The Future is in Our Hands
Blog
Information, Awareness, Prevention / United to End Cancer

Theoretical physicist, Savas Dimopulos, states in the movie: “…we are little people on a little planet with a tiny brain, who can go so deep and understand…” However, no matter how “tiny brained” we might be, we can still choose to be honest when confronted with evidence from the laws of nature 

particle_feverAdvertisement of the film by the USA FILM FESTIVAL 2014: Directed by physicist turned filmmaker Mark Levinson, PARTICLE FEVER is a celebration of discovery, revealing the human stories behind our generation’s most inspiring scientific breakthrough. Imagine being able to watch as Edison turned on the first light bulb, or as Franklin received his first jolt of electricity. For the first time, a film gives audiences a front seat to a significant and inspiring scientific breakthrough as it happens. The documentary follows six brilliant scientists during the launch of the Large Hadron Collider, marking the start–up of the biggest and most expensive experiment in the history of the planet and pushing the edge of human innovation. As they seek to unravel the mysteries of the universe, 10,000 scientists from over 100 countries join forces in pursuit of a single goal: to recreate conditions that existed just moments after the Big Bang and find the Higgs boson, potentially explaining the origin of all matter. But our heroes confront an even bigger challenge: Have we reached our limit in understanding why we exist? [[1]].

Theoretical physicist, Savas Dimopulos, states in the movie: “…we are little people on a little planet with a tiny brain, who can go so deep and understand…” However, no matter how “tiny brained” we might be, we can still choose to be honest when confronted with evidence from the laws of nature that are understandable and indisputable, which show wrong and/or inconclusive results from implementing the wrong procedure, by building the wrong instrument that does not have the capability to measure the desired parameters, even while knowing at the time that there was the possibility to build the right instrument that would have provided unambiguous results and at a much lower cost. Any “tiny brain” can decide whether to tell the truth or to deceive in order to implement their own agenda instead of pursuing the interest of the public who are funding them and paying their salary.

Nobel Prize winner, Rita Levi di Montalicini, when asked what the most difficult moment she faced during her life as a research scientist was, answered: “To admit to being wrong before the evidence.”

It is not the intention of this document to claim the existence or non-existence of the Higgs boson, because this cannot be claimed by a person and is not an opinion, but rather the result of experiments that prove its existence or not. Instead, its intention is to bring you facts that can neither be denied nor invalidated because they are supported by evidence:

  1. Over $50 billion [[2]] of taxpayers’ money, as well as 20 years of many students’ post-doc’s and scientists’ time have been wasted because decision makers in science, although knowing for 22 years that a more powerful and less expensive solution to detect new particles was invented, built detector instrumentations that are not adequate to trap, capture and measure characteristics of new particles, including the Higgs boson.
  2. A serious investigation will unveil the dishonesty of some, incompetence of others and much unawareness of many others.  The truth has surfaced from the contradictory statements and actions made by the same experimental scientists who publicize distorted results, being inconsistent with the laws of nature and with the ethics of a scientist. The facts can be easily understood by laymen.  The investigation will also unveil how these scientists are deceiving the public by refusing to address issues in scientific, public, open procedures like the workshops [[3]] submitted at the largest scientific conferences in the field, [] and by using manipulated information and publicity through the media to distort the reality of scientific evidence like in the movie “Particle Fever.” How is this possible in the 21st century? As Pope Francis says: “money is the dung of the devil…” (also translated as “money is the root of evil…”). Unfortunately, although money can in many cases solve problems and leave a positive legacy for those who use it to support good causes, it can also be used for unsavory purposes, even buying science, and has the power to prevent the advancement of the understanding of the laws of nature, distorting results with powerful publicity like in this case of the Higgs boson, instead of limiting its role to present results of experiments as they are to explain the laws of nature.
  3. The movie doesn’t deliver a clear message of reality. When it shows apprehensive faces looking at computer monitor screens expecting to see a beam pop-up, champagne celebration, cheering among scientists, etc., the audience might interpret such enthusiasm as the discovery of the Higgs boson; instead, it is only for the start of operation of the accelerator Large Hadron Collider at 1.5 TeV that generates particles to be smashed and hopefully the Higgs boson could be among those generated. Those who built the Large Hadron Collider (Lynn Evans, Steve Myers, etc.) perhaps deserve the Nobel Prize, but the LHC accelerator is not detecting particles, that’s the job of the detector instrumentation (e.g. Atlas, CMS, Alice, LHCb, etc.) shown in the movie as a five-story building of custom electronics and detectors. It is supposed to unequivocally trap, capture, and measure the Higgs boson; instead, it has many flaws and does not have that capability.
  4. Let’s get the facts straight. The movie should have clearly explained the role of (a) the “particle accelerator” that is like a big hammer breaking matter into small particles and (b) the role of the “detector instrumentation” that is tasked to trap, capture and measure specific particles among the thousands generated by the smashing activity of the accelerator. It should have given an overview of the advancement of technology on both instruments over the past 50 years and present what happened at CERN during the past 20 years on the development of both and the results obtained.
  5. Particle accelerators are a $500 billion business per year and the leading edge for its design was the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) in Texas that was supposed to have a perimeter of 84 km and a power of 20 TeV.  However, it was never completed and the project was terminated by the U.S. Congress in 1993. The world record of 0.98 TeV had been held by the US Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory’s (FERMILab) Tevatron collider until November 30, 2009 when LHC at CERN in Geneva reached 11% [[4]] of its nominal power at 1.18 TeV. FERMILab Tevatron was built in 1983 at a cost of $120 million and operated until September 30, 2011. It was expected to be surpassed by the LHC in Geneva in 1996 with half the power of the SSC, but this happened only 13 years later when on September 10, 2008, the LHC accelerator was turned on for the first time with a big celebration as seen in the movie “Particle Fever”.  However, because sensors that measure resistance at interconnecting points and temperature protections were not in place, apparently due to pressure from the CERN General Director, Robert Aymar, who wanted to inaugurate the start of LHC under his term ending December 2008, nine days after the start of its activity, several LHC magnets melted (seen in the movie) causing millions of dollars of damage and a two-year delay. Despite this failure of wasted time and money, there was no call for Aymar’s resignation, and plans for a big champagne celebration scheduled for a few weeks later in which delegates from 38 countries were to attend, continued. LHC restarted the activity reaching 3.5 TeV on March 30, 2010, and operated until February 11, 2013, when it was shut down for two years to upgrade its power to 6.5 TeV (still only 65% of its nominal power of 10 TeV, one third the SSC).
  6. The performance of detector instrumentations, designed to trap, capture and measure characteristics of new particles, must increase as particle accelerators increase in power and generate more particles during smashing. One unit called “Trigger” (decision unit) in the detector instrumentation has a key role in discovering new particles. In modern physics experiments its task is to select the frame among over 600 million frames per second (called events) which most likely could contain the “pearl” (the unknown particle such as the Higgs boson). Recording all frames on hard drive and taking this decision at a later time at a slower pace will fill all hard drives of this planet in one day. For this reason the decision should be taken in real-time. An inefficient Trigger would render useless all other billions of dollars of investment, data processing and years spent by thousands of scientists.  All would be wasted because 100,000 computers (as stated in the movie) would process data with no value, with no “pearl”, with no possible discovery of a sought after new particle. While the scientific community struggled to solve this challenging problem of designing the “Trigger Unit”, in 1992 research scientist, Dario Crosetto, invented a breakthrough technique that is a synergy of new electronics, parallel-processing, detector assembly and segmentation, coupling of the detector with the electronics, that breaks the speed barrier in real-time application, allowing the use of standard, low cost technology to efficiently solve the task. It got the attention of major scientists and top experiments in the field even those in competition with each other because all recognized the benefits of Crosetto’s invention to science and humanity. This convinced the Director of the SSC (also Director of FERMILab) to request a major international scientific review of Crosetto’s invention. He passed the review before hundreds of scientists in the FERMILab auditorium and before a smaller panel of experts from industry, universities, research centers, including expert from CERN, who interrogated him for an entire day. The value and benefits of his invention were officially recognized in a written report by the review panel. However, 2 years later CERN chose to build less efficient, less powerful and more costly Trigger Units ignoring Crosetto’s invention and without going through a similar open, public, scientific procedure assessing the most cost-effective solution to trap and accurately measure any new particle. Why would they do this? Because some scientists use their credentials to be part of a large experiment to receive grant money from Government agencies without being honest enough to disclose how their project/approach compares to other projects; or even worse, by preventing Crosetto to present his invention to international scientific conferences and furthermore clearly wanting to deceive the funding agencies and the public by preventing his recent proposal for a workshop that compares fairly all projects/approaches. The issue is that there is no synergy among those pieces to detect new particles, and we can prove this statement by analyzing the limitations of the billion dollar detector instrumentations and the flawed results. Here are a few; however, by going deeper with our little brain, we can unveil many more:
    1. One experiment invalidates the results of the other experiment. Why is it that after 20 years of work and over $50 billion spent building instrumentations to precisely measure a quantity (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a natural phenomenon, the two instruments are recording different measurements when they should be yielding the same results no matter which one does the measuring? Clearly one value is wrong, or both are wrong. See at minute 84:49 the alleged Higgs boson energy value of 125.3 GeV measured by the CMS detector instrumentation and 126.5 GeV measured by the Atlas detector instrumentation. If you would give $50 billion to 10,000 scientists to build a precise scale, you would be surprised if one group provided you with a scale indicating your weight at 125.3 lbs. and another group of scientists provided a scale measuring your weight at 126.5 lbs. For $50 billion and 20 years of work you would expect two scales to match your weight with a precision greater than 1/10 of oz. Clearly one of the two scales is wrong, or both are flawed, and you still do not know your precise weight.
    2. Scientists’ public claims are different from the conclusions that an ethical scientist would make because there is no room for error.  The same scientists who advertise to the public that they have built a detector instrumentation capable of detecting new particles, including the Higgs boson (which is not true) admitted through their spokespersons at the 2013 largest international conference in the field IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD in Seoul, Korea, that the key part of the detector instrumentation, the “Trigger”, as explained above, was flawed and needed to be replaced. This is because the level-1 (or level-0) trigger showed only 50% efficiency in detecting Hadrons and did not have the capability to execute programmable, complex real-time algorithms. These capabilities were instead recognized by world experts at the 1993 FERMILab international review of Crosetto’s invention. That the detector instrumentation is not adequate to trap, capture and measure the Higgs boson and that the electronics need replacing, is only disclosed at scientific conferences.  Instead, the public is deceived into believing the current instrumentation has found the Higgs boson, that they are a success and not a failure, and therefore need more money from taxpayers to continue their good work, when in reality the money is needed to fix their mistakes.
    3. Scientists recant their previous statements and claims made years before to Crosetto. On August 26, 2008, Crosetto gave a seminar at CERN broadcasted via EVO system to the world and met the CERN Director General Robert Aymar and the leaders of the Trigger of major LHC experiments the next day. Wesley Smith, leader of the CMS Trigger, recanted his written statements made to Crosetto 16 years earlier at the SSC, including one where he stated that there was no need for programmability at the first level trigger. Nick Ellis, leader of Atlas Trigger, admitted that Crosetto’s 3D-Flow invention in 1992 could have replaced the Triggers of all LHC experiments giving each one more power in discovering particles at a lower cost. Joao Varela, one of the leaders of the CMS experiment, made the excuse that when Crosetto first presented his invention in 1992 it was too early, and when he gave seminars at CERN in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1998, and published his peer-review 45-page article in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in 1999, it was too late. However, Crosetto showed Varela, that in spite of not having the millions of dollars CERN had to build their less efficient, non-programmable Trigger, he built the first proof of concept of his invention in hardware with his own money, and presented it at the 2001 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in San Diego, and its industrialized modular board with 68 processors per board at the 2003 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Portland, Oregon. He tested the communication between the two modular boards, showing feasibility and functionality, thus proving that a system for any detector size could be built. This shows that there was not a lack from Crosetto in presenting ideas and results, but rather a lack from leaders in science. For example, Peter Sharp and Wesley Smith prevented Crosetto from participating at the Snowmass workshop on LHC in 1994. The reasons given for denying a dialogue which would follow scientific procedures as requested by Crosetto did not comply with scientific ethics or of a scientist who wants to understand the laws of nature as stated in the movie at minute xx, but were instead opposing logical reasoning which would have led to the creation of an instrument capable of understanding the laws of nature. Time after time, Crosetto’s inventions and approaches have proven correct, however, billions of dollars and decades have been wasted because of the inconsistencies of the leaders in the field toward their role as scientists.
    4. A serious investigation will reveal flaws. A serious investigation into the circuits and detectors built for the billion dollar detector instrumentation and how the data is collected from the detector will reveal that it is not providing full coverage and capability to capture the “pearl”, the new unknown particle. As an analogy we can compare the detectors to the U.S. SEALS who were charged with capturing Osama bin Laden. The plan should anticipate that when surrounded, he might try to escape from the North, East, West, or South, from above ground or below ground, at any time day or night. If their plan was not sound, bin Laden would have found a way to escape. The reason their mission was a success was because the SEALS had a plan to cover all possible events. Similarly, if a scientist needs to capture an unknown new particle, he must build a detector instrumentation capable of trapping it under any condition. Instead, by analyzing the current electronics and detector instrumentation, the “pearl” could be unnoticed by the instrument because it does not have the capability to execute complex real-time algorithms that can efficiently distinguish the “pearl” from noise or from particles of no importance. It cannot accurately measure its energy, as indicated by the one experiment CMS 125.3 GeV which is invalidating the measurement 126.5 GeV of the other Atlas. They cannot efficiently detect the decay of the Higgs boson in pairs of Tau. In the analogy it would be as if Osama bin Laden is passing by the SEALS and they do not recognize him.
    5. CERN’S Low Reputation: Flaws in the detector instrumentation are numerous and the low reputation of CERN statements demand to verify every little detail to be consistent with measurements, with reality, with the truth and not trust their explanations. For example, CERN explained that the error of the mistaken measurement of the speed of the neutrino was caused by a faulty connector and a clock running too fast. Instead there were much more serious mistakes in the conceptual design of the experiment and inaccuracies that were contradicting what published by CERN, also in their October 2011 Bulletin with statements that the electronics of the CERN-OPERA experiment has “outstanding accuracy”. Crosetto hand delivered in a meeting with CERN Director General on February 28, 2012 the references to the hardware of instrumentation for particle detection in HEP and medical imaging for early cancer detection that he designed, built and tested in 2003 [[5]], which shows to be hundreds of times more accurate than what was claimed in the October, 2011 CERN Bulletin, designed and built at CERN five years later. Similar less accurate electronics was also used in CERN experiments to detect the Higgs boson in spite Crosetto published how to build more accurate clock distribution in a peer-review article in 1999 NIM vol. 436, pp. 341-385. Crosetto’s schematics showing hundreds of times better accuracy were irrefutable and the two leaders of the OPERA experiment resigned from their position on March 30, 2012. A deeper study of other circuits and approaches in designing the detector instrumentation will lead to the resignation of other leaders in the field who cannot understand or explain what is best to build an instrument that could unambiguously trap and identify new particles and pass the leadership to those who implement scientific procedures to identify the most cost-effective solution as the proposed workshop for the 2014 conference is aiming to. At minute 84:49 of the movie, in order to convince the audience that the detector instrumentations made accurate measurements, is stating that both, CMS and Atlas experiments had a sigma of 5 without realizing that by saying so it also lowers their credibility in their measurement of the value of the sigma. Sigma is a value of uncertainty [[6]] in statistical measurements; a range in error of 5 sigma is equivalent to the probability of an error over several millions. Unfortunately, CERN used the same argument in September of 2011 in claiming that the neutrino travelled faster than speed of light, claiming in that case a sigma even higher of 6.1. It turned out that neutrino is not faster than the speed of light, therefore it is not new that CERN makes mistakes even in measuring sigma. Its credibility is even lower when one analyzes the research approach (and his language) of the CERN Scientific Director Sergio Bertolucci in a 90 minutes meeting with Crosetto on January 12, 2011. His research approach is not focus in identifying the best idea/solution/invention/project that is providing the most cost-effective result, but rather using the latest most advanced, bleeding edge components and technology, and hoping that by putting those together, by magic, they will solve a specific problem. (You can hear his theory from his words also translated at this link).
    6. Funding science that is consistent with ethical scientists. How many additional billion dollars and decades will take before scientists and government agencies, philanthropists and all who give them money will understand that they should ask a scientist to be consistent with the ethic of science and of a scientist and ask leaders like the Chairman of the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference Ingrid-Maria Gregor, either to provide answers pertinent and competent with the scientific issue, or to find someone competent, or to resign and leave her position to other scientists who are willing to implement scientific procedures to make scientific truth prevail for the benefit of mankind. Analyzing the communication between Ingrid and Crosetto, it is clear that Crosetto provides pertinent answers to address scientific issues leading to build an instrument that would allow to understand the laws of nature, while Ingrid’s answers are political and not related to the scientific subject at hand. In her last e-mail she is listing that the problems that need to be solved in the upgrades of LHC experiments is to improve the electronics to cope with and increased luminosity and for solving the problem of detecting the pileup events. Crosetto in the previous e-mail sent her his 1999, 45-page peer-reviewed article and documentation related to his 1992 invention that solves at low cost exactly those two problems by providing the capability to execute complex real-time algorithms being able to accurately measure all characteristics of the signals received from the detector instrumentation, detect the change of slope of the signal in order to resolve the pileup problem. However, Ingrid does provide scientific information on how she solves the two problems she listed and does not address and/or object to Crosetto’s solution. She refuses to have a workshop where her solution (if any), Crosetto’s solution and others from other scientists and students can be compared and through a public debate to hear who has stronger scientific evidences to obtain the most cost-effective results. In a few words, we have experimented a failure for 20 years in spending $50 billion and getting to the point that we need to replace the Trigger because open, public, scientific procedures where everyone explains and support his/her claim before construction and Ingrid wants to continue to go on in the dark, not comparing with other solutions how she intents to solve the high luminosity and pileup problem. This is not permitting the advancement in science for the benefit of mankind.
    7. Besides the fact that one experiment, CMS measuring the energy 125.3 GeV of the Higgs boson invalidates the 126.5 GeV measured by the Atlas experiment, and viceversa, also the physicists, leaders in both experiments, and other theoretical and experimental physicists make contradictory statements, clearly admitting that additional detailed measurements are needed to be able to claim the discovery of the Higgs boson. All these facts and statements make one thing very, very clear: After spending over $50 billion and 20 years of work building a detector instrumentation that does not have the capability to trap, capture and measure new particles (including the Higgs boson), evidences show that for 22 years a solution to build a detector instrumentation with the above capabilities was invented. Why the same physicists are instead telling the public they discovered the Higgs boson? To be honest, the only thing that has shown working is the LHC Collider accelerator at 3.5 GeV. So, perhaps they deserve the Nobel Prize, and no reference should be made to a detector instrumentation that need to rebuild the key section of the Trigger because it cannot provide detailed measurements. Here are some contradicting statements from the same physicists who are member of the teams claiming the discovery of the Higgs boson and from others who try to explain the results. Within the brackets [text] are reported the comments and questions of research scientist Dario Crosetto on behalf of taxpayers. At minute 2:25 of the movie, Kaplan states: “after many, many years of waiting and theorizing about how matter got created and about what the big theory of nature is… all those theories are finally going to be tested and we are going to know something, and we don’t know what is going it’s going  to be  now, but we will know and it’s going to change everything. If LHC sees the particles, we are on the right track and if it doesn’t, not only we have missed something but we may not ever know how to proceed. ”  At minute 89:22 of the movie, Dimopoulos states: “It doesn’t refer to symmetry (115 GeV), it doesn’t refer to multiverse (140 GeV), but is right in the middle (about 126 GeV). The data is puzzling enough that it hasn’t excluded any of the theories that I was involved with, but hasn’t confirmed it either, but until we don’t look at the detail properties of the Higgs…, we will not be able to make a stronger statement.”  Etc. more contradictions will be posted…

About our heroes, the brilliant scientists, starring:

Theoretical particle physicists:Savas Dimopoulos, Stanford University, worked at CERN from 1994 to 1997;Nima Arkani-Hamed, faculty member at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton;David Kaplan, working at Johns Hopkins University.

Experimental particle physicists:Fabiola Gianotti, at CERN, former spokesperson of the ATLAS experimentat –LHC-CERN;Monica Dunford, working at CERN; Martin Aleksa, working at the Atlas Liquid Argon Calorimeter at CERN; and

Engineer, LHC Collider Accelerator specialist:Mike Lamont, head of the LHC Machine Operation at CERN.

No matter how a “tiny brain” we might have, we could be honest when confronted with the above evidence known for 22 years that a more powerful and less expensive solution to detect new particles was invented. It was described in one page recognized valuable from top scientists, and proven to be feasible and functional in hardware.

 

About the movie Director Mark Levinson: Theoretical particle physicist, University of California, Berkeley. If on one hand the scientific community did not have a detector instrumentation with the capability to unequivocally confirm the existence of the Higgs boson with more money needing to be spent to replace the electronics that cannot accurately measure all parameters of the unknown particle, instead Levinson can claim success in being able to deceive the world (perhaps unaware that he was deceiving the public because did not know that more accurate measurements on new particles were possible for 22 years). He was able to advertise so well  convincing major media about results that are inconsistent with the laws of nature and that did not comply with the ethic of science and of a scientist in obtaining those. See a long list of journalists from top newspapers and magazine that were convinced by Levinson’s film: Washington Post, The New York Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia enquirer, Arizona Republic, NPR, San Francisco Chronicle, Toronto Star, , etc. See reviews [1] at: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/particle_fever/reviews/#. It will be a fair service to the public now that this document is providing more in depth information that Levinson will consider to correct the message he delivered in this film with another film or a revised version of his documentary.

 

Citizens of the world including philanthropists, politicians who handle taxpayers’ money to serve mankind, and journalists who serve the public by providing up-to-date information in their best interest, ALL TRUST the words repeated several times in this movie that scientists are honestly pursuing the understanding of the laws of nature by complying with ethical science and do not have a different agenda. It is time for all honest scientists to speak-up in defense of ethical science because in the end, everyone will get hurt when we unveil cases like this where a solution was available for 22 years to build a detector instrumentation that would have allowed advancement in science and provide many benefits to humanity in several application fields instead of wasting billions of dollars and valuable time. Just think about the embarrassment of all taxpayers, funding agencies, philanthropists, journalists who have trusted leaders in science and now facts prove they have been deceived.  Now these dishonest scientists ask for more money to fix the flaws in the detector instrumentation that could not accurately measure all characteristics of the new particles (among which there could be the Higgs boson) to restart data taking in 2015. In light of the facts and many other hidden mistakes that could surface with a deeper investigation, would a taxpayer, philanthropist, or funding agency be willing to give any money to these scientists without a guarantee that they adhere to the ethics of science and of scientists? Because the future of the advancement in science and benefits to humanity depend upon the honesty of scientists in complying with ethical science, everyone should support transparency in implementing public scientific procedures before any further funding. Your support to the two workshops proposed at the largest scientific conference in the field expecting an attendance of 2,500 scientists to be held in November, 2014 in Seattle, Washington can protect your interest in not wasting money and in getting a return. The titles of these two workshops on November 9th, 2014 are: (a) from 8:00 to 12:30: “How does your project/idea/invention compare to other projects in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?” (see more details at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=138)  and (b) from 13:30 to 18:00: “How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compare to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?” (see more details at: http://blog.u2ec.org/wordpress/?p=140). The implementation should fully comply with the ethics of science, reserving (a) 90 minutes of presentations (each 10 to 15 minutes) from senior scientists who have projects of high impact, supported by solid scientific evidence, and projects that received conspicuous funding that need to justify their spending to the public by releasing their results, (b) 60 minutes of presentations (5 minutes each) by young scientists and PhD students, and (c) two hours dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system accessible free to any individual. The entire event should be broadcast live so that everyone can see who elects to be honest when confronted with irrefutable evidence that they are not following the ethics of science and are pursuing other agendas. The solution of the biggest calamities and problems facing humanity depend upon the honesty of those who delve deeply into the subject, understand the inconsistencies, and propose the best, most cost-effective solutions and test them experimentally. To avoid supporting dishonest scientists in the future, it is necessary to request the two public workshops listed above before giving any money to fix the mistakes of the flawed detectors instrumentation by 2015. Before spending the additional $30 Billion during the next 10 years to replace the parts of the detector that could not provide the capability to capture and accurately measure new particles, or building medical imaging instrumentation which is using the same approach of not asking those who receive the money what they will give in return in terms of reduction of cancer deaths and cost, it is urgent everyone support these two workshops. Calling for transparency, honesty and responsibility will stop the significant rise in the cost of cancer treatments, which has risen to 100 times what it was 50 years ago, with only a 5% reduction in cancer death. We need to solve the cancer problem not postpone it.

 

 

[1] List of journalists from top newspapers and magazines that were convinced by Levinson’s film: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/particle_fever/reviews/#.

Frank Swietek 
One Guy’s Opinion

Informative and exciting…an educational film that’s uplifting in the best sense.

Full Review  | Original Score: B+

http://www.oneguysopinion.com/Review.php?ID=3986

May 17, 2014

Peter Canavese 
Groucho Reviews

Even a science dunce will walk away with a basic understanding of the project and a strong impression of the community around this important research…a film about the idealistic pursuit of knowledge…

Full Review  | Original Score: 3.5/4

http://grouchoreviews.com/reviews/4670

 

April 25, 2014

Ron Wilkinson 
It’s Just Movies

Trouble in Boson City but the spunky brainiacs of the Hadron Collider right the ship and identify the illusive link to the beginning of the universe.

Full Review  | Original Score: 7/10

http://itsjustmovies.com/review-particle-fever/
April 15, 2014

Sherilyn Connelly http://www.sfweekly.com/2014-03-12/film/particle-fever-film-review/
SF Weekly

The fact that Mark Levinson’s engrossing Particle Fever was edited by the great Walter Murch gives it a better pedigree than most documentaries.

Full Review 

April 8, 2014

Robert Horton 
Seattle Weekly

[The film] serves as a needed reminder of the excitement of science, a practice that need not be left exclusively to nerds.

Full Review 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/robert-horton/

April 8, 2014

Al Alexander 
The Patriot Ledger

A subatomic thriller that not only captures one of mankind’s most significant breakthroughs, it makes physics and physicists look hip.

Full Review  | Original Score: A-

http://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140320/ENTERTAINMENT/140329274/12353/ENTERTAINMENT

March 21, 2014

Brian Orndorf 
Blu-ray.com

Its eventual slide into statistics comes to test patience, yet Levinson doesn’t lose the essential theme of the movie.

Full Review  | Original Score: B-

http://www.blu-ray.com/Particle-Fever/313252/?show=preview

March 21, 2014

Kelly Vance 
East Bay Express

Brilliant new documentary about the largest scientific experiment in history.

Full Review 

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/particle-fever/Content?oid=3861761

March 21, 2014

Tirdad Derakhshani 
Philadelphia Inquirer

Top Critic

Particle Fever explores with awe-inspiring precision, and in remarkably accessible language, how 10,000 scientists and engineers from around the world built what in effect is the ultimate test tube for particle physics.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/4

http://www.philly.com/philly/entertainment/movies/20140321__Particle_Fever___An_inspiring_look_at_the_question_of_where_everything_came_from.html

March 21, 2014

Matt Prigge 
Metro

We see science, and scientists – excitable, anxious, adorably nerdy scientists – freaking out as they’re about to fire up the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), one of the largest machines ever built by man.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/movies-entertainment/2014/03/20/review-particle-fever-another-reminder-science-totally-awesome/

March 20, 2014

Peter Keough 
Boston Globe

Top Critic

The enthusiasm, idealism, and cheerful brilliance of the six subjects convey the thrill, if not the full significance, of this scientific breakthrough.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/movies/2014/03/20/movie-review-looking-for-god-particle-documentary-particle-fever/zi3m8zv3cT8HckdvF304VL/story.html

March 20, 2014

Michael O’Sullivan 
Washington Post

Top Critic

It plays out with all the suspense of a thriller.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/movies/particle-fever-movie-review-a-true-scientific-search/2014/03/19/fc9bf708-aaeb-11e3-98f6-8e3c562f9996_story.html

March 20, 2014

Colin Covert 
Minneapolis Star Tribune

Top Critic

Levinson makes the story accessible and entertaining for mainstream viewers.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/251266441.html

March 20, 2014

Chris Hewitt (St. Paul) 
St. Paul Pioneer Press

There are a few entertaining developments in the film, but much of it is dull.

Full Review  | Original Score: 2/4

www.twincities.com/movies/ci_25378533/movie-review-if-colliders-matter-particle-fever-is

March 20, 2014

Barbara VanDenburgh 
Arizona Republic

Top Critic

Even the most math-averse viewer will be on pins and needs to know the results.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/movies/2014/03/20/science-doc-particle-fever-captivates/6621211/

March 20, 2014

Brent Simon 
Paste Magazine

A fascinating nonfiction celebration of human curiosity and endeavor, Particle Fever gives viewers a shotgun-seat to history that plays out on a very relatable plane.

Full Review  | Original Score: 7.5/10

www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/03/particle-fever.html

March 13, 2014

Ben Sachs 
Chicago Reader

Top Critic

The filmmakers find room for some witty philosophical bull sessions and affectionate portraits of some of the physicists; this is an agreeable light entertainment on a complex subject.

Full Review 

www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/particle-fever/Film?oid=12725431

March 13, 2014

Dann Gire 
Daily Herald (IL)

The narrative builds momentum as Particle Fever whisks us from 2008 through 2012 when the scientific world anxiously waits for the results of the experiment.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140313/entlife/303139999/

March 13, 2014

Walter V. Addiego 
San Francisco Chronicle

Top Critic

Even if you can’t explain the Standard Model or define “supersymmetry,” you’ll walk away with a conviction that you’ve vicariously participated in a historic event.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Particle-Fever-review-Documentary-on-Higgs-5314481.php

March 13, 2014

Andrew O’Hehir 
Salon.com

Top Critic

The bracing scientific rigor and intellectual derring-do presented in “Particle Fever” are most welcome.

Full Review 

http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Particle-Fever-review-Documentary-on-Higgs-5314481.php

Trey Graham 
NPR

Top Critic

All you really need to know about Particle Fever is that it includes footage of physicists rapping. About physics. Wearing giant Einstein masks.

Full Review 

www.npr.org/2014/03/07/286240920/particle-fever-thrills-chills-and-high-subatomic-drama?ft=1&f=1045

March 7, 2014

Peter Rainer 
Christian Science Monitor

Top Critic

The film allows for our awe. It also demonstrates that science is the most human of activities, with all that that implies.

Full Review  | Original Score: A-

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Movies/2014/0307/Particle-Fever-a-terrific-documentary-demonstrates-that-science-is-the-most-human-of-activities

March 7, 2014

Katherine Monk 
Canada.com

Levinson’s film seems to capture the instability of just about everything, from a large hadron collider, to a helium pipe, to the Higgs boson, to people in general.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://o.canada.com/entertainment/movies/movie-review-particle-fever-explores-emotional-side-of-higgs-quest-with-video

March 7, 2014

MaryAnn Johanson 
Flick Filosopher

A funny, exhilarating, suspenseful documentary about the Large Hadron Collider, and how physics is more akin to philosophy and art than you may have imagined.

Full Review 

http://www.flickfilosopher.com/2014/03/particle-fever-review-asking-really-big-questions-smallest-possible-things.html

March 7, 2014

Liam Lacey 
Globe and Mail

Top Critic

Set in crummy offices and towering facilities worthy of a Bond movie, the documentary is edited with the momentum of a thriller by the great Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now), as we follow six scientists.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/4

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/particle-fever-unexpectedly-gripping-doc-about-advanced-physics-is-both-mind-bending-and-deeply-human/article17344316/

March 7, 2014

Kenneth Turan 
Los Angeles Times

Top Critic

Watching a film won’t make you smarter, but if there ever was one that could, it would be “Particle Fever,” a movie so mind-bending you can almost feel your brain cells growing as you’re watching it.

Full Review 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-particle-fever-review-20140307-story.html#axzz2vDXLviEI

March 6, 2014

Bruce Demara 
Toronto Star

Top Critic

As fictional Vulcan Spock might have pronounced: “Fascinating.”

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/movies/2014/03/06/reel_life_bettie_page_jerusalem_and_the_lhc.html

March 6, 2014

Jordan Hoffman 
New York Daily News

Top Critic

Talk about a smash hit.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/movie-reviews-particle-fever-bethlehem-haunt-article-1.1712948

March 6, 2014

Josh Modell 
AV Club

A compelling, if sometimes difficult to follow, story.

Full Review  | Original Score: B+

http://www.avclub.com/review/new-documentary-particle-fever-breaks-down-god-par-201844

March 6, 2014

Wes Greene 
Slant Magazine

The film may not put itself above the uninitiated, but director Mark Levinson oftentimes appears almost too eager to present his material with affectation.

Full Review  | Original Score: 2.5/4

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/particle-fever

March 5, 2014

Christy Lemire 
RogerEbert.com

Top Critic

A movie that’s not just accessible but fun, with a surprisingly emotional payoff at the end.

Full Review  | Original Score: 3/4

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/particle-fever-2014

March 5, 2014

Joshua Rothkopf 
Time Out New York

Top Critic

Particle Fever is that rare, exhilarating science doc that’s neither dumbed down nor drabbed up.

Full Review  | Original Score: 5/5

http://www.timeout.com/us/film/particle-fever

March 4, 2014

A.O. Scott 
New York Times

Top Critic

The experience of watching the film can be vertiginous: You toggle between the tiny and the infinite, between eternity and the real time of the recent past.

Full Review 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/movies/particle-fever-tells-of-search-for-the-higgs-boson.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

March 4, 2014

Alan Scherstuhl 
Village Voice

Top Critic

A dazzling, dizzying documentary about nothing less than whether we exist in a coherent universe of ordered, even beautiful laws …

Full Review 

http://www.villagevoice.com/2014-03-05/film/particle-fever-documentary/

March 4, 2014

Louis Proyect 
rec.arts.movies.reviews

Totally thrilling documentary about a topic that might have been distinctly unthrilling. Great work from its physicist producer and director.

Full Review 

http://louisproyect.org/2014/03/04/particle-fever-the-iran-job/

March 4, 2014

Scott Tobias 
The Dissolve

The film does everything it can to build a bridge between physics nerds and their wedgie-giving counterparts […] making Particle Fever the crowd-pleaser it is […]

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://thedissolve.com/reviews/610-particle-fever/

March 4, 2014

David Gritten 
Daily Telegraph

Where it excels is in depicting the various personalities involved.

Full Review  | Original Score: 4/5

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/10123379/Particle-Fever-Sheffield-DocFest-review.html

March 3, 2014

Ronnie Scheib 
Variety

Top Critic

A documentary about science for professionals and laypeople alike, Particle Fever celebrates an event of earth-shattering importance, though what far-ranging transformations it heralds remain unknown

Full Review 

http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/particle-fever-review-1200709798/

March 3, 2014

Todd McCarthy 
Hollywood Reporter

Top Critic

A timely and fascinating look at physicists’ search for the Higgs boson.

Full Review 

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/particle-fever-film-review-646439

 

 

[2] The $50 Billion cost of CERN Large Hadron Collider accelerator plus the detector instrumentations and the salary of the scientists and engineers that took 20 years to be built, which has shown not having the capability to unequivocally trap, capture and measure the characteristics of new particles (including for the Higgs boson) is calculated as follows: $1 billion per year is the cost to operate CERN, which gives a total of $20 Billion, $10 billion is the cost of LHC accelerator; 10,000 scientists and engineers who are not CERN employees who are paid by home Universities in the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc., on a budget charged to taxpayers of the local country are costing an average of $100,000 per year per person, totaling to about $20 Billion. This is totaling about $50 Billion.

 

 

[3]Proposal for a workshop for establishing a link between research projects and benefits to humanity

How does your project/idea/invention compares in the advancement of science, in the discovery of new particles and in reducing the cost of HEP experiments?

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 8:00- 12:30

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs.

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Flavio Marchetto, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare – Torino – Italy

Two decades ago, the technological advantages of Crosetto’s invention of the 3D-Flow system in the advancement of science and in the discovery of new particles were recognized at a major international scientific review requested by the director of the Supercollider and held at the Fermi National Laboratory.

Today the sentence Crosetto used to conceive his invention in 1992 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to address and find the best synergy between detector and electronics for creating a powerful instrument in High Energy Physics with the capability to trap (capture the good signals, process and measure all characteristics of the particle that one would like to find) any new particle that is expected to have some characteristics complying with a specific real-time algorithm designed by a physicist.

Here is that sentence: “Design a system (electronics + detector) that is breaking the speed-barrier of the input data rate and algorithm execution time, with the capability to capture as many good event as possible, executing a specific real-time algorithm that could be changed at a later date after first data taking, with the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels with no boundaries, to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets and at the lowest cost per valid event captured compared to current systems.”

The 3D-Flow system architecture and its related innovations in the detector assembly, segmentation and coupling of the detector will cause a paradigm shift in the instrumentation of particle physics (particle tracking, calorimetry, imaging detectors, Trackers, Time-of-Flight), medical imaging (CT, PET, SPECT), space research, molecular physics, and true 3D imaging.

The reason for this workshop is to understand why after 20 years of work and billions of dollars spent the result is having built instrumentations which, measuring the same physical quantities (e.g. energy of the Higgs boson) related to a given phenomenon in nature, yet provide two different values, and in another experiment measure the speed of particles (e.g. neutrino speed) with an apparatus setup that from its conception can provide only inconclusive results because it is open to too many uncontrollable errors.

The need for this workshop is to ask every researcher to establish a link between their proposed research and the ultimate objective to build instrumentation capable of discovering new particles and reduce the cost of High Energy Physics experiments, when compared with others projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. It is necessary to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking to fully understand the synergies of Crosetto’s inventions in the field of detector, detector segmentation and assembly, electronics, algorithm development, the coupling of the electronics with the detector etc., as compared with other systems.

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art of the technological developments in the various fields of application for particle detection, to analyze the limits of current systems which led to inconclusive results and to the need to replace the current first-level triggers and other components. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved money and increased the efficiency of the experiments. Leaders from major HEP experiments, such as CMS, Atlas, LHCb and Alice, as well as the physicists who approved measuring neutrino’s speed with the OPERA experiment, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current HEP experiments and how they are overcome by the current upgrades and to compare their approach with respect to the synergy of Crosetto’s inventions and with respect to other projects presented. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

The benefits from this workshop are to reduce the upgrade costs of HEP experiments at LHC and all future experiments, to increase their power and efficiency in discovering new particles, and to start a paradigm change that will save money and open the door to greater advancement in science. The dialogue in this workshop with leaders who are designing and building upgrades of current experiments and new experiments is key to understanding all advantages and benefits from inventions which have been available for 20 years, instead of building upgrades only to find out years from now that they could have been done at a much lower cost and with better performance.

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

 

From: Dario Crosetto [mailto:crosetto@att.net] Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 2:47 PM
To: ‘Georges El Fakhri, PhD, DABR’; ‘katia.parodi@lmu.de’
Cc: unitedtoendcancer@att.net;

Subject: Submission of a half-day MIC workshop at the 2014 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Seattle (WA), Nov. 8 to Nov. 15, 2014

Dear Georges and Katia,

According to your instructions on how to prepare a proposal for a workshop, we drafted the following proposal that I am sending you a few days before the deadline of Sunday, May 11, 2014 because Katia mentioned on the phone that you would have the meeting on Monday, May 12 to evaluate these proposals and if we need to change format/length, etc. there would still be the time.

We have paid attention to Katia’s advice that the workshop topics  should not be the same as in the regular conference, and that they should require discussion of new ideas for advancement of future science.

In the proposed workshop the topic: a) links each project to the ultimate objective (e.g. of reduction of cancer deaths and cost) which is not listed in any regular topic of the conference, b) asks researchers to make an estimate of the percentage in reduction of cancer deaths and cost they expect to attain with their research, either stand alone or when combined with existing components or current research, is not in the regular topic, c) is not limited to a single modality, but rather open to all modalities PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/Ultrasound, TOF-PET and any other modality a proposer can demonstrate would achieve a significant reduction of cancer deaths and cost, d) seeks to identify a standard measurement of the efficacy of a proposed solution which is not in the standard topics. The fact that there are many protocols for trials of new drugs and new imaging devices but during the past 50 years premature cancer deaths did not drop significantly demonstrates the need for the novel approach proposed in this workshop.

Our workshop will allow the discussion to span across all modalities, techniques, linking a technique with the ultimate goal of reducing cancer deaths, and is not available in the regular topics.  Also, within a modality, there is no link in the regular topic with the ultimate goal. For example, now people are trying to improve TOF-PET from 600 picosecond (corresponding to 18 mm resolution) to 200 picosecond (corresponding to 6 mm resolution). Is there an estimate of saving more lives and reducing cost using a PET with 200 picosecond resolution?  If so, how is the estimate calculated? The expectations we have in reducing cancer deaths with the trend of technological improvements should be clear as we plan now for the future.

We believe the benefits of the dialogue from the proposed workshop would be substantial for the scientific community as well as for humanity.

Because an open public DIALOGUE is key to bring maximum benefits to humanity from innovations that are providing advancement in science and in significantly reducing cancer deaths through an effective early detection, the Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths will cover the cost of the broadcasting and of the interactive discussion via internet EVO system of the event.

We hope to receive your approval,

Kind Regards,

Dario Crosetto, Umberto Bellotti, Joseph Dent and Ruben Sonnino

 

How does your project/idea/invention in Medical Imaging compares to other projects in advancing science and in particular in reducing cancer deaths and cost?

 

Sunday, November 9th, 2014, 13:30- 18:00

Location: TBD

Chairs: Umberto Bellotti, BELLUM Labs.

Dario Crosetto, Crosetto Foundation for the Reduction of Cancer Deaths

Joseph Dent, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Ruben Sonnino, Retired executive of ST-Microelectronics. Active member of ST-Foundation, responsible for North, Central and South America

 

Fourteen years ago the technological innovations of the Crosetto 3D-CBS technology which enabled effective early cancer detection by improving the efficiency of PET by 400 folds, were presented in twoarticles and a book distributed free to the leaders in the field at the 2000 IEEE-NSS-MIC conference in Lyon, France.

 

Today the challenge Crosetto set for himself in the year 2000 is still relevant to young scientists and PhD students who want to find the best synergy between detector, geometry and electronics, for the purpose of creating a cost-effective instrument with the highest efficiency of early cancer detection, while minimizing both the radiation dose to the patient and the examination cost.

 

Here is that sentence: “Design a cost-effective system (electronics + detector) with a long Field-Of-View that captures as many 511keV pairs of photons as possible from positron-electron annihilation and accurately measures each photon’s arrival time, energy, and  the x, y, z  coordinates of its impact point in the crystal. Moreover it must have the capability to efficiently exchange data with neighboring channels without boundaries, and to efficiently reject the noise by executing complex algorithms for a time longer than the time interval between two consecutive input data sets at the lowest cost per valid pair of 511 keV photons captured compared to current systems.”

 

The 3D-CBS technology with its innovations in electronics, detector assembly and coupling of the detector with the electronics will cause a paradigm shift in the Medical Imaging, enabling effective early cancer detection (CT, PET, SPECT), molecular physics, and true whole-body, 3D imaging.

 

The reason for this workshop is to understand why, after more than a decade, an invention like 3D-CBS technology, which could have already saved many lives and reduced health care costs through the early detection of cancer, has not been funded.   Information provided by 3D-CBS innovative technology can also be useful in investigating many other anomalies in a patient’s body (diabetes, Alzheimer’s, heart and vascular diseases, etc.), improve the treatment of patients, and open the door to the discovery of new biomarkers through its increased sensitivity. Infact, Crosetto has been prevented from presenting his invention at several IEEE-NSS-MIC conferences. At the same time, some of the Chairmen and reviewers who rejected  3D-CBS and prevented its presentation received funding for less efficient projects, and are now building a similar device, although much more expensive.

 

The need for this workshop is to develop a metric to establish a link between proposed research and the ultimate objective to reduce cancer deaths and cost, when compared with other projects, and to point out advantages and weaknesses. Participants are encouraged to estimate and propose a plan to measure the percentage of reduction in cancer deaths they expect to attain from their research stand-alone, or when combined with other existing components or with other research currently being developed. One example is testing on a sample population taken from a group aged 55-74 that has had a constant cancer death rate for the past 20 years. A difference or no difference in cancer death reduction will determine the success or failure of the proposed research.

 

The scope of this workshop is to summarize the state-of-the-art technological developments in the various fields of application for Medical Imaging and recognize those that have greater potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. The limits of current systems should be analyzed. Crosetto will make a short presentation of his inventions that would have saved many lives and reduced health care cost. Leaders from leading universities and research centers in the field, including those who presented the Explorer at the 2013 IEEE-NSS-MIC-RTSD, will be invited to present their projects comparing them with others. Senior scientists, young scientists and PhD students will be invited to analyze the limits of current PET and to compare their approach for medical imaging systems in PET/CT, PET/MRI, PET/ultrasound, TOF-PET and any Imaging system (e.g. measuring fluorescence, tissue conductivity, etc.) that has potential to significantly reduce global cancer deaths and cost. This last phase will take place during the round table discussion.

 

The benefits from this workshop will lead to the identification and funding of the best solutions with the highest potential to reduce cancer deaths and cost. This can be achieved through a public dialogue that is following scientific procedures where everyone is given the opportunity to present their contribution to the advancement of science in the field. In this way, reliable information can be placed on Wikipedia and no relevant contribution to the history of PET and Medical Imaging will be left out. Scientists have a great responsibility to provide ethical and professional information so that the possibility to solve the cancer problem increases.

 

It is foreseen to have introductory and overview talks during the first 90 minutes made by internationally recognized experts. The focus of the following 60 minutes will be short (5 minutes, including questions) oral presentations by young scientists and PhD students. The last 2 hours will be dedicated to a round table discussion extended to participants via web EVO system that is used by HEP teleconferencing and can be used by any individual. We encourage young researchers to present and discuss their work. The entire event will be broadcast worldwide by professionals in communication.

 

If you want to contribute to this workshop, please send your abstract through the conference website before June 15th. A preliminary program will be available in the conference booklet.

 

[4] LHC the world lagest accelerator http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130114546.htm

[[5]] D. Crosetto provided the schematics proving that his electronics built in 2003 was hundreds of times more accurate than CERN-OPERA electronics built in 2008 and advertized on CERN Bulletin as with “outstanding accuracy”. http://links.u2ec.net/doc2/700.pdf

[[6]] Sigma, misura di incertezza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty

 

Share it!Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInPin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

This post is also available in: Italian

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Site Overview
Please visit our
Site Overview for help in navigating the site.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Upcoming Events
October 2017
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
September 25, 2017 September 26, 2017 September 27, 2017 September 28, 2017 September 29, 2017 September 30, 2017 October 1, 2017
October 2, 2017 October 3, 2017 October 4, 2017 October 5, 2017 October 6, 2017 October 7, 2017 October 8, 2017
October 9, 2017 October 10, 2017 October 11, 2017 October 12, 2017 October 13, 2017 October 14, 2017 October 15, 2017
October 16, 2017 October 17, 2017 October 18, 2017 October 19, 2017 October 20, 2017 October 21, 2017 October 22, 2017
October 23, 2017 October 24, 2017 October 25, 2017 October 26, 2017 October 27, 2017 October 28, 2017 October 29, 2017
October 30, 2017 October 31, 2017 November 1, 2017 November 2, 2017 November 3, 2017 November 4, 2017 November 5, 2017
Recent Comments