x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
March 19, 2026
Source:
University of Manchester
Summary:
A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus)
has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider.
This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter particles in high-energy collisions.
The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long question about its existence.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm
Just double checking.
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN. That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo
instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2 Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math ideas?. >>> So:
"
If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop
then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' is not really wanted. Yes there is 'on'
and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two. You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'. There
is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but
the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong
force'. In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have
certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'. These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge
that repels each other. The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'. Then there is a 'weak force'. The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances. In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times
called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just
'electrons' and 'positrons'. Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'? Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions
of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt. Can you
simplify, however? The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other? It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'. In it there was
speculation. Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'? If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia. It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA
Like nature does :-)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Who is Molly Cules and can you have sex with her?
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>> Hadron ColliderJust double checking.
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus)
˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider.
˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and >>>>>>> was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter
particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long >>>>>>> question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm >>>>>>
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo >>>>> instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles
will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of
magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2
Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out
the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math
ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop
˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the
Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on'
and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There
is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but
the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong
force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have
certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge
that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times
called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just
'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions
of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you
simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I
would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA
Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic stuff than wisdom.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>> Hadron ColliderJust double checking.
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus)
˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider.
˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and >>>>>>>> was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter
particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long >>>>>>>> question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm >>>>>>>
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo >>>>>> instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles
will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of
magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2
Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out >>>>> the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math
ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop
˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the
Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on'
and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There
is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but
the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong
force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have
certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge
that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times
called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just
'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions
of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you
simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I
would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA
Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic
stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>>> Hadron ColliderJust double checking.
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider.
˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and >>>>>>>>> was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter
particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long >>>>>>>>> question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm >>>>>>>>
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo >>>>>>> instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles
will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of
magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2
Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out >>>>>> the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math
ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop
˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the >>>>>> Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on'
and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There
is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but
the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong
force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have
certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge
that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times
called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just
'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions
of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you
simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I
would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA
Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic
stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias
also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition
There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells,
actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things Humans will find out if not already did.
I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>>>> Hadron ColliderJust double checking.
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider.
˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and >>>>>>>>>> was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter >>>>>>>>>> particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long >>>>>>>>>> question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm >>>>>>>>>
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo >>>>>>>> instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles >>>>>>> will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of
magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2
Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out >>>>>>> the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math >>>>>>> ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop >>>>>>> ˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the >>>>>>> Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on'
and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There
is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but
the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong
force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have
certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge
that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times
called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just
'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions
of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you
simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I >>>>> would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA >>>>> Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic >>>> stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias
also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition
There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells,
actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things
Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects. I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>>>>> Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider. >>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and >>>>>>>>>>> was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter >>>>>>>>>>> particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long >>>>>>>>>>> question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm
Just double checking.
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo >>>>>>>>> instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles >>>>>>>> will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of >>>>>>>> magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2 >>>>>>>> Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out >>>>>>>> the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math >>>>>>>> ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop >>>>>>>> ˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the >>>>>>>> Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg
uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on'
and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There
is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but
the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong
force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have >>>>>>> certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge
that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times >>>>>>> called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just
'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions
of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you
simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I >>>>>> would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA >>>>>> Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole >>>>> set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic >>>>> stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias
also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition
There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells,
actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things >>> Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects. I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while. All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 22:31, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>>>>>> Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider. >>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and
was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter >>>>>>>>>>>> particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long >>>>>>>>>>>> question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm
Just double checking.
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo >>>>>>>>>> instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles >>>>>>>>> will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of >>>>>>>>> magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2 >>>>>>>>> Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out >>>>>>>>> the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math >>>>>>>>> ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop >>>>>>>>> ˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the >>>>>>>>> Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg >>>>>>>> uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on' >>>>>>>> and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You
want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at
that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There >>>>>>>> is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but >>>>>>>> the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's
to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong >>>>>>>> force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have >>>>>>>> certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These
'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge >>>>>>>> that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be
a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in
a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force
is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of
'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times >>>>>>>> called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena
involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just >>>>>>>> 'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions >>>>>>>> of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you >>>>>>>> simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons'
might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I >>>>>>> would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA >>>>>>> Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole >>>>>> set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic >>>>>> stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias
also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition
There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells,
actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things >>>> Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects. I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while. >> All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related >> and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
Yuck. Pretty pictures from machines called television
sets and radios that are not actually true.
I remember back in college however a class where there
was this biochem professor where there was this cow's
liver and I am thinking there was centrifugation and
electrophoresis to get enzymes from it to test the
dynamics of the enzyme reactions. Some of that stuff
is cool.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 22:31, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider. >>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and
was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter >>>>>>>>>>>>> particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long
question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm
Just double checking.
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo
instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles >>>>>>>>>> will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of >>>>>>>>>> magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2 >>>>>>>>>> Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out >>>>>>>>>> the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math >>>>>>>>>> ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop >>>>>>>>>> ˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the
Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg >>>>>>>>> uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on' >>>>>>>>> and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you
do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You >>>>>>>>> want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until
a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at >>>>>>>>> that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There >>>>>>>>> is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but >>>>>>>>> the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's >>>>>>>>> to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong >>>>>>>>> force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have >>>>>>>>> certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These >>>>>>>>> 'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge >>>>>>>>> that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be >>>>>>>>> a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in >>>>>>>>> a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force >>>>>>>>> is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of
circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of >>>>>>>>> 'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times >>>>>>>>> called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena >>>>>>>>> involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just >>>>>>>>> 'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that
ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well,
it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions >>>>>>>>> of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you >>>>>>>>> simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a
'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each
other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons' >>>>>>>>> might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in
a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I >>>>>>>> would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA >>>>>>>> Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole >>>>>>> set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic >>>>>>> stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias
also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition >>>>> There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells,
actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things >>>>> Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects. I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while. >>> All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
Yuck. Pretty pictures from machines called television
sets and radios that are not actually true.
?
I remember back in college however a class where there
was this biochem professor where there was this cow's
liver and I am thinking there was centrifugation and
electrophoresis to get enzymes from it to test the
dynamics of the enzyme reactions. Some of that stuff
is cool.
Your name is x
are you AI?
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/30/26 02:06, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 22:31, Jan Panteltje wrote:Yuck. Pretty pictures from machines called television
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and
was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment.
˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long
question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm
Just double checking.
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo
instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles >>>>>>>>>>> will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of >>>>>>>>>>> magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2 >>>>>>>>>>> Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out
the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math >>>>>>>>>>> ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop >>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the
Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg >>>>>>>>>> uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on' >>>>>>>>>> and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you >>>>>>>>>> do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You >>>>>>>>>> want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until >>>>>>>>>> a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at >>>>>>>>>> that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There >>>>>>>>>> is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but >>>>>>>>>> the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's >>>>>>>>>> to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong >>>>>>>>>> force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have >>>>>>>>>> certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These >>>>>>>>>> 'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge >>>>>>>>>> that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be >>>>>>>>>> a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in >>>>>>>>>> a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force >>>>>>>>>> is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of >>>>>>>>>> circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of >>>>>>>>>> 'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times >>>>>>>>>> called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena >>>>>>>>>> involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just >>>>>>>>>> 'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that >>>>>>>>>> ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well, >>>>>>>>>> it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions >>>>>>>>>> of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you >>>>>>>>>> simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a >>>>>>>>>> 'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each >>>>>>>>>> other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was
speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so
one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons' >>>>>>>>>> might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in >>>>>>>>>> a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he
died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I >>>>>>>>> would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA >>>>>>>>> Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole >>>>>>>> set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic
stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias
also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition >>>>>> There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells,
actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things >>>>>> Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects. I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while.
All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
sets and radios that are not actually true.
?
Hmm. I am thinking that an exaggeration is a lie.
I think that most things on television fall under
the category of 'fiction'.
I remember back in college however a class where there
was this biochem professor where there was this cow's
liver and I am thinking there was centrifugation and
electrophoresis to get enzymes from it to test the
dynamics of the enzyme reactions. Some of that stuff
is cool.
Your name is x
are you AI?
'x' is a variable that I type into a thunderbird
usenet reader. I think it involves one keystroke.
Not everything involves only one keystroke nowadays.
I am thinking that the 'A' stands for 'artificial'.
If I answer 'no' I am arrogant. I can only guess
that I am human.
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while. All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/30/26 02:06, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 22:31, Jan Panteltje wrote:Yuck. Pretty pictures from machines called television
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at CERN?s Large
Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy cousin of
the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery.
Date:
˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? (Xi-cc-plus) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron Collider. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two charm quarks and
was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into lighter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a decades-long
question about its existence.
Link:
˙˙˙ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm
Just double checking.
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was
destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in
Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We supplied the cryo
instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller particles >>>>>>>>>>>> will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of >>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like shooting 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever figure out
the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just math >>>>>>>>>>>> ideas?.
So:
˙˙ "
˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on the desktop
˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the size of the
Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg >>>>>>>>>>> uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on' >>>>>>>>>>> and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you >>>>>>>>>>> do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You >>>>>>>>>>> want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until >>>>>>>>>>> a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at >>>>>>>>>>> that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There >>>>>>>>>>> is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but >>>>>>>>>>> the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's >>>>>>>>>>> to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong >>>>>>>>>>> force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to have >>>>>>>>>>> certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These >>>>>>>>>>> 'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge >>>>>>>>>>> that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be >>>>>>>>>>> a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in >>>>>>>>>>> a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force >>>>>>>>>>> is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of >>>>>>>>>>> circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of >>>>>>>>>>> 'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons'
(also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some times >>>>>>>>>>> called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena >>>>>>>>>>> involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just >>>>>>>>>>> 'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that >>>>>>>>>>> ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well, >>>>>>>>>>> it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions >>>>>>>>>>> of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you >>>>>>>>>>> simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a >>>>>>>>>>> 'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each >>>>>>>>>>> other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was >>>>>>>>>>> speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons'
with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so >>>>>>>>>>> one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons' >>>>>>>>>>> might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in >>>>>>>>>>> a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the
simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he >>>>>>>>>>> died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of things, I >>>>>>>>>> would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of DNA / RNA >>>>>>>>>> Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy a whole >>>>>>>>> set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected.
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much more basic
stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality. That is not how the brain
works. The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells. They change
them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire,
and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment. The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire. It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals. The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias >>>>>>> also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical composition >>>>>>> There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells, >>>>>>> actually there is a chemical transport that may contain different things
Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects. I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax. Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while.
All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects, >>>>> help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
sets and radios that are not actually true.
?
Hmm. I am thinking that an exaggeration is a lie.
I think that most things on television fall under
the category of 'fiction'.
Depends, but I do not see all channels,
just have more than 400 here -- on satellite -- plus a few local ones.
I like the 'that's' music channels on Astra satellite (English)
and sometimes follow the 'place in the sun' channels on Channel 4 (people looking for cheap property in warm and nice places),
Beep Beep See news, CNN, Al Jazeera, some financial channels,..
Many German channels... ZDF-info etc, videtext / ceefax / teletext... pity the Brits dropped ceefax.
Usually do a quick check in the morning if there is anything that may be of use, some Dutch channels that test stuff and companies...
program a recoding so I can see it when I have time
Survival channels on German TV are sometimes interesting too, you can learn tricks from that, may come in handy if the white in the nut-house get worse.
Have not watched a movie in maybe a year.
Probably seen many, most?, recorded some too.
I worked in broadcasting here for many years, starting in 1968, some stuff was still using tubes back then, even orthicon cameras
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
I designed my own vidicon camera in 1968,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
think that got me the broadcasting job, before that I worked for army, navy, power stations electronics..
Things became color here with e PAL color system and we had plumbicon cameras.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL
After I left broadcasting I was all over the globe...
doing all sort of things.. even space and Navy guided missiles related.
Now back in the Netherlands...
Had a TV repair shop here too for some years.
But who knows...
I remember back in college however a class where there
was this biochem professor where there was this cow's
liver and I am thinking there was centrifugation and
electrophoresis to get enzymes from it to test the
dynamics of the enzyme reactions. Some of that stuff
is cool.
Your name is x
are you AI?
'x' is a variable that I type into a thunderbird
usenet reader. I think it involves one keystroke.
Not everything involves only one keystroke nowadays.
I dunno, I wrote my own Usenet newsreader many years ago, ported it now to Raspberry Pi4, have not released the Pi yet, still testing.
I have a Usenet database on this Raspberry Pi that goes back to 2006 with postings I did and postings I found interesting that I saved, has a search function too.
Likely even older Usenet on old PC in the attic,
'X' is also the name of Musk's babble network..
I am thinking that the 'A' stands for 'artificial'.
Yes
If I answer 'no' I am arrogant. I can only guess
that I am human.
Yes, was just curious, I sure would not be surprised if they tried infiltrating Usenet with a bot - if they not already did, or will if they read this :-).
Humming beans, .. so many... varieties...
On 3/30/26 07:27, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/30/26 02:06, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 22:31, Jan Panteltje wrote:Yuck.˙ Pretty pictures from machines called television
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Physicists discover a heavy cousin of the proton at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CERN?s LargeJust double checking.
Hadron Collider
CERN scientists have discovered a long-predicted heavy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cousin of
the proton, finally solving a 20-year mystery. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ March 19, 2026
Source:
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ University of Manchester
Summary:
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ A new subatomic particle known as the ?cc? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Xi-cc-plus)
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ has been discovered at CERN?s Large Hadron >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Collider.
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ This heavy proton-like particle contains two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charm quarks and
was detected using the upgraded LHCb experiment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ Scientists observed it through its decay into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lighter
particles in high-energy collisions.
˙˙˙ ˙˙˙ The finding confirms predictions and settles a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decades-long
question about its existence.
Link:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260319005106.htm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In the science fiction story Lexxx, the Earth was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> destroyed by the superconducting supercollider in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas, and not CERN.˙ That is correct?
But the SSC was never built.
They did finish the helium plant in Waxahachie. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>> supplied the cryo
instrumentation.
Nice.
I was thinking with ever more knowledge of ever smaller >>>>>>>>>>>>> particles
will we see chips that use interactions of those?
I mean we are now into electrons and holes, but go an order of >>>>>>>>>>>>> magnitude smaller, more on a chip.
OTOH when you look at large colliders, to me is like >>>>>>>>>>>>> shooting 2
Tesla cars at each other at supersonic speed.
Sure, you may find some bolts and nuts, but will you ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out
the inside of the chips in auto-pilot and their
programming?
You will find all sorts of shrapnel though...
I really have no clue as to what 'quarks' exactly are, just >>>>>>>>>>>>> math
ideas?.
So:
˙˙˙ ˙˙ "
˙˙˙ ˙˙ If you cannot do it with those small particles on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the desktop
˙˙˙ ˙˙ then you will not be able to do it in a machine the >>>>>>>>>>>>> size of the
Universe.
When it comes to computers, I am thinking that the 'Heisenberg >>>>>>>>>>>> uncertainty principle' is not really wanted.˙ Yes there is 'on' >>>>>>>>>>>> and there is 'off' in logic gates like 'flip flops' but you >>>>>>>>>>>> do not want them jumping back and forth between the two.˙ You >>>>>>>>>>>> want a '1' to remain a '1' and a '0' to remain a '0' until >>>>>>>>>>>> a read-write or chip select signal is to be sent and only at >>>>>>>>>>>> that time can you set a '1' to a '0' or a '0' to a '1'.˙ There >>>>>>>>>>>> is also 'dynamic RAM', 'flash drives', and other phenomena but >>>>>>>>>>>> the general idea is that you do not want random '1's and '0's >>>>>>>>>>>> to appear except when a read-write is happening.
As for 'quarks' I am thinking there is supposed to be a 'strong >>>>>>>>>>>> force'.˙ In general the 'nucleus' of 'atoms' is supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>> have
certain 'charged' materials in them called 'protons'.˙ These >>>>>>>>>>>> 'protons' are all supposed to have a 'positive' electric charge >>>>>>>>>>>> that repels each other.˙ The 'strong force' is supposed to be >>>>>>>>>>>> a strong force that holds all of those 'protons' together in >>>>>>>>>>>> a 'nucleus'.˙ Then there is a 'weak force'.˙ The 'weak' force >>>>>>>>>>>> is often much 'weaker' than the 'strong force' in a lot of >>>>>>>>>>>> circumstances.˙ In general, it allows the interconversion of >>>>>>>>>>>> 'protons' into 'neutrons' and 'neutrons' into 'protons' >>>>>>>>>>>> (also involving a 'little neutral one' in the process some >>>>>>>>>>>> times
called a 'neutrino').
As for 'quarks' I am thinking it has to do with the phenomena >>>>>>>>>>>> involved with building of 'protons' and 'neutrons' and not just >>>>>>>>>>>> 'electrons' and 'positrons'.˙ Then of course there is that >>>>>>>>>>>> ancient Carl Sagan's 'can you know a grain of salt'?˙ Well, >>>>>>>>>>>> it might be difficult to memorize all of the specific positions >>>>>>>>>>>> of every sodium and chlorine atom in a grain of salt.˙ Can you >>>>>>>>>>>> simplify, however?˙ The 'sodium' and 'chlorine' atoms in a >>>>>>>>>>>> 'crystal' might have certain relations with respect to each >>>>>>>>>>>> other?˙ It might be possible to simplify.
Then of course there is 'Broca's Brain'.˙ In it there was >>>>>>>>>>>> speculation.˙ Could one read the positions of 'neurons' >>>>>>>>>>>> with respect to each other in a preserved 'brain'?˙ If so >>>>>>>>>>>> one might be able to 'read' the 'information' in the
preserved brain, simulate how those interactions of 'neurons' >>>>>>>>>>>> might have gone on when the 'brain' was alive, and then in >>>>>>>>>>>> a limited sense that 'person' might 'live again' in the >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated world.
I guess he has a web page on Wikipedia.˙ It seems that he >>>>>>>>>>>> died in Paris, France in 1880 age 56.
If I was a brain cell and had to remember things, a lot of >>>>>>>>>>> things, I
would store it locally in DNA or RNA
Nature is very efficient,
Maybe one day we can transfer 'wisdom' by a simple copy of >>>>>>>>>>> DNA / RNA
Like nature does :-)
It doesn't. If you wanted to copy memories you'd have to copy >>>>>>>>>> a whole
set of DNA molecules and the way they were interconnected. >>>>>>>>>>
Nature transfer instincts via heritable DNA, but that's much >>>>>>>>>> more basic
stuff than wisdom.
Totally disconnected from reality.˙ That is not how the brain >>>>>>>>> works.˙ The brain stores information by changing the nature
of the interconnections between the nerve cells.˙ They change >>>>>>>>> them based upon whether the nerve cells fire or do not fire, >>>>>>>>> and that can be based at least somewhat on sensation from
the environment.˙ The DNA and RNA code for proteins that
do that when the cells fire.˙ It is pretty much the same
DNA/RNA for humans and animals.˙ The uniqueness of our
thoughts and memories have to do with the specific
connections between the nerve cel
That is the old view / model.
done some coding with that model.
It raises the question if 'nerve cells' apart from building bias >>>>>>>> also store the signals in time and amplitude and chemical
composition
There is more than an electric signal between brain nerve cells, >>>>>>>> actually there is a chemical transport that may contain
different things
Humans will find out if not already did.
Yea there are various levels of knowledge on
many subjects. I am thinking that when I comes
to microscopy of the nervous system I once
took a class. on various subjects.˙ I am thinking
that when nerve cells are often studied the
tissue is first exchanged with organic solvents,
and then wax.˙ Then the wax is cut into slices.
Then the slices are placed on slides and the
wax is re-exchanged with organic solvents.
I have also, to the best of my recollection
not made a diary entry for either today or
yesterday.
Sorry.
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from
https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for >>>>>> a while.
All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA
research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects, >>>>>> help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone
into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
sets and radios that are not actually true.
?
Hmm.˙ I am thinking that an exaggeration is a lie.
I think that most things on television fall under
the category of 'fiction'.
Depends, but I do not see all channels,
just have more than 400 here -- on satellite -- plus a few local ones.
I like the 'that's' music channels on Astra satellite (English)
and sometimes follow the 'place in the sun' channels on Channel 4
(people looking for cheap property in warm and nice places),
Beep Beep See news, CNN, Al Jazeera, some financial channels,..
Many German channels... ZDF-info etc, videtext / ceefax / teletext...
pity the Brits dropped ceefax.
Usually do a quick check in the morning if there is anything that may
be of use, some Dutch channels that test stuff and companies...
program a recoding so I can see it when I have time
Survival channels on German TV are sometimes interesting too, you can
learn tricks from that, may come in handy if the white in the
nut-house get worse.
Have not watched a movie in maybe a year.
Probably seen many, most?, recorded some too.
I worked in broadcasting here for many years, starting in 1968, some
stuff was still using tubes back then, even orthicon cameras
˙ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
I designed my own vidicon camera in 1968,
˙ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_camera_tube
˙˙ think that got me the broadcasting job, before that I worked for
army, navy, power stations electronics..
Things became color here with e PAL color system and we had plumbicon
cameras.
˙ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL
After I left broadcasting I was all over the globe...
doing all sort of things.. even space and Navy guided missiles related.
Now back in the Netherlands...
Had a TV repair shop here too for some years.
But who knows...
I remember back in college however a class where there
was this biochem professor where there was this cow's
liver and I am thinking there was centrifugation and
electrophoresis to get enzymes from it to test the
dynamics of the enzyme reactions.˙ Some of that stuff
is cool.
Your name is x
˙˙ are you AI?
'x' is a variable that I type into a thunderbird
usenet reader.˙ I think it involves one keystroke.
Not everything involves only one keystroke nowadays.
I dunno, I wrote my own Usenet newsreader many years ago, ported it
now to Raspberry Pi4, have not released the Pi yet, still testing.
I have a Usenet database on this Raspberry Pi that goes back to 2006
with postings I did and postings I found interesting that I saved, has
a search function too.
Likely even older Usenet on old PC in the attic,
'X' is also the name of Musk's babble network..
I am thinking that the 'A' stands for 'artificial'.
Yes
If I answer 'no' I am arrogant.˙ I can only guess
that I am human.
Yes, was just curious, I sure would not be surprised if they tried
infiltrating Usenet with a bot - if they not already did, or will if
they read this :-).
Well, you know there is something called 'usenet' and there
is something called 'world wide web' or 'internet'
'Usenet' has a lot of 'mirrors' so it is hard to way where that
is if anywhere.
Several years ago there used to be a bunch of posts on usenet
that looked incoherent, like they had bad sentence structure
and the words did not really have clear meaning.˙ Those posts
might have been created by viruses.
Once upon a time there was something called 'Netscape Navigator'.
It had a usenet reader built into it.
And of course you can surf the internet some and notice 'Linus
Torvalds' and the terms 'open source operating system' or something
like 'Windows' and 'Lindows' or the like.˙ My guess is that Bill
Gates did not pay a motorcycle gang to push Gary Kildall down a
flight of stairs in 1994.
Then there is this one guy or bot with a posting handle 'Taskfreak'.
A lot of his posts to me seem like 'dead Jewish babies - laugh
laugh, snicker, snicker - dead 'fat-assed Arab' babies - laugh
laugh, snicker, snicker ...'.˙ Then there is not anything about
'soy beans' or 'soylent green' because regardless of how similar
or different 'kosher' is from 'halal' the phrase 'it is all in the
spices' tends to destroy the meaning of that somewhat.
I am thinking that the poster is human but that is probably the
byproduct of different media outlets, who knows.˙ If I were not
human, if you were not human, if he or she were not human, would
there be any difference?
Humming beans, .. so many... varieties...
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 30/03/2026 4:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote:
On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while. >> All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related >> and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
I did get a Ph.D. in chemisty, and I was pretty good at it - as you'd
expect when both my parents were chemists - but I wasn't any kind of >chemical genius, and I don't think I've ever run into one. People like >Einstein and Dirac may rate as geniuses but the nut cases on >sci.physics.relativity wouldn't agree.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
I don't think that anybody has clue what is wrong with Donald Trump at
the genome level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_(Plomin_book)
seems to think that if you get the genetics right you could fix society,
but his books makes clear that thousands of genes correlatate with the
high level skills he imagines to be genetically determined, and we
haven't a clue how they influence them. My late wife was a
psycholinguist and thus interested in the way the brain process speech. >There were psycholignuists who used magnetic resonance imaging to try to >roughly work out what was going on in the brain when it was processing >speech, but she didn't think that they were getting useful results.
There are research techniques that work to some extent, but all they
tell us is that it is a multi-stage process, and different stages happen
in different bits of the brain. "Where" is sort of predictable for most >right-handers, but at least one of her colleagues wouldn't look at >left-handers, because their processing happens in different areas and
the different areas vary from one left-hander to the next.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 30/03/2026 4:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while. >>> All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
I did get a Ph.D. in chemisty, and I was pretty good at it - as you'd
expect when both my parents were chemists - but I wasn't any kind of
chemical genius, and I don't think I've ever run into one. People like
Einstein and Dirac may rate as geniuses but the nut cases on
sci.physics.relativity wouldn't agree.
Einstein is a YouWitz sect got
He advised Rooseveld to make a nuke.
His 'relativity' and other crap was alread proven wrong by Alain Aspect many years ago
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alain-Aspect
The Le Sage model is a simple explantion why clocks run slower near heavy objects,
gets rid of the singularities and wormhole crap.
You need a mechanism, like we have electrons to explain current in a vacuum tube
EinStein is like parroting Ohms law with no understanding of electrons.
In le Sage, if EM radiation is a state of those LS particles, everything becomes simple.
I will get a No Bell Price for that I'm sure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
The EinStein repeating idiots are keeping the world in their grip, trying 'fusion'
with the same idiotic mindset, no positive return ever.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
I don't think that anybody has clue what is wrong with Donald Trump at
the genome level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_(Plomin_book)
seems to think that if you get the genetics right you could fix society,
but his books makes clear that thousands of genes correlate with the
high level skills he imagines to be genetically determined, and we
haven't a clue how they influence them. My late wife was a
psycholinguist and thus interested in the way the brain process speech.
There were psycholignuists who used magnetic resonance imaging to try to
roughly work out what was going on in the brain when it was processing
speech, but she didn't think that they were getting useful results.
There are research techniques that work to some extent, but all they
tell us is that it is a multi-stage process, and different stages happen
in different bits of the brain. "Where" is sort of predictable for most
right-handers, but at least one of her colleagues wouldn't look at
left-handers, because their processing happens in different areas and
the different areas vary from one left-hander to the next.
I think we get / inherit a lot from our parents / family tree.
Mentally AND physically.
Doctor Bill Sloman wrote:She died on the 6th June 2022. I've had time to come to terms with it.
|--------------|
|"My late wife"|
|--------------|
Dear Doctor Sloman,
Sorry.
(S. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/ fuer Kontaktdaten!)
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 1/04/2026 1:24 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 30/03/2026 4:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while.
All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects,
help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
I did get a Ph.D. in chemisty, and I was pretty good at it - as you'd
expect when both my parents were chemists - but I wasn't any kind of
chemical genius, and I don't think I've ever run into one. People like
Einstein and Dirac may rate as geniuses but the nut cases on
sci.physics.relativity wouldn't agree.
Einstein is a YouWitz sect got
He advised Rooseveld to make a nuke.
Leo Szilard organised the Einstein letter. It didn't tell Roosevelt to
make a nuke. It just warned him that a nuclear bomb was possible and
should be looked into/
His 'relativity' and other crap was alread proven wrong by Alain Aspect many years ago
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alain-Aspect
Alain Aspect didn't prove relativity wrong - he proved that Einsteins
ideas about "hidden variables" were wrong, by proving that entanglement
- which Einstein disdained as "spooky action at a distance" wasreal
The Le Sage model is a simple explantion why clocks run slower near heavy objects,
gets rid of the singularities and wormhole crap.
It would it it worked. It doesn't.
You need a mechanism, like we have electrons to explain current in a vacuum tube
EinStein is like parroting Ohms law with no understanding of electrons.
Or it looks tat way to you.
In le Sage, if EM radiation is a state of those LS particles, everything becomes simple.
Only to the depressingly simple minded.
I will get a No Bell Price for that I'm sure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
You and Donald Trump both.
The EinStein repeating idiots are keeping the world in their grip, trying 'fusion'
with the same idiotic mindset, no positive return ever.
None that Jan Pantelje can understand.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
I don't think that anybody has clue what is wrong with Donald Trump at
the genome level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_(Plomin_book)
seems to think that if you get the genetics right you could fix society, >>> but his books makes clear that thousands of genes correlate with the
high level skills he imagines to be genetically determined, and we
haven't a clue how they influence them. My late wife was a
psycholinguist and thus interested in the way the brain process speech.
There were psycholignuists who used magnetic resonance imaging to try to >>> roughly work out what was going on in the brain when it was processing
speech, but she didn't think that they were getting useful results.
There are research techniques that work to some extent, but all they
tell us is that it is a multi-stage process, and different stages happen >>> in different bits of the brain. "Where" is sort of predictable for most
right-handers, but at least one of her colleagues wouldn't look at
left-handers, because their processing happens in different areas and
the different areas vary from one left-hander to the next.
I think we get / inherit a lot from our parents / family tree.
Mentally AND physically.
We can only hope that you don't have any kids. Sadly, Donald Trump has
lots and they all seem to be doing well out of his second term as US >president.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 1/04/2026 1:24 am, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>wrote:
On 30/03/2026 4:31 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/29/26 06:30, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/28/26 23:05, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 27/03/2026 7:51 pm, Jan Panteltje wrote:
x <x@x.net>wrote:
On 3/21/26 23:44, Jan Panteltje wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 13:33:36 -0700, x <x@x.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/26 00:05, Jan Panteltje wrote:
No problem
There are every now and then nice papers referenced from https://www.sciencedaily.com/
I once worked in the chemical lab of a big university hospital for a while.
All sorts of cool equipment, from mass spectrometers to DNA research related
and interesting things the students came up with for their projects, >>>>> help design electronics for those.
Had to keep the equipment running or fix stuff if needed,
But I am no chemical genius like Bill.
I did get a Ph.D. in chemisty, and I was pretty good at it - as you'd
expect when both my parents were chemists - but I wasn't any kind of
chemical genius, and I don't think I've ever run into one. People like >>>> Einstein and Dirac may rate as geniuses but the nut cases on
sci.physics.relativity wouldn't agree.
Einstein is a YouWitz sect got
He advised Rooseveld to make a nuke.
Leo Szilard organised the Einstein letter. It didn't tell Roosevelt to
make a nuke. It just warned him that a nuclear bomb was possible and
should be looked into/
His 'relativity' and other crap was alread proven wrong by Alain Aspect many years ago
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alain-Aspect
Alain Aspect didn't prove relativity wrong - he proved that Einsteins
ideas about "hidden variables" were wrong, by proving that entanglement
- which Einstein disdained as "spooky action at a distance" wasreal
The Le Sage model is a simple explantion why clocks run slower near heavy objects,
gets rid of the singularities and wormhole crap.
It would it it worked. It doesn't.
You need a mechanism, like we have electrons to explain current in a vacuum tube
EinStein is like parroting Ohms law with no understanding of electrons.
Or it looks tat way to you.
In le Sage, if EM radiation is a state of those LS particles, everything becomes simple.
Only to the depressingly simple minded.
I will get a No Bell Price for that I'm sure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation
You and Donald Trump both.
The EinStein repeating idiots are keeping the world in their grip, trying 'fusion'
with the same idiotic mindset, no positive return ever.
None that Jan Pantelje can understand.
If I had to start again as a kid today, maybe I would have gone into DNA stuff
and design my own Dinos.. Or president ;-)
This US one needs a make-over!
I don't think that anybody has clue what is wrong with Donald Trump at >>>> the genome level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_(Plomin_book)
seems to think that if you get the genetics right you could fix society, >>>> but his books makes clear that thousands of genes correlate with the
high level skills he imagines to be genetically determined, and we
haven't a clue how they influence them. My late wife was a
psycholinguist and thus interested in the way the brain process speech. >>>> There were psycholignuists who used magnetic resonance imaging to try to >>>> roughly work out what was going on in the brain when it was processing >>>> speech, but she didn't think that they were getting useful results.
There are research techniques that work to some extent, but all they
tell us is that it is a multi-stage process, and different stages happen >>>> in different bits of the brain. "Where" is sort of predictable for most >>>> right-handers, but at least one of her colleagues wouldn't look at
left-handers, because their processing happens in different areas and
the different areas vary from one left-hander to the next.
I think we get / inherit a lot from our parents / family tree.
Mentally AND physically.
We can only hope that you don't have any kids. Sadly, Donald Trump has
lots and they all seem to be doing well out of his second term as US
president.
You are just an insulting chemical failure!!
You REALLY have no clue, no wonder you had to flee from here after
all your failed projects.
| Sysop: | Jacob Catayoc |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines |
| Users: | 6 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 493396:30:06 |
| Calls: | 141 |
| Files: | 538 |
| Messages: | 76,275 |