User talk:Dark Formal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dark Formal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

(judgind from your contributions either you ve been here for quite a time, either you are really good... in any case receive a warm salute on my behalf)--Greece666 23:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Need help in discussing a list

Greetings; if you would visit the call for discussion at this page, I'd be grateful for your input. Thanks! Talk:List_of_German-language_philosophers Best, Universitytruth 13:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strangelet article

You removed a large amount of material from this article without explanation. I have now readded the material under a seperate subheader. Please feel free to discuss this issue on the article's talk page. --Darksun 15:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC) back from holidays as usual all is erased... Dark formal, if youa re the 'boss' of this article, fill up the advances of the past 20 years... This is a theoretical article... in which 2 things should on my view appear, the last theoretical advances made in the subject by madsen, wilczek and the chinese research teams. This should include: the stability of strangers under the standard MIT bag constrictions. The growth of strangelet and its perceived reaction in neutron stars, namely the ice-9 reaction. The possible existence of strangelet matter, as the next stage of evolution of strangelet plasma. Now strangelet on my perception of english is any kind of matter that contains strange quarks, which are the quarks that bind up and down into a more stable configuation than ordinary matter. QGP which is what it was done at rhic is just the previous phase to QGM, Quark gluon matter. And if as those people seem to have proved it is a ground state of matter, it is obvious that an ice-9 reaction will be exogenic, that is produce more enegy than it needs (so it will be fusion not fission), and as all erxogenic reactions very easy to produce by any 'accidental' runaway process. This is what i want to put and connect to LHC. This is an objective view of the dangers involved. Trust me if i tell you that i am one of the physicist who stands to gain more on his original research when the LHC goes on line... So i have little enthusiasm for strangelet theory but i read all those articles and to me Theory and we believe in theory that is why we are scientists, makes an ice-9 reaction at cern 'very likely'... I wonder how much pression wilczeck and you have not to develop sound physics on that field. No, i know. I know the pressure and warnings i have received but at this point i dont care a shit about my career, whatever contributions i have made to Relativity they will stand regardless of my confrontation with lhc which seems is going to grow as there is here a clear case of professional responsability. I have very clear that this profession like all can be used to make good and evil... What is eviL, the anti-particle of LIve, what makes cern increasingly looking more like teller with his obsession with bigger machines and bigger bombs than einstein is precisely the fact that strange physics is being hidden as the research in H-bombs were, that today the machine, the praxis, matters more than the thought experiments, the info on strangelets that should be explained properly to politicans and the people, so they not us decide if we are risking their lives for our ambitions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homocion (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photons from special relativity

Hello there. Thanks for your comment regarding the 'photons from special relativity' query. In special relativity, it is possible derive E=hf by assuming that light has a certain frequency and energy (or momentum if you want to think in those terms). Once the four-momentum for light is defined (without necessarily referring to any de Broglie type of hypothesis), it is straightforward to deduce the above energy-frequency relation. Of course, the problem then becomes how to interpret E=hf. From what I remember, from E=hf it is fairly easy to argue that light must be quantised (I have to double check this). MP (talk) 07:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stigma

Yea, it doesnt look much like the letter. its kinda like when i was learning greek and the teacher used to write in cursive and confuse us all. It doesnt really help anybody, just shows a place where it could have been used i guess.Grk1011 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Question about the Large Hadron Collider

Hi, I understand that you are an expert on/at the LHC, and therefore I would like to ask you the following:

Has anyone took into consideration the direction of the colliding beams at the LHC relative to the sun? I guess nobody wants to send any strange thing that might be created straight into it. This might happen if the collision takes place around the east-west direction at around 6 o’clock in the morning or afternoon. My idea is that the direction of the colliding beams should be north-south (as much as possible) so that in case something nasty is created, its trajectory will be approximately perpendicular to the solar system plane. Also the speed of the thing should be at least five to ten times the solar escape velocity of 42,1 km/s, lets say, 0.001c just to be sure. But for this, the energy of the beams must be imbalanced to some degree. Is this a reasonable thing to ask from CERN to take in consideration or not?

Best regards,

--LF1975 (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am an expert on strange matter, not the LHC. I don't think fine-tuning the direction is really relevant. If LHC had a real risk of making objects that would consume the earth then we would want to keep it switched off. No-one would be satisfied with hoping they would go zooming off and not do any harm. I don't know if the risk is real, and I am not against having some mention of it in the LHC article. I'm just trying to stop Homocion from filling the LHC and strangelet pages with incorrect/unbalanced material.

[edit] Need help with disputes from the new artilcle "Ice-9 fusion"

Can you help me handle this ongoing dispute over this new article Ice-nine fusion In my opinon it should not exist because it just talks about the doomsday scenario from the stranglets article. I being outnumbered by others who take adds infomation that contain orignal research and unverfided or inaccessible clams. 58.178.129.28 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The E=mc² Barnstar
This is just to note and thank you for your contributions to the Large Hadron Collider article and in doing so upholding Wikipedia's Neutral point of view. Khukri 16:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Expert Opinion

I have a question for you about strangelet safety. Wouldn't this paper "Detectability of strange matter in heavy ion experiments"(http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/9611052v1) suggest there is a very real possibility of a dangerous strangelet being produced. Thanks! 24.4.159.184 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Formal: That paper is already cited in the strangelet article. The paper argues that negatively charged strangelets may be able to exist for a short time, before decaying to positively charged ones. This is not the "ice-9" scenario of negatively charged stable strangelets, but it is worth mentioning. Dark Formal (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Is this decay a different process than what is discussed by Madsen in "Intermediate mass strangelets are positively charged"(http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0008217)? 24.4.159.184 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Dark Formal: Thanks for pointing this out. Madsen is saying that even if small negatively charged strangelets live for long enough to "eat" some nuclei, when they have eaten a certain amount they will become positively charged and stop eating. This may be a bit too detailed to mention in the strangelet article, but I could be persuaded... Dark Formal (talk) 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good news I hope Madsen's work applies to neutral strangelets too. 24.4.159.184 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Legal injunction LHC

Hi, you may wish to read the legal petition by Walter L. Wagner (bottom one here) due to be put forward (or has been already) to the district court in Hawaii looking for an injunction of the LHC startup, you and your edits to the LHC article have been quoted. Regards Khukri 10:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about it. In the petition he says he "agrees" with me that LHC poses a "significant risk", when it is clear I didn't say anything like that at all. I wish he'd gone and found some reputably published material to support his case instead of dragging wikipedia in to it. Dark Formal (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I was very surprised to read the wikipedia part and the fact you are quoted in agreement, hence the reason I let you know. You I and both know that this information has been completely misrepresented and is blatantly not correct, which is clear from the talk pages. Anyway if anything comes of it or I can do anything don't hesitate to give me a shout. Khukri 12:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LHC etc

Hi, This is mainly to introduce myself. Khukri just suggested you might be able to advise & consult on the LHC article re the doomsday controversy. Lately I seem to have got myself into being one of the most vocal physics people trying to keep things stable and balanced on the talk page. This is not the best because I am not really expert on the technical issues, as my experience is outdated (~40 y old for particle physics) and theoretically marginal in any case. Anyhow, I don't know if you are watching, but you might like to keep an eye on things and comment there or on my talk page if needed. At the moment I think the article is actually fairly stable, despite the turmoil on the talk pages. Thanks, Wwheaton (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)