987A.

Those persons, with high ranks and high scientific degrees, who cry about the safety of LHC must be arrested now, because they are committing the global terrorist crime now.

Stop Tevatron and close the LHC.

Hubble constant (H, Hbar) is the mirror reflection of Plank constant (h, hbar). These both constants are describing the 4d-rotation on opposite scales relatively us. Precise value of Hubble constant you can find on my web-site. http://darkenergy.narod.ru/ That is my Steady State model of Universe. I worked with this model more than 30 years, and I did not receive any cent for my work. And now big-bangers want to kill me, my children, and all of you. Big-bangers want to touch the particle of God, but thus, they lead all of us into the magnetic trap of Devil.

The knowing of a future catastrophe and impossibility to prevent it makes me crazy. Here is my madman ravings: Fasten your belts! We are ready to fly in icy comets to other planet systems in order to bust the panspermia. What is better: to nuke the LHC and CERNs headquarters, or to let the CERN to explode the Earth and throw out all of us into cosmos, as seeds of new civilizations? The letter to Osama bin Laden: “Dear terrorist! Give me an air-plane with couple of nuclear bombs. I’ll drop the first bomb at LHC and the second on the CERN’s headquarters. Otherwise, we all will die because the global terrorists from CERN want to create the magnetic trap of Devil.”

Eppy · **Posted:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:14 pm

Like it was said to you in other forums, your strange idea (I wouldn't call it theory) doesn't make sense at all.

In the magnetic theory I know (aka the theory teached at universitys) you need something that produce a magentic field (e.g. a electron in an atom). How does your "axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole" (what ever that could be, are there symmetries in points?) "produce" a magnetic field? And even if you imagine a magnetic dipole you don't get a trap, just a dipole.

Ivan Gorelik wrote:

Neutrons are smallest neutral magnets and they can be captured by magnetic trap, ejecting neutrino. Protons are also magnets

No, you need the coupling of a electron with the magnetic moment of a proton or neutron to get a magnet.

Ivan Gorelik wrote:

Neutrons and protons are fermions, but after neutrino or positron ejection, they become bosons

Why would the eject a positron or neutrino? There have been experiments with atoms or protons in magnetic fields for over a century, and I'm sure I would have read about such a behaviour. In the LHC and other particle accelerators protons are steered by magentic fields, they are more or less in a magnetic trap. Are there great positron showers? Beside I sense problem of momentum conversation in your idea.

Ivan Gorelik · **Joined:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:59 am **Posts:** 43

Quote:

How does your "axial-symmetric magnetic analogue of a black hole"... "produce" a magnetic field?

They say: nucleon consists from three quarks.
I say: nucleon has three poles.

They say: electron is particle with classic radius, r.
I say: electron is a string (quasi-closed circumference), covering all Universe. In order to “run along this whole string” electron spends its classic time, t = 2 pi r / c. Here is my program.

They imagine quark-gluon plasma, as peas in a poke.
I say: idiots, such imagination will lead us to global catastrophe.

Particle collision energies and bombs:
Several eV – chemical bomb;
Several MeV – nuclear bomb;
Several TeV – hyper bomb. (Example: SN 1987A)

Chemical bomb – change in chemical structure of matter.
Nuclear bomb – change in nuclear structure of matter.
Hyper bomb – transformation of matter into field: mc^2 --- > LI^2.

What is Higgs boson?
Mass creating particle of God, or mass destructing magnetic trap of Devil?

Do you want to touch It?

Go and look at it in the cosmos:

Eppy · **Posted:** Sat Dec 27, 2008 4:22 pm

Ivan Gorelik wrote:

Particle collision energies and bombs:
Several eV – chemical bomb;
Several MeV – nuclear bomb;
Several TeV – hyper bomb. (Example: SN 1987A)

I say: energy is a extensive property

robdegraves · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 am **Posts:** 1131

Well... I was avoiding this one because it's too obviously a serious crackpot. However, I have found something fun to help pass the time.

Quote:

The Crackpot Index
John Baez

A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics:

1. A -5 point starting credit.

2. 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

3. 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

4. 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5. 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

6. 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

7. 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

8. 5 points for each mention of "Einstien", "Hawkins" or "Feynmann".

9. 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10. 10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

11. 10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it. (10 more for emphasizing that you worked on your own.)

12. 10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don't know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

13. 10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

14. 10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

15. 10 points for each statement along the lines of "I'm not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations".

16. 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.

17. 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn't explain "why" they occur, or fails to provide a "mechanism".

18. 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

19. 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".

20. 20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index. (E.g., saying that it "suppresses original thinkers" or saying that I misspelled "Einstein" in item 8.)

21. 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

22. 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

23. 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

24. 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

25. 20 points for naming something after yourself. (E.g., talking about the "The Evans Field Equation" when your name happens to be Evans.)

26. 20 points for talking about how great your theory is, but never actually explaining it.

27. 20 points for each use of the phrase "hidebound reactionary".

28. 20 points for each use of the phrase "self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy".

29. 30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30. 30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

31. 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

32. 30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

33. 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

34. 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

35. 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

36. 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

37. 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

Right now, based on your webpage, I have arrived at a preliminary crackpot score of...

159

That's just using the front page and your post here. I imagine the score would sky rocket if I went to the many other pages linked to your website. Of course, I could have miscounted some... I will let others do their own count and see if I was accurate.

I especially like this part from your website...

Quote:

I know:

* The real cosmology, Steady State model without expansion, will win.
* The erroneous astrophysics will be ruined. Try my program Arc Effect (exe-file). The mirror is here: http://webcenter.ru/~igorelik/arc.exe. 70 kb.
* The press-nuclear reactions will be carried out.
* Every family in future will have their own compact press-nuclear electric generator.
* These generators will be such widespread in future, as personal computers are widespread now.
* Your grandchildren will have the cars with press-nuclear engines, but not You.
Because, the most of you don't believe me now.

I am curious as to why you don't build any of these marvelous devices. I am also curious as to why you are not published in any Russian scientific publications.

Well... other than the obvious of course.

pavel · **Joined:** Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:22 am **Posts:** 97

Rob, I think you are losing some credibility here, even among some of your regular advocates.
Your intervention is more inconsistent and incoherent than Ivan's.
And I have a similar question for you: why you are not published in any scientific critical publications. As a historian you could be an authentic physicist.

robdegraves · **Joined:** Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:28 am **Posts:** 1131

Hmmm...

Quote:

Rob, I think you are losing some credibility here, even among some of your regular advocates.

Any basis to this or are you just making stuff up? You hardly count as a regular advocate so what are you basing your statement on?

Quote:

Your intervention is more inconsistent and incoherent than Ivan's.

Gosh, I hope not.

Again, is this just your opinion? I believe it is. Considering that I have not been impressed with your opinion so far... I feel fine with my statements to date.

Quote:

And I have a similar question for you: why you are not published in any scientific critical publications. As a historian you could be an authentic physicist.

Good question.

I am published... in historical publications(mind you, not major ones nor have I published any books on the subject, yet). When I finish my phd, that will be published as well... in historical publications.

However...

1. I never said I was a physicist.
2. I am not advancing any new theory of physics.... therefore have nothing to publish on the subject.
3. I don't have to be a physicist to point out logical or rational flaws. You have been trying to do so for a while now, sadly in a very poorly reasoned fashion, and you are not a physicist either.
4. I don't have to be a physicist to learn real physics.
5. I don't have to be a real physicist to read and understand what real physicists have to say.

Eppy · **Posted:** Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:56 pm

Well, I would say that Rob's post was very consistent with the topic.

But I have a question: is 159 a high crackpot score? I would assume yes, because after I read Ivan Gorelik's theory elsewhere, I was astonished by his web site and the results of googling some of the terms he used and I never heard of before (well, there was a reason for this ...). But at lesst I learned intersting things about cold fusion ...

Ivan Gorelik · **Joined:** Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:59 am **Posts:** 43

robdegraves wrote:

...crackpot score...159...

I especially like this part from your website...

Quote:

I know:
* The real cosmology, Steady State model without expansion, will win.
* The erroneous astrophysics will be ruined. Try my program Arc Effect (exe-file). The mirror is here: http://webcenter.ru/~igorelik/arc.exe. 70 kb.
* The press-nuclear reactions will be carried out.
* Every family in future will have their own compact press-nuclear electric generator.
* These generators will be such widespread in future, as personal computers are widespread now.
* Your grandchildren will have the cars with press-nuclear engines, but not You.
Because, the most of you don't believe me now.

I am curious as to why you don't build any of these marvelous devices. I am also curious as to why you are not published in any Russian scientific publications...

It is impossible to build these marvelous devices alone.
You know fusion and fission. I proposed the new reaction with catalyst. There is no need of proton over-crossing the Coulomb barrier of the nuclei. Proton will transform into neutron in the “atmosphere” of K40.

The reaction is written in two lines:
…
K40 + p --> Ca40 + n + 0.529 MeV.
K39 + n --> K40 + 7.8 MeV.
…
The catalyst is the rare isotope K40. It is disappear in the first reaction, and appear in the second reaction.

CERN physicists now working with TeV energies and can explode the Earth.
If they would work with million times less energies, in the MeV region, they would already make my “marvelous devices”.

But now I am in the very hard situation, - I think about the murder.

You know, the courts did not stop the CERN.
The Earth could already been exploded the 21 of September of 2008 by CERN.
The accident, which happened two days earlier at LHC, had saved us.

What would you do?

Situation 1.

Bandits attack you and your family. You have a gun. To prevent the killing of your relatives, you must kill bandits.

Question: Will you kill the bandits, or will you silently endure the massacre?

Situation 2.

You are 80% sure that the launch of the collider means the death of humankind. Scientists and prosecutors do not believe you and your arguments. You understand that the killing of two or three main promoters of the experiment will attract the public attention to the experiment, and it can be eventually banned.

Question: Will you kill a couple of scientists, or will quietly wait for the universal death?

My situation is much worse comparatively to other opponents of LHC.
They fear stranglets, microscopic black holes, monopoles.
I fear magnetic trap.
Magnetic trap is much more real.
I know that it can be made at LHC with the probability of 80%.
What can I do?

Eppy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:57 pm

Ivan Gorelik wrote:

What can I do?

Bring your theory in a form that doesn't scream "I'm totally wrong". (little advice: read this http://www.lhcconcerns.com/LHCConcerns/Forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=736)

When you've done that, than you are either reliefed that you're theory was wrong or you can convince other people that you have a point. You need really good arguments when you are so far outside the mainstream.

What will LHC give us: the particle of God, or magnetic trap

Who is online