China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider.

与中文翻译。

Chen-Ning Yang Says China Should Not Build Super Particle Collider.

On 7 September, Dr. C.N. Yang released an article on WeChat expressing his views that China should not build the world’s largest particle collider. His main reason, other than being very costly, is that such a machine would not gain us much scientific knowledge or benefit to society. We may even read into his reason as a hint that particle physics – strictly the Standard Model of particle physics – may lead us to nowhere. We will examine if particle physics is indeed useful.

International Press of Boston:

http://intlpress.sinaapp.com/blog/essay.php?id=5

David Gross, a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science, responded to Dr.Yang’s comment on:
High-energy physics produced any “tangible benefits” to society?

Yes! Even taking an extremely narrow view of this question, the technologies directly springing from particle physics have spawned huge industries that generate revenues far exceeding the magnitude of the investment in basic science. The multi-billion dollar accelerator industry, operating thousands of small-scale particle accelerators around the world ranging from light sources, to medical accelerators for cancer-fighting radiation therapies, owes its existence to particle physics. And the need for powerful magnets at proton colliders necessitated the development of superconducting magnet technology, itself a billion dollar industry, which are the critical component for MRI machines, a five billion dollar industry.

David Gross, being a physicists, seems to not know much about economics. You can hypothetically create a “billion dollar industries” from a huge unused mountain and you spend billions moving it back and forth between two locations – repeatedly ad infinitum. Surely, billion dollar secondary industries may arise around new technologies for moving mountains around  “better and faster” giving larger revenues – they somehow would still end up to be of some use somewhere.

It is a myth that particle physics from CERN (operator of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) which discovered the Higgs Boson) has given society any new physics that resulted in any new technology – not one item, directly. The Standard Model involves so far only in fanciful concepts like quark, color charge, etc and none has anything to do with what engineers could use in their work. The very great technological advances of the past decades have nothing at all to do with the experiments carried out at CERN; they were nothing other than the result of empirical experimentation based on physics that have been around for decades since the breakthrough in quantum mechanics of the 1930’s.

Einstein’s Special Relativity and E=mc² Fictitious

http://www.emc2fails.com
(What follows has minimal physics which any freshman physics undergraduate could easily follow – and see for themselves; don’t ever need to blindly believe)
Most people would react with disbelief when told that E=mc² is fictitious. Is it not the famous “atomic bomb” formula, the reason why the atomic bomb works, why the nuclear reactor works. Yes indeed! The formula is probably correct as a estimate of the huge energy released from nuclear fission reactions when some mass goes “missing” and it is estimated to be converted to energy according to E=mc². What is fictitious is not about the physics of the relation between mass-deficit and nuclear binding energy, but when E=mc² is extended through special relativity to the topic of relativistic mechanics. According to relativistic mechanics, a particle’s mass approaches infinity (just keep increasing) as the particle is accelerated to near the light speed c (299792458 m/s). Its speed may go as close to c as technology permits, but it will never go faster than c – nothing travels faster than light. That’s the theory from special relativity. But is the theory good and well tested? Yes! – and so they say from the physics departments of  top universities like Princeton and Cambridge.

They Invented Relativistic Momentum
Relativistic mechanics began when they invented a “new” momentum to replace the old momentum of Newton’s which was the working momentum that never ever failed for three centuries and still is as valid as ever before – with a caveat of course depending on which “camp” you belong to. Classical Newtonian mechanics defines momentum  as: p=mv;  the Newtonian force F = d/dt(mv) = ma giving the famous formula of Newton’s second law as : F = ma or mass x acceleration. It is also through this definition of force in physics that the standard SI unit of force, the newton, is defined as kg.m/s² (kilogram.meter/second²). After the introduction of Einstein’s special relativity in 1905, they began developing a “new and better” mechanics to replace Newtonian mechanics. They first invented a new relativistic momentum – through a redefinition of momentum. They replaced momentum p=mv with
p = (1/√(1-v²/c²))mv = γmv where  γ = 1/√(1-v²/c²). In other words, having an extra “gamma” factor to the old momentum of p=mv.

The New and The Old Mechanics Do Not Mix
Of course, when a fundamental definition of a physics theory is changed, it becomes a new physics – another physics and another mechanics. The new and the old do not mix – the Heaven accepts one and will reject the other. So which of the mechanics will Heaven accept – the 300-years-tested Newtonian mechanics or the popular-100-year special relativity mechanics? Only Heaven knows? But we may try to find an answer based on a rigorous scientific argument.

With a new relativistic momentum definition of p= γmv, the new relativists assumed that they could invoke Newton’s second law for their definition of force.  In “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy”, the “Principia” of Newton, the second law is:

Law 2. Change of motion is proportional to impressed motive force.

Newton’s “motion” is our momentum of mass x velocity; in calculus, it would mean: force is proportional to rate of change of momentum; or F = d/dt(mv) = ma. Isaac Newton himself wrote “force proportional to motion”  – and forgot about what he had written earlier about proportionality! He just used “force= mass x acceleration” himself. No one after Newton tried to define a “new momentum” and then invoked the original Newton’s second law with it until physicists invented relativistic mechanics. They then go back to the “original” laws of motion of Sir Isaac Newton, picked the second law, hoping to create a new mechanics to be “better” than Newton’s mechanics. You have the wish to create a “better” mechanics, but how about the Heavens – will your new creation find favor with Heaven? Newton’s mechanics received the full Blessings of the Heavens for a full 300 years and Heaven showed no sign that Newton was ever wrong – not once. What about relativistic mechanics? Heaven permits controversies on Einstein’s relativity theories to rage unabated on Earth for more then a hundred years since special relativity was proposed in 1905.

LHC Protons with energy 6.5 TeV or 470 MeV?
The new definition of force in relativistic mechanics is now f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv}; any freshman physics undergrad can easily see that it is very different from f = d/dt(mv) = ma. Kinetic energy is derived from the work-energy theorem of : work = force x distance. So a new definition certainly would give rise to new formula  for kinetic energy. The classical kinetic formula for kinetic energy is KE = ½ mv². Of course, we expect a very different formula of kinetic energy for relativistic mechanics as momentum and force definitions have changed. The derivation of relativistic KE formula is given in most modern textbook of physics; the formula is  KE = (1/√(1-v²/c²) – 1)mc² or KE = (γ-1)mc². As an example, it is reported by CERN that the kinetic energy of their protons have been accelerated to as high as 6.5 TeV (6.5 x 10¹² electron volts). This is because the speed of the protons are traveling at almost 0.99995c  – almost at the light speed (γ is large and therefore KE large). But if we use the classical kinetic formula of
KE = ½ mv², the kinetic energy would be just 470 Mev (½ mass-proton x c²) – different by a factor of 15,000!  So what is the true kinetic energy of the protons within the LHC – 6.5 TeV or 470 MeV? No one knows the answer! No one has ever measured the energy of such protons directly (the only direct measure in general is through calorimetry – conversion to heat energy for measurement).

Relativistic Kinetic Energy is Fictitious
Physics need to have a system of standard of units for various fundamental quantities. We currently have the SI units which has standard definitions of mass, length and time with the kilogram, meter, second. The standard unit for force is the newton (symbol N) making use of Newton’s second law as an axiom: force = mass x acceleration giving the newton to be kg.m/s². The definition of force determines the unit for energy and energy in SI unit is the joule, or
kg.m²/s²  or newton-meter. What about the new relativistic mechanics with their definition of force as:

f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv} — (I)

Question: What is the relativistic standard of unit for force in the SI units?

Answer: There is no provision in the SI units for a standard of force for relativistic mechanics.

Raw from gut feelings, you react immediately with disbelief  – How could it be! How could anyone create a mechanics and which has not a defined standard unit for force.  Without a defined unit for force, how are they to have a standard unit of energy (work = energy= force x distance) with which they calculate energy? I don’t know – you may try and think about it yourself. The SI unit of newton comes from f=ma and the relativistic force comes from : f = d/dt {(1/√(1-v²/c²))mv} – try staring intently at this latter formula and see if you could convince yourself that you could finally come out with a way to a unit of energy (W=E = force x distance) that is the same SI units as the joule.

Only a miracle could make the unit of energy for Newtonian mechanics compatible to any unit of energy (if any) in relativistic mechanics.

You could go ask the physics professors in Fudan university, Tsinghua University or the Chinese physicists from the Institute of High Energy Physics (IHEP).

The relativists 100 years ago created a new relativistic mechanics redefining momentum arbitrarily and assumed that – just because they followed Newton’s original second law to the letter – that everything else would follow naturally. Heaven allows only one way to define the concept of momentum so that the mechanics may be used to predict dynamic motions with their equations. You either define p = mv or p = γmv – only one will work. The Newtonian units for force and energy have been implemented and used successfully for a full 300 years without failure. The new relativistic mechanics cannot be used at all to define any real standard unit of force or energy with which to calculate. So how have they “successfully” incorporated relativistic mechanics into their high energy physics and their Standard Model of particle physics? Answer:  They are all calculating energy based on a fictitious scale; they just assume that they still could calculate force in SI newton and energy in SI joule. They cannot! Their physics are all based on fictitious values.

It is not without reason that the Standard Model of particle physics has not given us any technological innovation from their physics that enters into our everyday life – not one! CERN initially was meant to be for peaceful nuclear research for the betterment of society, but they have not given us any practical nuclear physics despite their “God” particle of the Higgs boson. They could not solve the fundamental of fusion of hydrogen into helium which would have solved all our energy needs – hydrogen is cheap and freely available from water(H₂O).

So the reason for the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters (also the smog “disaster” of China) is because we are still using the same “dirty” fission nuclear reactors whose basic physics is no different from what we already know a hundred years back – all very old physics.

We have been sidelined from investing our resources into real physics by pursuing  fictitious particle physics. Should China build the next generation of super particle accelerators? Should China follow the lead of the physicists from Princeton and Cambridge? Following the leaders on a sure path to nowhere!

Chan Rasjid Kah Chew,
Singapore.

http://www.emc2fails.com

杨振宁已经说了,中国不应该建立超级粒子对撞机。

9月7日2016,杨振宁博士先生发表了一篇关于中国不应该建立世界上最大的粒子对撞机的意见的文章。 他的主要原因,除了非常昂贵的是,这样的机器不会获得我们更多的科学知识或对社会有利。 我们甚至可以看出他的理由,暗示粒子物理学(严格的粒子物理学标准模型)可能导致我们无处可寻。 我们将研究颗粒物理学是否确实有用。

International Press of Boston,,
http://intlpress.sinaapp.com/blog/essay.php?id=5
中国科学院外国人戴维·格罗斯(David Gross)回应杨博士的评论:
高能物理学对社会产生了“实实在在的好处”。

“是的,即使对这个问题的看法非常狭窄,从粒子物理学直接出现的技术也产生了巨大的行业,这些行业的收入远远超过了基础科学投资的规模,数十亿美元的加速器行业, 世界范围内的尺寸粒子加速器,从光源到用于抗癌辐射治疗的医疗加速器,其存在于粒子物理学中。在质子碰撞器中需要强大的磁体需要开发超导磁体技术,其本身为十亿美元 行业,这是MRI机器的关键组成部分,一个50亿美元的行业。“

作为物理学家,大卫·格罗斯(David Gross)似乎对经济学不太了解。 你可以假设从一个巨大的未使用的山地创造一个“十亿美元的工业”,你花费数十亿美元在两个地点之间来回移动山脉,反复无限。 当然,新兴技术可能出现十亿美元的第二产业,围绕“更好,更快”地提高收入 – 他们以某种方式仍然会在某些地方使用。

这只是一个神话说,CERN大型强子对撞机(LHC)的粒子物理学给了社会新的物理学,直接导致了新的技术。到目前为止,标准模型仅涉及奇特的概念,例如夸克,色彩收费,没有任何工程师可以在工作中使用。 过去几十年的巨大技术进步与CERN进行的实验无关;他们只是在二十世纪三十年代量子力学突破以来的数十年来,对物理学的经验实验结果。

爱因斯坦的狭义相对论和E =mc²虚构:
以下是最 简单的物理学,任何新生物理学本科生都可以轻易地遵循 – 并且自己看;不要盲目相信)
当被告知E=mc²是虚构的时候,大多数人会不敢相信。是不是着名的“原子弹”公式,原子弹的原因是什么,为什么核反应堆工作。确实是的!该公式可能是正确的,因为当一些质量“缺失”时,从核裂变反应释放的巨大能量的估计是正确的,并且估计根据E=mc² 将其转换为能量。虚构的不是关于大规模赤字与核能结合能量之间的关系的物理学,而是当 E=mc² 通过相对论力学来延伸。根据相对论力学,当粒子加速到接近光速 c(299792458 m/s)时,粒子的质量接近无穷大(只是持续增加)。它的速度可能会像技术许可一样接近c,但是它永远不会比c快 – 没有比光快。这就是狭义相对论的理论。但是,这个理论是否良好,测试良好?从普林斯顿大学和剑桥大学这样的顶尖大学的物理学系来说,答案是,是!

他们发明了相对论动力:
相对论力量开始时,他们发明了一种“新”的动力来取代牛顿的老势头,这是三个世纪以来从未失败的工作动力,仍然像以往一样有效;当然这取决于你所属的“阵营”。古典牛顿力学将动量定义为: p = mv; 牛顿力: F=d/dt(mv)= ma 给出牛顿第二定律的着名公式为:F = ma 或质量x加速度。 通过物理学力量的这种定义,将标准 SI 力单位牛顿定义为 kg.m/s²(千克/秒)。 在爱因斯坦在 1905 年的狭义相对论之后,他们开始开发一种 “新的更好的” 力学来取代牛顿力学。他们首先发明了一种新的相对论动力 – 通过重新定义动量。 动量: p = mv 现在被 : p =(1 /√(1-v²/c²))mv =γmv 取代了;其中 γ= 1/√(1-v²/c²)。换句话说,对于旧的动量 p = mv 具有额外的 “γ” 因子。

新旧不混合:
当然,当物理学理论的基本定义发生变化时,它将成为一种新的物理学,另一种力学。 新老不能共在; 天只接受一个,拒绝另一个。 那么天接受哪一个呢? 经过 300年考验的牛顿力学还是受欢迎的100年的狭义相对力学。 只有天才知道吗。 但是我们可能会尝试根据严格的科学论证找到答案。

新的相对主义者以 p =γmv 的新的相对论动量定义,假设他们可以援引牛顿第二定律来定义力量。 在“自然哲学的数学原理”中,牛顿的“原则”第二定律是:

法则2. 运动的变化与压力的动力成正比。

牛顿的“动作”是我们的质量x速度的动量;在微积分中,这意味着:力与动量变化率成比例;或: F=d/dt(mv)=ma。 艾萨克·牛顿本人写道:“与动作成比例的力量”,但很快就忘记了自己写了什么,只使用了“力=质量加速度”。牛顿之后没有人试图定义一个“新的动力”,然后用它引用了原来的牛顿第二定律,直到物理学家发明了相对论力学。然后他们回到以艾萨克·牛顿爵士的“原始”议案,挑选了第二部法律,希望能创造出一种比牛顿力学更好的新理论。你希望创造一个“更好的”,但天怎么样看呢?  你的新创作将会与天相处吗?牛顿的力学 已经收到了全天的祝福,满 300年,天没有表明牛顿是错的 – 不是一次。相对论力学呢?自1905年提出狭义相对论以来,天允许爱因斯坦相对论的争议在地球上继续了一百多年。

LHC质子能量为 6.5 TeV 或 470 MeV?
在相对论力学,力的新定义现在是: f=d/dt{1/√1-v²/c²))mv}; 任何新生物理本科都可以很容易地看到它与: f=d/dt(mv)=ma  是不同。  动能来自于工作能量定理:工作=力x距离。所以一个新的定义肯定会产生新的动能公式。 动能的经典动力学公式为: KE=½mv²。 当然,对于相对论力学,我们预期动力学的动力与动力定义发生了变化。大多数现代物理学教科书都给出了相对论KE公式的推导;公式为: KE=(1/√(1-v²/c²)-1)m₀c² 或 :KE=(γ-1)m₀c²。 例如,CERN报道,其质子的动能已经加速到高达 6.5 TeV(6.5 x 10¹¹电子伏特)。 这是因为质子的速度几乎在 0.99995c – 几乎以光速。但是,如果我们使用:KE =½mv² 的经典动力学公式,则动能将仅为 470MeV – 这不是相当于 15000 倍的差异吗?那么 LHC 内质子的真实动能是什么? 6.5TeV 或 470MeV? 没有人知道答案!没有人直接测量这些质子的能量 (唯一的直接措施是通过量热法 – 转换为热能 进行测量)。

相对论动能是虚构的:
物理学需要有各种基本量的单位标准体系。我们目前拥有质量,长度和时间的标准定义的SI单位,千克,米,秒。力的标准单位是使用牛顿第二定律作为公理的牛顿(符号N):force =ma,使牛顿为 kg.m/s²。 力的定义决定了SI单位的能量和能量单位是焦耳,或 kg.m²/s² 或牛顿米。 新的相对论力量与力的定义如何:

f=d/dt{ (1/√(1-v²/c²)) mv} -(I)

SI 单位的力量单位标准是什么?答:SI 单位没有规定相对论力学的力量标准。从肠道的感觉中,你不可思议地立即作出反应 – 怎么可能?任何人都可以创建一个力学,而且没有一个确定的标准的力量单位。没有一个确定的力量单位,他们如何计算能量的标准能量单位(工作=能量=力x距离)?我不知道 – 你可以尝试自己想一想。牛顿的SI单位来自: f=ma,相对论力来自:f=d/dt{(1/√(1-v²/c²)) mv} – 试图盯着后一个公式,看看是否可以说服自己,终于可以以一种能量的方式出来,这是与焦耳相同的SI单位。

只有一个奇迹可以使牛顿力学的能量单位与相对论力学中的任何能量单位(如果有的话)相兼容。

你可以去问清华大学,复旦大学的物理教授们,还有高能物理研究所的中国物理学家们。

100年前的相对主义者创造了一种新的相对论力学,任意地重新定义动量。并假设 只是因为他们遵循牛顿的原来的第二定律, 其他一切都将自然而然地遵循。天只允许一种方式定义动量概念,以便力学可以用它们的方程来预测动态运动。你定义p = mv或p =γmv, 但只有一个是正确的。 牛顿力学的力量和能量部队已经实施并成功应用了300多年,从来没有失败过。新的相对论力学根本不能用来定义任何实际的标准力或力量单位来计算。那么他们如何“成功”将相对论力学纳入其高能物理学及其粒子物理学的标准模型呢?答:他们都是以虚构的尺度计算能量;他们只是假设他们仍然可以计算SI牛顿和SI焦耳中的能量的力。他们不可以!他们的物理学都是虚构的。

粒子物理学的标准模型没有给我们任何真正的物理学突破,允许我们的工程师用来研究和发明新技术。CERN最初是用于核研究(可能是和平利用核能改善社会),但是尽管他们的“神”粒子是希格斯玻色子,但是他们还没有给我们任何新的核物理学。它们无法解决氢气与氦气的融合,这将解决我们所有的能源需求(氢气便宜并且可以从水 H₂O 中自由获得)。所以切尔诺贝尔和福岛灾难的原因(也是中国的烟雾“灾难”)是因为我们仍然在使用同样的“脏”裂变核反应堆,其基本物理学与我们已经知道的一百年前没有什么不同非常古老的物理学。

我们坚持追求虚构的粒子物理学,而不是把我们的资源用于研究实际的物理学。 那么中国是否应该建立下一代超级粒子加速器。中国是否应该跟随普林斯顿大学和剑桥物理学家的领导,跟随领导者走一个确定无结果的路径!

陈家钊拉希德
新加坡,
http://www.emc2fails.com