Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$950 Million Large Hadron Collider Upgrade 'Could Upend Particle Physics' (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the new-and-improved dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A massive project to supercharge the world's largest particle collider launched on Friday in the hope that the beefed-up machine will reveal fresh insights into the nature of the universe. The approximately $950 million Swiss franc mission will see heavy equipment, new buildings, access shafts and service tunnels installed, constructed and excavated at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, the particle physics laboratory on the edge of Geneva.

The upgrade will make the collider far more sensitive to subtle quirks in the laws of physics, and physicists hope these anomalies will pry open the door to entirely new theories of the universe. If the upgrade goes to plan, the proton beams in the souped-up accelerator, known as the high-luminosity LHC, or HL-LHC, will be so intense that the number of collisions in the machine will be five to 10 times greater than today. The upgrade is expected to take eight years. While new magnets and beam instruments will be installed when the LHC is switched off for two years in 2019, most of the required equipment will be fitted in a longer shutdown from 2024 to 2026, when the revamped machine will switch back on again.

91 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. CERN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Let's make that "CERN," not "Cern."

    1. Re:CERN by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Why? Because you're American? The Guardian is a UK source, and they only capitalize (or capitalise) the first letter of the acronym, such as Nasa.

      Why isn't it "Uk", then?

    2. Re:CERN by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Ah, so slashdot breaks HTML links now too?
      Let's try this again:


      Why isn't it "Uk", then?

  2. can't have both. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The approximately $950 million Swiss franc

    What is it?

    dollars or swiss franc?

    you can not have both.

    1. Re:can't have both. by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Whoever wrote the TFS had zero chance of understanding the point or import of the upgrade. Such a hyperbolic jumble of nonsense. If you want real information, go to the people who actually do this for living.

    2. Re:can't have both. by burtosis · · Score: 1
      Actually AC wrote

      you have zero point zero to the zero chance of understanding the point or import of the article anyhow.

      which is interpreted as 0.0^0 which is 1 therefore a 100% chance of understanding. Using mathematics, it's clear the OP has the highest respect and understanding of the point and cherished regard for the content of the article.

    3. Re: can't have both. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Actually once you starting to talk about billions in either valuta the 3rd and 4th digits suddenly become millions of dollars.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  3. 'Could Upend Particle Physics' by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    WE HOPE.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re: 'Could Upend Particle Physics' by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      That would turn physics upside down!

    2. Re: 'Could Upend Particle Physics' by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Not really, nobody wants to upend it, just confirm theory. Physics has worked so far according to theory. If we hadn't found the Higgs boson then we'd have upended physics and left with a huge problem. There are some more details we haven't found out yet but theoretically we predict things pretty accurately and the rather esoteric alternative explanations *cough*string/multiverse theory*cough* are either untestable or proven to be unnecessary.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re: 'Could Upend Particle Physics' by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That, of course, is the problem. There's no real sign that the standard model needs correction, except that it appears incompatible with Relativity. Whoops. And doesn't handle gravity well. Whoops!

      So we know it needs to be changed, but just how is a real question. Perhaps sterile neutrinos will show us a path forwards, but not unless someone discovers another way to detect them. Otherwise it's just another anomaly that doesn't lead anywhere.

      There are lots of "things with names that we don't have handles for", but without a handle, the name is just name magic, it doesn't point to anything real. Anomalies show us places where we can tell that our theories are incomplete, but don't, in and of themselves, tell us how to make that useful.

      Perhaps particle theory is all wrong, and everything is fields that sometimes look like particles. There was a time when I kept hearing about Quantum Field Theory, but I haven't heard much about it recently. Probably quarks made it too difficult to handle. But this doesn't mean it isn't the right approach. Of course, it also doesn't mean that it is.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. This really hurts ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... because it should have been Texas.

    They would have detected the Higgs boson first, and would have attracted the best scientific minds on the planet.

    The infrastructure and support system including housing, lodging, eateries, fuel ...

    The list is enormous and the impact great.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:This really hurts ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Republicans cancelled it, they don't understand science's benefit. If God wanted them to be scientists he wouldn't have given them 76 point IQ's and forced them to work in coal mines as if it were a thing of pride, lol.

    2. Re:This really hurts ... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you can thank the Democrats for that

    3. Re:This really hurts ... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Actually, it should have been in Illinois. The Fermilab Tevatron had all that infrastructure already in place, would have made an excellent feeder ring, and already HAD the best scientific minds on the planet. Unfortunately, Jim Wright (D, Texas) happened to be the Speaker of the House at the time, and he wanted that project for Texas, and, lo and behold: he got it. At least until (after he resigned in disgrace), Congress realized what a boondoggle building the SSC from scratch was, and canceled it.

    4. Re:This really hurts ... by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Terrible chocolate, though.

    5. Re:This really hurts ... by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      They would have detected the Higgs boson first, and would have attracted the best scientific minds on the planet.

      It would have been the perfect Creationist honeypot - attract all the best scientific minds to America, and then watch Trump gut anything and everything having to do with reason, rationale, or scientific thought.

    6. Re:This really hurts ... by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

      " they don't understand science's benefit."

      They do when it's the next weapon system.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    7. Re: This really hurts ... by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The problem with science in the US is that it has been overrun by MBAs and liberal self-centered asswipes that think they should get money just because they deserve it. So both the administration and the scientists aren't productive and even in the basic sciences countries like China and Israel are eating the US for breakfast. The west is having a brain drain towards the Middle East and Orient.

      In Europe you've got a little bit of a break because the government is obligated to spend the huge taxation but dollar-for-dollar except for the LHC they aren't nearly as productive.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:This really hurts ... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps that was designed a few years too early. The designs I saw looked a bit overly ambitious. More so than CERN. But perhaps CERNs super collider couldn't have been build without the preliminary work on superconducting magnets done for the Texas project.

      Sometimes things really do need to be attempted several times, because of what you learn on the earlier attempts.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re: This really hurts ... by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      The problem with science in the US is that it has been overrun by MBAs and liberal self-centered asswipes that think they should get money just because they deserve it.

      MBA's may be a problem, but you're just shaking your personal marotte when complaining about liberals. Problems for science in the US are mostly on the other side of the aisle. Some of the most powerful Republican politicians can come up with absolute howlers and go on to create legislation related to areas they're so blatantly ignorant about, but the party and their voters have no problem with that. The Republican president is proudly scientifically illiterate, but can and does name leaders of science (or related) agencies - and again, neither the party nor the voters feel there is a problem. The rank and file Republicans are themselves against science funding, while the Democrats are in majority in favor of increased science spending.

      So, you're wrong. But then, since you're apparently a Republican, it was probably never about being right, was it?

    10. Re:This really hurts ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      In this case, how to grow mushrooms?

      March 27, 1994

      FORT WORTH, TEXAS — Forget physics. Think fungus. A petroleum engineer has his eyes on miles of dark, damp tunnels where scientists once contemplated smashing atoms. Naresh Vashisht wants them to grow mushrooms instead.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    11. Re:This really hurts ... by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      President Clinton signed the bill which cancelled the project on October 1 1993.

      Are you a child? I was part of it, I worked on the SSC at Fermilab.

  5. Could validate my theory by PPH · · Score: 1

    The harder you smack things together, the more and smaller the pieces will be that fly off.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Could validate my theory by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      But that's the beauty of particle physics: if the things are traveling fast enough, the pieces that fly off are actually BIGGER than the pieces that collided.

  6. Democrats controlled the House, Senate, White Hous by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the presidency at the time it was cancelled. They had total control. The effort to shut it down was led by Democrat Jim Slattery of Kansas.

  7. Re:I need to know by novakyu · · Score: 1

    Try this one.

  8. upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 3, Informative

    i've been studying alternative theories to the Standard Model for years. by amateurs, semi-amateurs, "professionals" operating outside of the peer-reviewed process for "some reason" (see below), as well as academics operating within the peer-reviewed community: piotr zenczykowski, sundance osland bilson-thompson (yes a real person!), and many more.

    the amateurs... dang. there's a lot of crap out there.

    the semi-amateurs... yyeah they actually get somewhere, generally, but they tend to want to contribute to the Standard Model because that's what everyone else is doing.

    professionals operating outside of the peer-reviewed process: i'll describe these below. they're extremely rare (as in: there's only really one group, led by one person)

    academics: these tend to focus on the Standard Model. the two that i mentioned - piotr and sundance - actually based their work on Haim Harari's "Rishon Model": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it was extremely popular in the 1980s but unfortunately did not go anywhere.

    there's also "String Theory" which has taken literally decades of extremely talented mathematicians (reducing - or wasting - the world-wide available pool of mathematical talent in the process, was one complaint i saw made by other academics, a few years ago).

    all this means we basically have a lot of effort being spent on a theory with at least TWENTY SIX completely unexplained "magic constants"! https://spinor.info/weblog/?p=...

    the one exception to this is work by someone called dr randall mills, whose work started somewhere in the 1990s, and, after 30 consistent self-referencing papers (because no peer-reviewed journal would accept them) he and his team published a whopping 1750-page book containing the material. it's *dynamite*. it's the *only* one of the theories that i cannot dismiss "out of hand". it makes sense, it's consistent, it's self-consistent, there *are* mistakes, there *are* "missing pieces"... but the core makes perfect sense even to me with A-Level maths.

    now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?

    basically i am trying to point out that upgrading the hardware really isn't going to help. the academic peer-reviewed system is so broken that i have really not a lot of hope that things will change. if you are not familiar with this concept, you can google it for yourself: https://www.google.co.uk/searc...

    this article - which i had never seen until now - is particularly fascinating: https://www.nature.com/news/pe... which points out that peer-review is "a response to political demands for public accountability". whilst we may claim that, in concert with internet searches and connectivity arxiv (and vixra) are helping to bypass that and allow "public comments" over time to help spot mistakes, it doesn't help with the top journals, which is what most academics read and take seriously. and if those journals are biased....

    1. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 2

      it's *dynamite*. it's the *only* one of the theories that i cannot dismiss "out of hand". it makes sense, it's consistent, it's self-consistent, there *are* mistakes, there *are* "missing pieces"... but the core makes perfect sense even to me with A-Level maths.

      Genuinely not trying to troll you here, but this sounds like classic Dunning-Kruger effect. It's entirely possible that someone with the expertise you don't have (i.e. a particle physicist) could point out glaring inconsistencies that you are overlooking.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    2. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Is that the same Randall Mills from Brilliant Light Power?

    3. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?

      OK, but what are these "non-standard" scientists going to do differently? Do they have experiments that would be a better application of our (collective) money than an upgrade in the standard model?

      Even if the standard model is somewhat wrong (it's mostly right, just like Newton's model is mostly right), then what experiments would we do differently to verify it?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Genuinely not trying to troll you here, but this sounds like classic Dunning-Kruger effect.

      It's not Dunning-Kruger if he's fully aware that he could be wrong, if he's fully aware that he doesn't know everything. His comment is fine, he present his status as an amateur physicist with very good math skill. Seems he understand his skill level, and isn't over-estimating it.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      That is not how I read GP's comment at all. As I see it they are making clear, strong claims about particle physics and string theory.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    6. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Is that the same Randall Mills from Brilliant Light Power?

      yes it is. his work on hydrinos was a side-effect of the underlying (sound, zero-postulation, zero-appromations) theoretical work into the electron, proton, neutron and neutrino (and a couple others like the muon). that work in turn came out of his pioneering improvements to NMR resonance, where, due to the extreme strength of the magnetic fields involved, "standard" theories of the neutron, electron and proton just don't hold up.

    7. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Hi Randall. No, we won't give you millions of subsidy.

      google "lkcl". https://slashdot.org/~lkcl - we are not the borg. Randall != lkcl - we are different people. no i do not give out my slashdot login credentials to people.

    8. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i'll pass.

    9. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Shimbo · · Score: 1

      basically there's something really, really wrong with society, that people with the willingness to study and further science are basically quite literally in some cases expected to starve themselves.

      I don't think it's wrong that society is not expected to fund people's hobbies. If people want to try to lead into gold or whatever 'non-standard science' on their own time, that's fine. Don't expect me to pay for it though.

    10. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      > now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model

      So there will be more data to show more holes in the Standard Model. Although a roundabout path, ultimately it should provide data to help alternative theories.

      ... *if* they get funded... and given the way that funding is biased towards people who've *failed* to improve on (or replace) the standard model, i really don't see that that's very likely. which is a very short summary of the entirety of the up-stream post :)

    11. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i'll pass.

      ... and? why would that matter to me (or anyone else)? what relevant contribution do you have to make to scientific enquiry? more disbelief? more scorn? are you paid to rubbish other peoples' work? are you being paid by the U.S. Government to discredit people? are you being paid by the Russian Government instead? what is your motivation for expressing and spreading "disbelief"? if you are not being paid, are you on a personal crusade to destroy scientific enquiry? are you out to personally discredit anyone who does not tow the "status quo"? ... do you get where that's going? i'm questioning your motives for spending time and energy on trying to tell everyone in the world how "bad" someone else is. the word for this is "troll", and another word is "paid shill". which of those are you?

    12. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 2

      basically there's something really, really wrong with society, that people with the willingness to study and further science are basically quite literally in some cases expected to starve themselves.

      I don't think it's wrong that society is not expected to fund people's hobbies. If people want to try to lead into gold or whatever 'non-standard science' on their own time, that's fine. Don't expect me to pay for it though.

      patronage, particularly during victorian times, was basically how scientific enquiry got funded. and the arts, and much more. it was a "golden age". many industrialists became extremely wealthy, and it was "de rigueur" amongst your wealthy peers to either (a) fund some scientific research in the hope that the people you funded would make something that you could make MORE money out of (b) you were so rich you just did it anyway.

      now, would some of those people so funded have been fraudsters? quite probably. would such people have been disovered pretty quickly? almost certainly. would they have been people who initially had "hobbies" that, thanks to their patron, *became* a genuine line of scientific advancement? yes absolutely.

      fast-forward a few centuries, and the money that the "wealthy" has is far, far greater than that which the wealthy people of the victorian age had. so what the hell's gone wrong? why is there no such thing as "patronage" any more? that's down to society. you said it yourself: "don't expect me to fund your quotes hobby quotes". yes we have crowd-funding as a way to get round that, as it takes more than one person (of our level of financial capacity) to fund an idea, but as for the really *really* truly wealthy? there's not a single incentive for them to do anything other than "get richer". walk away from society, effectively sucking the monetary system (and the ability to fund new scientific lines of enquiry) dry as a result.

      it's quite sad, really.

    13. Re: upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Which line in particular makes you think that? Or which claim is that poster making too strongly?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 2

      That is not how I read GP's comment at all. As I see it they are making clear, strong claims about particle physics and string theory.

      that's why i provided references, plus1entropy. i missed the ones about string theory, here are some:

      https://www.neogaf.com/threads...
      http://www.math.columbia.edu/~...

      which leads to this: https://www.reddit.com/r/Physi...

      and that last one is particularly poignant, as it's by someone for whom the work that they set out to do just.. wasn't fun. they had a goal, but they'd forgotten the journey.

      the other one quotes the observer.

      here's another one: https://backreaction.blogspot.... which points out that the "bang-per-buck" is firmly on the "please for god's sake pull the plug" side.

      i'm struggling to find the original article, but i believe this last post comes fairly close. basically i'm pointing out that it's not *my* idea(s). i didn't reference *any* of *my* work. these are *other people's* opinions - ones that are becoming increasingly common, that's all.

    15. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Genuinely not trying to troll you here, but this sounds like classic Dunning-Kruger effect.

      It's not Dunning-Kruger if he's fully aware that he could be wrong, if he's fully aware that he doesn't know everything. His comment is fine, he present his status as an amateur physicist with very good math skill. Seems he understand his skill level, and isn't over-estimating it.

      appreciate you defending me, but as a point of order i have to point out that my maths level is well below what you give the impression that i understand :) i have both memory problems and some sort of extremely strange logic-dyslexia (but extremely well-honed pattern-recognition and 3D visualisation skills).

      as a software engineer i've had to compensate for the lack of ability to do walk-throughs of basic maths and boolean logic by writing unit-tests, and developed a programming style that verifies the output in an extreme-programming-esquee highly-iterative loop based on rapid minimal code-changes. it's the only way i could think of to compensate for the deficiencies that i'm keenly aware of. ... and then i try and read scientific papers or wikipedia or wolfram articles on, for example, "Lie Groups" or "Jones Matrices" and i'm hopelessly lost, immediately. it's very frustrating, because my pattern-recognition, statistical analysis and intuition are screaming at me after 32 years of part-time study that i am definitely on the right track... i just can't *prove* any of it to anybody's satisfaction. nggggh :)

    16. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Fireflymantis · · Score: 1

      Gotta admit, after starting to read a bit more about what lkcl is on about at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it's actually a pretty amazing rabbit hole.

      If I am not totally mistaken, there was a TED talk a while back that tried to summarize up some of this?
      https://www.ted.com/talks/garr...

    17. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Gotta admit, after starting to read a bit more about what lkcl is on about at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it's actually a pretty amazing rabbit hole.

      jaezuss that's a cluster**** gone sideways :) i bet you the discussion is two orders of magnitude longer than the original page.

      If I am not totally mistaken, there was a TED talk a while back that tried to summarize up some of this?
      https://www.ted.com/talks/garr...

      that's a really informative talk, good find. i love the 3D representation of particles, how he goes from 2D to 4D to 6D and it's all projected down to 2D. if you ever want to explore that for yourself with an HTML5 "thing" you can play with it here: http://deferentialgeometry.org...

    18. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by ath1901 · · Score: 1

      I haven't read his stuff myself but googling for more information on Randall Mills and GUTCP reveals some not-so-possitive links:

      First of all wikipedia:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      There is a LOT of serious criticism there. It is enough to notice that his company has not produced anything real and testable since it started in 1991.

      The review here also gives the usual crackpot smell (see Numerology and more for example). Equations and results are not derived but rather scotch taped together:
      http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/grand-u...

      So, I think we can safely ignore this. At least until a physics defying battery shows up on the market.

    19. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      It's DYNAMITE! It's SENSATIONAL!

      But I'm not going to link it, or tell you the name of it.

      because i didn't want people to think i was "favouring" that particular theory/work. other links here (other comments) have the link to the (100mb) PDF, it's quite easy to find by googling the author's name.

    20. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Dorianny · · Score: 2

      Einstein did some of his most insightful work while making a living as a patent specialist. Don't blame "**FUNDING**" for the inability of all the alternative theories to come up with testable predictions. If the theory doesn't have obvious flaws and has a testable prediction, it will eventually gain enough respect from the theorist and enough curiosity from experimental scientists. Even Einstein's groundbreaking "special relativity" was mostly ignored at first

    21. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Nah. I'll just wait for until his alternative energy company actually comes up with a viable product.

      Until then excuse me if i lump them with the likes of Steorn and the like.

    22. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      it makes sense, it's consistent, it's self-consistent, there *are* mistakes, there *are* "missing pieces"... but the core makes perfect sense even to me with A-Level maths.

      You're OK with a theory with mistakes visible and missing pieces... but you're bothered by theories with "magic constants"? Interesting double standard you have going there.
       

      now, we can *claim* that increasing the power of the particle colliders would increase the detection rate of particles, thus giving a larger statistical analysis base to work from, but with the near-terminal focus being on the Standard Model, where funding is ONLY available if you are working on the STANDARD MODEL, and where deviations from the STANDARD MODEL result in you never receiving funding again... you see where this is going?

      Deviations from the Standard Model never receiving funding again? Hardly. And if proven, they lead straight to Stockholm. Where this is going is straight to cloud cuckoo land.

    23. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The table I.1 giving ratios of fundamental particle masses is interesting, if they can be derived. Otherwise, they're just mashing together pi and alpha in various combinations until the desired number pops out. Anyone read to see if he actually does derive them later?

      yes he does, yes i have, as have several other people from, for example, the LENR forum (warning: that forum is monitored by censors who have repeatedly demonstrated a deliberate bias... it's extremely weird but consistent behaviour that's statistically correlates with the hypothesis that the censor have an "agenda").

      to answer your question properly: um.. how long have you got? :) mills is keenly aware that people may not read the entire document so he puts the summary-of-summaries at the front, followed by a summary, followed finally by actually beginning to get into details. you need to go through about at least *four* of the papers before you get to the point where the mass of an electron makes sense, and another one or two before the mass of a proton makes sense.

      then he goes into detail - in *another* paper - how nuclei bond together, and then *finally* there's a formula for generating fundamental particle masses. interestingly, the accuracy of his work tails off as the atomic number climbs, starting at like 10dp for hydrogen (the proton), and reducing i *think* down to something like 6 or 7 dp for the very large atoms. which is interesting in and of itself, as it tells us that he missed something, somewhere. still an incredible achievement though.

      i know people who've managed to get to the point where they could explain to me how the photon goes in a circle, and current "rings" are basically the left-hand motor rule from physics as applied to the surface of a sphere, and how when you sum up all those "rings" you end up mathematically with completely uniform (same-length) current "vectors" across the entire surface of that sphere. which is an amazing and absolutely beautiful mathematical "coincidence".

      from there, right now, i'm lost as to how the electrical field "energy" is calculated... that's where the 3D Fourier Transforms come in to play... and i know they're applied, i just can't follow the maths of *how* they're applied.

      it... it's taken competent independent mathematicians *literally* months to get to grips with just a *fraction* of what's in those 1750 pages. no wonder idiots looking at it dismiss it out-of-hand. the only reason i put up with it is because in skim-reading it eight or nine times i came across the section on the electron magnetic moment, which is only four terms, and comes out to EXACTLY g/2 to something like 11 decimal places.

      i cannot.... i cannot emphasise enough how significant that is, but if you're familiar with how g/2 is calculated in the standard model (by "solving" partial differential equations), it's basically guess-work with *hundreds* of A4 pages of densely-packed terms, with huge numbers of those terms *literally* being guessed at *by hand*, because even today's supercomputers aren't powerful enough to work them out. and they call it an "achievement".

      so... yeah, apologies, but answering the question you ask with any kind of "justice"... i.e. *independent* verification... it could well take you (or someone with good maths skills) over a YEAR to get to the point where you could verify those tables.

      and in the meantime, sadly, we have fuckwits trying to weasel out of reading the work for themselves by making unsubstantiated claims that mills is a fraud. i don't like the word "troll", but that's what those people are. modern-day equivalents of the people who put galileo on trial, basically. cowards, the lot of them.

    24. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok well anyway, I don't think you have Dunning-Kruger.

      It's amazing how many non-psychologists, people who've never even taken a psychology class, are naturally gifted and talented at diagnosing Dunning-Kruger.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.

      btw, it doesn't bother me that there are magic numbers. We have the gravitational constant, and no one has any clue why that is the number it is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    26. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Einstein did some of his most insightful work while making a living as a patent specialist. Don't blame "**FUNDING**" for the inability of all the alternative theories to come up with testable predictions. If the theory doesn't have obvious flaws and has a testable prediction, it will eventually gain enough respect from the theorist and enough curiosity from experimental scientists. Even Einstein's groundbreaking "special relativity" was mostly ignored at first

      i honestly and truly wish that what you say here had happened. i wish that theoretical physicists would even take a single glance at the work, on the basis that the calculations for the electron g/2 and mass come out to 10 decimal places accurate. can you tell me, why are theoretical physicists from the rest of the scientific community not looking at that?

      i have friends in a small group, we're supposed to be open-minded, having seen how closed-minded the scientific community can be when it comes to "against the grain" ideas. i put dr mill's work in front of them... and what happened? total disbelief!! it was a bit of an eye-opener, and we managed to work out why over a period of a few months. the disbelief was down to the fact that Dr Mills does *NOT* use Yang-Mills (Maxwell's Equations moved to the Frequency Domain i.e. Quantum Mechanics). instead what he does is, he uses *straight* Maxwell's Equations, applies FFT's *WHERE NEEDED*, and uses Special Relativity corrections to the particle's radius. all of which he goes through in detail, step-by-step, from first principles.

      this demonstrates the sorts of blindspots that even theories that have the "correct answer" come up against. they're rejected due to peoples' *disbelief*. they don't even *look* at it. i wish that that wasn't the case, but it is, Dorianny. that's just how people are.

    27. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.

      btw, it doesn't bother me that there are magic numbers. We have the gravitational constant, and no one has any clue why that is the number it is.

      yeah, i know: that one really bothers me that it's only accurate to around 6 decimal places, planck's constant is 10 if recall without looking at nist.gov CODATA website.... the most accurate is the rydberg constant at 12... but planck's constant trashes the accuracy of a whole stack of constants down to only 10, including electric charge, as, fascinatingly, the constants involving planck, mass and electric charge are all self-referential (cyclic). bit of a bummer, that! :)

      as a reverse-engineer i've had to totally avoid gravity or anything to do with gravity because of the inaccuracy of G. you just can't do statistical analysis to any level of certainty. 10dp and above is where it starts to get *really* interesting.

      i hear you on the "magic numbers", though. as a reverse-engineer i fully appreciate that it's absolutely essential to defer "understanding" until later, working on the pieces of the puzzle that you *can* work on. they're basically place-holders which, *hopefully*, at some point in the future, someone *might* come up with a good theoretical derivation for them, and we're "home and dry". the problem is, there's over *twenty six* in the standard model. two whopping great 3x3 matrices with *nine* totally unexplained entries each are just the start.

      but, the bigger problem is: those magic constants have been there for decades. *surely* by now you'd think that, after all this time, thousands of scientists working on the "Standard" Model would have *some* idea about what's behind them, right?

      this is the "warning sign" that the Standard Model is in a dead-end rut.

    28. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      I read your post twice and I'm still not sure what the answer to my question was.

      sorry, the answer was: despite wishing that science actually worked that way (that eventually someone notices the theory and it gets the attention it deserves), in this particular case i suspect that, sadly, that will be several decades before it occurs. some time after the Standard Model's flaws are finally admitted and people *finally* start looking for alternatives. right now, they're just so blinkered that you could walk up to one of them in the street, put the paper in front of them and go "HERE! ANSWERS!" and they'd outright reject them. you can't force people to listen, basically, not in any field, no matter how much they *think* they are "open-minded", even if they *call* themselves "scientists".

    29. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Do you mean Dr. Randell Mills? For those curious, his site is here

      Wiki is not very kind...

      Anyway, if you really are looking for alternate theories, might I suggest my own alternate theory?

      --
      I come here for the love
    30. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Anyway, if you really are looking for alternate theories, might I suggest my own alternate theory?

      appreciated. to evaluate it, i need to see some papers: some mathematical equations, i don't mind if they're in text form or PDF form, however PDF is the standard format. words outlining the "features and benefits" without actually giving the *actual* maths and a step-by-step recipe on how a mathematician can follow them, won't help, and nor will videos of the same.

      do you have something like that available? i use vixra as it's self-publishing.

    31. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      An important ability among scientists is a strong grasp of critical thinking. This should have led you, to researching Randall Mills, and seeing his track record for fantastic claims and promised technological advances, which come to nothing - yet which keeping fooling investors into giving him millions.

      Use your head...apply you critical thinking abilities a bit more consistently...

      if i had followed the advice that you've given back in 1996 i would never have succeeded in the NT Domains 4.0 reverse-engineering for samba, which saved companies world-wide hundreds of millions of dollars in proprietary microsoft server licensing fees.

      i'm going to have to stop pointing out things on this thread as too many people are repeating the same fundamentally-flawed logical reasoning. reverse-engineering requires that you not "pass judgement" even when looking at a single bit. my peers at the time were unable to follow this rule, passing "judgement" on the "stupidity" of decisions made by microsoft engineers in, for example, passing in parameters for graphical window handles that were always NULL and were *always* passed over the network.

      a sane well-designed API would never have been allowed to do such stupid things, and my peers' *disbelief* at such stupidity - "judgement" - *ACTIVELY* prevented and prohibited them from being successful reverse-engineers.

      so let me go through it, one more time, to point out the logical flaw in the reasoning that you're working with

      * a theory was developed from the ground up in multiple stages
      * the first stages established the ground rules
      * based on those first stages the electron, proton, neutron and neutrino formulae were developed
      * the formulae are dead-accurate to 10dp of experimental real-world measurements.
      * subsequent work went into depth on top of that base [which i'm personally not interested in]
      * hydrino theory and the promise of clean energy, just like with nikolai tesla's promises, resulted in long-term investment (where earlier stages of the theory clearly do not).

      now.

      here's where everyone is going wrong. they haven't even bothered to read the papers to the point where they can even do the above kind of simple analysis, have they?

      so what is the *actual* connection between fuckwits who are incapable of or cannot be bothered to even read a published work, and the "judgement" that you make which throws the entire work out based on OTHER PEOPLE'S MASS-PREJUDICE.

      bottom line: instead of reading the PAPERs, you read someone else's mass-hysterical mass-prejudiced OPINION, didn't you? if you didn't actually read the PAPERs yourself, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me what i should or should not do, absolutely no right whatsoever to tell me how i should go about making decisions, do you?

      the point is, you conflate "critical thinking" with "passing judgement based on laziness, opinion and prejudice". sorry to have to be the one to inform you of that.

    32. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      it makes sense, it's consistent, it's self-consistent, there *are* mistakes, there *are* "missing pieces"... but the core makes perfect sense even to me with A-Level maths.

      You're OK with a theory with mistakes visible and missing pieces... but you're bothered by theories with "magic constants"? Interesting double standard you have going there.
       

      not at all. there's a huge difference between the theories. also, please don't think that by saying "yes i have noticed mistakes" that those mistakes are deal-breakers: the signs are, to me - (the hypothesis that i am working on is ) - that there's simply a third or fourth term missing from some of the equations that results in inaccuracies creeping in at the *TENTH* decimal place and beyond. you can't possibly tell me that inaccuracy at the TENTH decimal place means that an entire theory should be thrown out.

      * firstly, dr mill's work branches off after working out formulae for electrons, neutrons, protons and neutrinos, with a small (accurate) side-diversion into the muon (so my interest is in pursuing and extending that base, where dr mills made a pragmatic practical decision to get the work funded by focussing on what would attract investment). the Standard Model covers a much wider range of particles, however newer ones are no longer fitting in it, and the ones that *do* "fit" are done by... creating tables with "magic constants" based on the **EXPERIMENTAL DATA**, *not* on **ACTUAL MATH OR THEORY**.

      * secondly, the Standard Model moves absolutely everything into the frequency domain, then uses partial differential equations, approximations, supercomputers and outright plain-and-simple hand-pushed, hand-crafted "magic constants", whereas, Dr Mill's work keeps it in the "real" world, uses Fourier Transforms *where necessary*, has only speed of light, alpha and planck's as "fundamental constants", has NO partial differential equations OF ANY KIND, has no approximations OF ANY KIND, and, whilst hard to follow (for me), are logical, step-by-step and consistent.

      in other words the Standard Model is a "house of cards" based on a stack of 26+ completely unexplained "magic constants" (where alpha and planck's are two of them, which is perfectly understandable, but a whopping 18 are a pair of 3x3 matrices based on experimental data which most certainly is not) whereas dr mill's work uses planck's and alpha and NOTHING else. there's zero supposition, zero approximation, zero guess-work, zero postulation.

      applying occam's razor or kolmogorov complexity, whatever metric you choose, there's absolutely no comparison between the two theories.

    33. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by lkcl · · Score: 1

      There is one thing your hero Randall Mills

      please do not assume that you know what is going on in my mind. you don't have the right to tell me what i think.

      can do that will guarantee him fame and fortune, whatever the nay-sayers may do to quash him. It is this: predict something the Large Hadron Collider will detect, after its upgrade, that is not predicted by the Standard Model.

      Experiment is the ultimate arbiter of science. If you don't make a new prediction, you can mess around all day - like the string theory folks - but you're not doing science.

      you're absolutely right.... but he would not receive funding for doing so, would he? he's *specifically* focussing on servicing the needs of the investors, isn't he? because they're the ones that were prepared to give him money, aren't they?

      where would he get the money from to fund the 5-10 years needed to get to the point of making the predictions that you suggest?

      and what would be achieved by doing so? would people say "well done, here's some money for succeeding, to repay the massive financial debt that you had to accrue in order to get to this point" ?

      the work that he did branched off from the neutron, proton, neutrino, electron and muon, into the periodic table instead, because *that's what investors would give him money for*. it would be a MASSIVE effort to take the path that you've suggested. i know... because it's the one that i've chosen to pursue, and i can only pursue that path due to having done part-time *THIRTY YEARS* of parallel research and investigation.

      so i hear what you're saying... it's just that there's no financial reward for pursuing the avenue that you suggest, whereas the one he chose does (and i'm personally not in the slightest bit interested in that path)

    34. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      dr mill's work uses planck's and alpha and NOTHING else. there's zero supposition, zero approximation, zero guess-work, zero postulation.

      And (as you yourself point out) multiple mistakes and missing pieces.
       

      applying occam's razor or kolmogorov complexity, whatever metric you choose, there's absolutely no comparison between the two theories.

      Why would I use completely irrelevant metrics? The only relevant questions are a) does it fit existing data?, and b) does it make testable predictions?

      And yes, mistakes down in the tenth decimal place matter. They represent sloppy work, and are without a doubt indicative of deeper errors.

    35. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by ath1901 · · Score: 1

      No, not mob rule. It's just my version of due diligence.

      I try to read the criticism of a book/person/body of work before digging too deep into something and risk getting personally invested. I look for both the severity and the type (methodological, factual, omission or distortion of fact, overreaching conclusions etc). After I know the critique I read the actual work (if still interested).

      For example, one of my favorite podcasts was "STEM Talk" and I Dr Diamond talking about statins and cholesterol and I really liked what he said because I made some intuitive sense and I wanted it to be true. But, after googling (and reading) the criticism, I was very disappointed and chose not to trust his claims. After an episode with Nina Teicholz and Googling her, I gave up on the podcast alltogether since they clearly can't be trusted to choose trustworthy guests.

      A positive example was Ken Burns Vietnam documentary. After googling for criticism, the worst I could find was about not spending enough time on topic "X". If that is the worst criticism I can find, the documentary must be pretty accurate!

      So, yeah, I read the criticism first, then the work.

    36. Re:upgrading the hardware isn't the problem by strikethree · · Score: 1

      You seem like a fairly open minded guy. What do you think of the idea that gravity is a just time gradient that respects Lorentz's Law of Invariance?

      Long story short, Time moves faster the further you are from a mass. It would be the Time gradient that gives a sense of gravity. Is there any a priori reason I should stop investigating this?

      The original idea that prompted this line of thought has to do with galactic rotation curves, but the implications are exceedingly... erm, interesting.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  9. Re:Fuck this noize. by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

    Quantum mechanics is integral to modern integrated circuit design, especially microprocessors.

    --
    Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
  10. Re:cue the black holers by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2

    maybe this one will be the one? can we really take that chance?

    Your survivorship bias is showing. You're only here to make jokes about it because you happen to inhabit one of the one in 1e1000 universes where CERN hasn't already created a planet-devouring black hole.

  11. Re: New to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But my shadow IS spying om me? AND reporting its findings to the secret FB HQ at Cern not CERN

  12. Re:Democrats controlled the House, Senate, White H by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  13. Funny enough by aepervius · · Score: 1

    They cancelled it out because they could not see the immediate benefit while wanting to show some fiscal austerity. While republican would not have seen the immediate interest either, they would have kept it for the money and economy it would have brought Texas, and while they are vocal for fiscal responsibility in reality it is all bluster and they are utterly fiscally irresponsible when in power.

    In other word anti science republican would have kept the ssc if only for the boundangle , not caring about the science or fiscal responsibility.

    Isn't that hugely ironic ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  14. Re:cue the black holers by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    Yet... :)

  15. Re:Fuck this noize. by q_e_t · · Score: 1

    I'd suggest you read something about semiconductors

  16. Re:I need to know by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

    I can't even work out whether it's the collider that's large or the hadron!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  17. Re:New to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yep, we are pedantic.

    We are also all familiar with cases where missing commas or unit specification have led to million dollar losses.
    Most of us encounters cases where missing semicolons causes lost productivity on a daily basis.
    A vast majority of conflicts, small and large, in the world are because of miscommunication and failure to clearly specify intent.

    Proper capitalization leads to misunderstandings and we don't want that.
    Spending an extra minute to make sure that what you communicate can't be misinterpreted will save you a lot of time down the road.
    You should try reading some proper standard specifications. Then you will realize that there is no such things as synonyms and that every choice regarding punctuation and phrasing is deliberate.
    Same thing goes with legal texts, you don't get to call "tomato potato" on the law.

  18. Obligatory xkcd quote by ctrl-alt-canc · · Score: 1

    It is for the LHC, but it could be adapted...

  19. Monorail by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    I have a monorail for sale. It will upend transportation as we know it. You're gonna LOVE it!

  20. Re: UN says solving food crisis could cost $30 bil by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Nothing, because rebels stole half of it and the army burned the rest.

    Did I win?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. Re:cue the black holers by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Yea yea whatever. Next you will be saying this so called "survivorship bias" means that not a single one of my parent organisms died before successfully reproducing, effectively winning the lottery a trillion times in a row. Ludicrous, I tell you.

  22. Re:Fuck this noize. by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    Semiconductors and superconductors would not have been possible with fundamental research in quantum mechanics carried out several decades before such phenomena were understood. Had it been up to you, such developments would have never taken place.

  23. To scientists, nationalism is an absurd concept. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The scientific community is global. The LHC is there for everybody. It is yours too! The entire point of science as we know it, is that it benefits us all.
    Actually, I suggest you travel there, and notice that you will feel a sense of community with those people that share a common love with you. If you are a good scientist, you can work with them and they will want to work with you.

    Cultures sticking together makes sense, as long as it doesn't result in a filter bubble. ... But nationalism is just plain absurd.
    Not just because nations/states/countries aren't one culture and cultures cross borders. But generally because of how arbitrary the borders are and because any given place used to be part of more than one country/nation/state during its time.
    E.g. your proud Texas was taken from Mexico. And they took it from the natives. And some day it will be taken from some new group again, and a couple of decades later, people from that new group will say the same pointless nationalist things about that new country.

    If you must take the side of the group you randomly were born into, then side with those that actually form a group with you. People you can talk to and who can talk to you. Your town maybe. Your club (if you are actually a member, not a "fan", 200 miles away). Or ... you know ... the scientific community. :)

  24. Possibly: Never ANY benefit. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "They cancelled it ... because they could not see the immediate benefit..."

    Apparently it is possible that there will never be any benefit.

  25. More detail. Both parties stopped the spending. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 4, Informative

    More detail in this story: Why the Higgs boson wasnâ(TM)t discovered in America.

    Quotes:

    "One thing that killed the TexasSSC was an undeserved reputation for over-spending." I don't agree with "undeserved". The project leaders did not explain their spending sufficiently that people with little technical knowledge could understand it. That was my impression.

    "People have been asking which party killed the Superconducting Super Collider. The answer is... both of them. The key Senate vote came in 1993, when Democrats controlled Congress. All told, 26 Democrats voted to kill the project and 29 voted to keep it; 31 Republicans voted to kill and 13 voted to maintain funding."

  26. Re: Pen and paper and an acceptance of logic by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 1

    "n the same papers that said the earth was flat a few hundred years ago"

    1) Find me one.
    2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Glad to help.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
  27. We need new theories, not upgraded tools. by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    The cracks in the SM are getting too large to ignore. The LHC cannot now, nor can it ever, probe at the scales we need to correct the serious gaps in the SM. Throwing a billion dollars at it is not a good use of our wealth. If you want to throw money at something, spend it on upgrading LIGO or getting LISA off the ground sooner, which are two tools that can open new windows on the universe right now. The SM needs to be corrected, and the LHC cannot help with that.

    1. Re:We need new theories, not upgraded tools. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Theory and experiment go hand in hand. The LHC has all but eliminated most of super-symmetry for instance. Higher luminocity will knock off some more theories. But frankly, the theorists don't have good experiments that tell them anything. They came up with a bunch in the 80s/90s, and they're all mostly kaput now!

      If you want to throw money at something, spend it on upgrading LIGO or getting LISA off the ground sooner,

      LIGO is a US project. LHC is Europe. Would you really expect Europe to give money to US science? (Especially with Trump screwing up international relations). I doubt throwing money at LISA is going to make it arrive any sooner.

      I do think you're partially right and LHC is mostly on it's last legs, this upgrade won't turn up much, and the money might be better spent elsewhere on completely different particle physics experiments. But theory isn't really the problem here, it's experiment. And only because the experiments have been successful and destroyed a bunch of theory

  28. Praxis by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    Hopefully what happened to Praxis will not happen at CERN

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  29. but how much is "$950 million Swiss franc"? by mad7777 · · Score: 1

    can somebody please convert this figure to brapples for me?

    --
    Might makes right irrelevant.
  30. Re:I need to know by lkcl · · Score: 1

    Is there a short article I can read to learn the basic terminology of particle colliders? I just need to make condescending remarks about this device and dismiss the efforts of hundreds of experts.

    try looking on twitter: i'm told it's a good site for short opinions below 140 characters, 280 for more recent ones (wow!). i hear you can then use the same platform to reach millions of people with the proposed dismissive condescending remarks, too! :)

  31. Re:cue the black holers by HiThere · · Score: 1

    What you're ignoring is that if they do create a black hole it will be moving above escape velocity, and will have such a small capture cross-section that it could sit harmlessly in the center of the Earth.

    The question is, "Could it survive long enough without emitting too much Hawking radiation to be noticed?". I have heard some people speculate that there is a minimum size for black holes, below which they can neither emit Hawking radiation nor capture incoming material even if embedded within neutronium, but I sort of doubt that conjecture. OTOH, if that could exist, perhaps it could explain "dark matter". They'd need to have been created during the big bang to avoid disrupting the Lithium balance, but why not. They should have been a time back then when things were dense enough to seed them, and if they're that size, the seeds should have been sterile (i.e., neither able to evaporate nor to grow). But this depends on such a minimum size existing.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  32. Re:cue the black holers by lgw · · Score: 1

    Check this website frequently for updates on the danger of the LHC

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  33. Physicists by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "So...you're saying it was physics research."

    I think most people won't understand why that's funny.

    I've worked with Physicists who were distant from the social world.

  34. Re:Democrats controlled the House, Senate, White H by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    He's a Democrat. They are democrats. The Democrats cancelled it. That's basic shit. Democrats hate science. It tends to get in the way of their solution to everything - more taxes. Then they try to go for emotional stuff, like the separating children BS with pictures taken during Obama's term and a decision by the 9th circuit. Yet somehow it's Trump's fault? When this fails they'll find some other BS to fling upon us. They have nothing else. Nobody is running the Democratic party right now except a few really old delusional fools.