Building the future of physics

David Sanchez, Washington, DC — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:42:30 GMT

Alan, you forgot to mention that the usual neighbors of the LHC are also concerned with safety.

As with earlier toy particle accelerators, people (religious) both inside and outside the physics playground cult have expressed worry that the LHC might cause one of quite a few imaginary disasters capable of destroying the Earth or even the entire Universe (Or at least our reality). This has raised controversy as to motive to put the universe in jeopardy.

Although I believe we still don’t have the resources and the technical knowledge to reach higher energy levels require playing with bigger and more dangerous toys and to make things worse the inherited wildcard behavior on us Humans.

For CERN has pointed out that the probability of such events is extremely small. –I don’t personally believe them, anything can happen, it doesn’t matter the systems of control, the probability is not equal to zero.

Though the standard model (The one occulted from high school studens) predicts that LCH energies are far too low to create black holes, Crazy ideas…

Creation of strange matter that is more stable than ordinary matter.
Creation of magnetic monopoles that could catalyze proton decay.
Creation of a strangelet.

What about while some higher energy toys are on, what will happen with particles that might cause Spontaneous symmetry breaking, what will happen if some random particles get in contact with organic matter?

All is good as long all the mess is for scientific breakthrough and human knowledge.

Building the future of physics

Corbin Shaw, Lima,Ohio — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:33:57 GMT

I will be the first to say that I am somewhat scientifically chanllenged but I am all for doing whatever it takes to further our knowledge in that feild...or any scientific feild for that matter(no pun intended). If you think back to the early to mid 1900's and even well before that we had some great thinkers across the globe. I am still fairly young but it just seems like there were radical advancements in the scientific world that we haven't seen for a while now. It seems like all we do now is build on what has already been invented. People like Einstein, Galileo, Edison, Bell, etc. all came up with new inventions that drastically changed the way we live our day-to-day lives. Not to get of subject,but the same thing I beleive can be said about artist of current. There hasn't been any real significant advancements in either feild.

Building the future of physics

Joe — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 05:30:42 GMT

Go ahead and vaporize the Earth before the US Government does.

Building the future of physics

Dr. W, Orbis Primus — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:38:48 GMT

The reason that the pace of practical scientific advancement has slowed is that all the major practical applications of physics have already been discovered, so that it now takes more people longer, at a far greater cost, than in previous eras. Now only governments can afford to undertake "cutting edge" science, though now even they have to pool resources. It remains to be seen whether all those billions of dollars aren't just wasted--a great hog slop for physicists, despite the merely theoretical nature of the returns. What are the practical, which is to say, useful results of smashing subatomic particles? It seems to me that theoretical physicists have no more clue as to what use their experi-ments are than do theoreti-cal astronomers. All of them are sipmly fighting over the limited funds available for such pie-in-the-sky science. Personally, I think science as we have known it is at an end, even if only because it has become too expensive. What justification other than the self-serving tautolo-gy, "Because it's science!" can scientists give taxpayers for squandering billions of dollars just to "identify" another subatomic particle that nobody can perceive or make us of? I'm not against science, but I am against useless science.

Building the future of physics

Dean A. Nash, ShenZhen, China — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:54:57 GMT

I know NOTHING about any of this. So somebody who does please indulge my question: Why aren't we building this out in space? Without Earth's gravity, it will be easier to attain the desired speeds and there certainly is plenty of 'free' space.

One obvious drawback is the need to manufacture here and assemble there, but from where I sit, the positives outweigh the negatives. Someone please help me to see where I'm wrong.

Thanks in advance.

Building the future of physics

Mark, KC, Mo — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:42:23 GMT

"I am still fairly young but it just seems like there were radical advancements in the scientific world that we haven't seen for a while now"

And what did you enter this message on? Look at the keyboard at your finger tips and the monitor in front of your face for the current scientific revolution. All thanks to a couple of guys you didn't mention: Turing and Shannon.

In other words, compute power and digital simulations have revolutionized many areas of science.

Building the future of physics

Joe, Mesquite TX — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:25:50 GMT

Corbin, my dictionary has a picture of Oprah Winfrey in it. It has no entry for Jack Kilby (Nobel Prize winner and co inventor of the integrated circuit). Science has moved beyond individual contributors, but the next Tesla may be still be out there. Don't give up on it yet.

Building the future of physics

Lou — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 14:24:28 GMT

To David, please understand before speaking next time.

To Alan; is the importance of finding the Higgs Boson the fact that it confirms the Higgs field? Also I was wondering that if this is the particle responsible for the masses of other particles would that also include the particle responsible for dark matter? If the higgs boson is responsible for mass it's responsible for it's own mass as well?

Building the future of physics

Mike,SanAngelo,TX — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:58:17 GMT

Even though the velocities and temperatures of the collisions are high, the particles are so small that the total energy is akin to two mosquitos having a head on collision, thus I doubt we will see any world threatning effects from the LHC or Project X.

Building the future of physics

Lou — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:05:07 GMT

To adress the question of building in space from the limited knowledge I have even though friction is reduced by leaving earth's gravity you would still need a considerable amount of both space and energy. Now while space wouldn't be an issue power could be and another snag could be that the enviroment isn't condusive to research on a particle level. Remember these installations are below the surface for a reason.

Building the future of physics

Pres — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:37:15 GMT

Why not such an effort to solve our social problems that the politicans have been screwing up for the last several thousands years?

Building the future of physics

Pete Franke — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:41:50 GMT

Hey Dean, Im no expert either, but I do believe that the effects of gravity, while present, are not sufficiently strong enough to result in any 'slowing down' of experimental particles. Remember that gravity is an effect that draws objects together, so BOTH 'particles' (ie the planet, and the little tiny particle in the accelerator) are pulling each other together, but its an extremely weak vector. Also, the amount of energy required on these experiments are way too high and we just dont have the technology to deliver these energy levels in a space environment. Hope that helps. cheers!

Building the future of physics

Mark, KC, Mo — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:39:30 GMT

"What justification other than the self-serving tautology, "Because it's science!" can scientists give taxpayers for squandering billions of dollars just to "identify" another subatomic particle that nobody can perceive or make us of? I'm not against science, but I am against useless science."

What relevance did investigating the structure of a useless molecule found in cells have at the time? Before Watson and Crick 'discovered' the double helical structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA was thought to be 'junk' in cells, it had no known purpose. That was what? 1950?

The payoffs of fundamental research have been well documented. Maybe that would be a good blog topic?

Building the future of physics

Cameron Fauth, Whitefish, Montana — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 17:51:43 GMT

Personally, i think that this is a wonderful acheivement! And i hope that it leads to the advancements that the scientific community and others are hoping for!

Building the future of physics

dugbuzz — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:37:43 GMT

I can help you Dean. You're right: it is a better idea to relocate all of these experiments to outer space. So if you'll kindly write a check to cover all of the space travel, scientists will get started on that right away.

Also, David, I'd just like to point out that while the probability of one the particles in a nuclear accelerator accidentally destroying the universe is greater than zero, so too is the probability of any of the nearly-infinite identical particles composing the sun, the earth, and even your own body. In fact, you are much more likely to spontaneously destroy the universe than a nuclear accelerator. Why? Well, you're made of more particles. Aren't you thoughtless?

Building the future of physics

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:43:44 GMT

Well,one day if you find yourself driving in one direction on one road then in another on another road the next instant, you can bet they were successful.
You may not have a home to return too or the city you were in is actually a farmers field IN ANOTHER UNIVERSE, but don't worry you can start all over again.

I'd sure like to get some understanding of how the Higgs particle is even detectable since it exists on paper at least in mathmatical physics. Is it as difficult to detect as gravity waves? Black holes? If so I think the 10 billion dollars for the collider should be spent on far more important issues on earth.

Building the future of physics

Timothy John, NYC, NY — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:52:51 GMT

Pete, I believe that the issue is not delivering the necessary power to space. The technology available today could deliver the power necessary to produce the necessary power in space. The problem is the various countries do not trust eachother to allow such power levels to be transmitted or produced in space, because it is then possible for that power to be used as a weapon.

And to everyone who says the money should be spent in "practical ways." Discovery raises the human spirit. I'm an engineer and I'm surrounded by people who are engineers because of the wasted space race. You can't put a price on inspiration. We don't know what will come of these experiments, what we do know is that throwing money at the problems on earth doesn't fix them. To fix those problems we need to make hard choices but in the end its easier to just throw money at them instead.

Building the future of physics

Des Emery, St. Thomas, ON, Canada — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:39:06 GMT

Hi, Alan -- good response to this one, eh? I think people need to remember that taking money from something like science or education, or NASA even, will not mean the funds are automatically diverted to poverty relief or gasoline rebates but will become the subject of the politicians' magic acts, appearing suddenly in their pork barrels.

All the various colliders are like the primitive microscopes and telescopes, revealing new concepts to observers gradually as both the instruments and their users evolve and get better and better at what they do. The rest of us get dragged along willy-nilly in that progress and are always much the better for it. Isn't that why God gave us brains?

Building the future of physics

Paul, Newport News, Virginia — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:55:43 GMT

Going into space you really do not escape gravity you are just moving fast enough over the horizon that you are actually falling over the horizon, that is how orbit works. The thing with space is there is no atmosphere to slow down the space craft. If you could move fast enough and maintain the speed you could orbit in the earths atmosphere.

Also all the great minds of the past also built on their predicessors. Einstein could not have done the work he did with out the work of Newton. So if it just seems like todays minds are just building on the work of others that is because that is the way it is done.

There will be benefits to this work but the work has to be done before someone can figure out a benefit.

Building the future of physics

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:47:59 GMT

Answering the question about Higgs is akin to being blindfolded and dropped somewhere and tasting seawater with only 2 choices. Oh yes, it's an ocean...Atlantic or Pacific?

Building the future of physics

WECrupe — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:11:42 GMT

I thought that the colliders were underground to shield them from stray interactions from space. Such as cosmic rays?

Building the future of physics

WECrupe — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 04:29:39 GMT

I thought that the colliders were underground to shield them from stray interactions from space. Such as cosmic rays?

Building the future of physics

Lou — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 21:15:08 GMT

This talk about a single particle being able to "destroy" the universe is utter nonsense. You guys need to watch a little less Sci-Fi channel. I'd like one of you who mentioned it to explain how this would be possible.

After a little research and asking a friend; I'm being told that space is not an option for a laundry list of reasons from consumables for the reseachers to high Z particles interfearing with measurements.

Last, I want to know if the HB has no charge how do they "trap" it in order to observe it? Also, this is way out of my league, but as far as aceleration goes isn't a black hole king? and what if any observations could be made about particles within the event horizon?

Building the future of physics

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:05:03 GMT

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23752

This is a step toward answering why cosmic "rays" are so energetic and many fold more energetic than any man-made accelerators can or will be able to re-produce.

Building the future of physics

Allen AGE Haynes — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:23:17 GMT

I am interested in finding a school curriculum into the particle physics field from a technical school!!

Next quarter should get my technical associate!!