Sunday, 26 February 2017

CERN disproves Ghosts?

That smiling Simeon of the small screen, Prof. Brian Cox has excelled even his own previous endeavours into the extremities of pomposity and ignorance. He claims that ghosts cannot exist because if they did then the Large Hadron Collider at CERN would have detected them. He says that ghosts would need to be made of energy and not matter; and seeing as they do not dissipate, they must have some kind of external energy source. There is nothing that accounts for this in particle physics. He arrogantly recites the following passage very quickly, as if he's rehearsed it from a script: "We're not here to debate the existence of ghosts because they don't exist. If we want some sort of pattern that carries information about our living cells to persist then we must specify precisely what medium carries that pattern and how it interacts with the matter particles out of which our bodies are made. We must, in other words, invent an extension to the Standard Model of Particle Physics that has escaped detection at the Large Hadron Collider. That’s almost inconceivable at the energy scales typical of the particle interactions in our bodies. And so we need not discuss this further. Does anybody object to that at all? No. Excellent; carry on." His co-host Robin Ince then makes a silly joke by pretending to be a psychic medium for the "purposes of balance". Their guest, the famous astrophysicist and skeptic Neil deGrasse Tyson then says: "You just asserted that CERN disproved the existence of ghosts?" Cox simply replies "Yes." This whole segment is a denial of science; the matching of theory with observation. Cox-Head knows nothing about paranormal investigation, in fact he knows nothing outside his specialized study at all; therefore he is the ideal person to talk about things outside his specialized study in the mainstream media. If the evidence does not match the hypothesis then there is something wrong with the hypothesis, not the evidence. Source: See here for the entire programme: Thanks to the dedicated... and usually unpaid... paranormal investigators and psychical researchers of the world, we have discovered that there is no doubt that the phenomenon we call ghosts exists. If it can't be explained by known laws of physics then there must be a lot more for physicists to learn. In fact some of the more modest members of the cosmological community are addressing issues related to the supernatural that Cox wouldn't go near if he were asked to drive there in his BBC Mercedes. Parallel universes are now being discussed seriously in scientific circles, for example see: Obviously the presence of all kinds of paranormal phenomena means there are more questions to be answered. The ultimate objective of physics is to find the fabled "Theory of Everything"; the final answer to how the universe works. We have a hell of a long way to go. The solution, as far as I'm concerned, is to do better physics until the T of E has been found. The solution for the Coxxers of this world is to pretend the data is different and fool themselves and others into believing we are continuously on the brink of it. No doubt that helps with funding.


Laurence said...

Hello Ben, very good article. Just to add to your piece, I don't know about you but I find Cox rather unintelligible for a Professor of physics. For example, he once said memorably that he was the trustee of a London school with, "90% ethnic minorities". In this respect, Cox requires considerable deciphering. I believe what the Prof. was trying to say was as follows:

For a ghost to manifest there must be a medium that carries the pattern [sic.] of the physical matter of that person, which cannot be measured or detected. To which I would reply--in the style of Angry Frank--"Oi! Cox! No! Human beings have souls!" In other words, Cox is saying that, because he's an atheist (in the event of the absence of a soul), it is difficult to imagine a spirit! Not very original, is it?

Cox then goes on a bizarre non sequitur regarding LHC measurement limitations to date. In the same way, Cox refers, qualitatively, to an energy scale [sic.] when the obvious scientific thing to do would be to define the energy level in Joules; instead Cox confuses everybody and then appears to draw his own line on the discussion, thus ensuring no awkward questioning. The only chink of light (and credit where credit is due, at least, to deGrasse) was Cox's affirmative to the final question, quantitatively demonstrating the his preference for the unverified and unverifiable.

Should this be the standard of university physics professors in the UK then God help us all.

Ben Emlyn-Jones said...

Cheers, Laurence. You're making a lot more sense than Cox is. I wonder about his background too. Have seen the idea that Stephen Hawking is more than one person? Richard D Hall has talked about it. Maybe the Coxxer is something similar. I have listened to Neil deGrasse Tyson a few times and I find him far more credible than Cox. He's certainly more modest and open-minded. It's a shame more pop scientists are not like him. Instead we get stuck-up media whores like Cox-Head.

Laurence said...

Ben, I have seen RDH's film on Stephen Hawking but I do not believe the theory is applicable to Cox. The answer is far more banal, much like the man himself. White male academics have realised that to be promoted in the current university climate of extreme political correctness, cultural Marxism, and reverse discrimination, one must out-do the atheists and feminists at their own game. The gits are atheist feminists to a "man" (Dawkins being another good example). Shameful cowards that they are.

Xylomet said...