According to their plan, the first 2*3.5TeV collisions will be performed the 30-th of March. I’m scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. LHC/CERN.
in [Basics]
|
Prev: Samsung Corby Plus Price List and Features
Next: According to their plan, the first 2*3.5TeV collisions will be performedthe 30-th of March. Im scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. LHC/CERN.
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 12 Mar 2010 14:14 PD wrote: > On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>>Magnetic wrote: >> >>>>>>Im scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. >> >>>http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html >> >>No, not like this. LHC is a special kind of black hole which attracts >>money. Just another monstrous project doomed to accomplish nothing. >> >>VLV > > > That depends on what you mean by "accomplish nothing." Do you consider > fundamental research that is done purely for knowledge and without an > eye to application to be accomplishing nothing? No new knowledge. VLV
From: PD on 12 Mar 2010 14:29 On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >>Tim Wescott wrote: > > >>>Magnetic wrote: > > >>>>>>Im scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. > > >>>http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html > > >>No, not like this. LHC is a special kind of black hole which attracts > >>money. Just another monstrous project doomed to accomplish nothing. > > >>VLV > > > That depends on what you mean by "accomplish nothing." Do you consider > > fundamental research that is done purely for knowledge and without an > > eye to application to be accomplishing nothing? > > No new knowledge. On the contrary, we KNOW the Standard Model of particle interactions has to break down at the energy scale probed by the LHC. There are many possibilities here, some of them more likely than others. Whichever of these outcomes turns out to be right, or if something else entirely shows itself, we are *guaranteed* a dramatic revision of our understanding of nature. This is about as sure a bet as you can have, in terms of new knowledge. Or don't you consider new knowledge about fundamental particle interactions new knowledge?
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 12 Mar 2010 14:55 PD wrote: > On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>PD wrote: >> >>>On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>>Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>>>>Magnetic wrote: >> >>>>>>>>Im scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. >> >>>>>http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html >> >>>>No, not like this. LHC is a special kind of black hole which attracts >>>>money. Just another monstrous project doomed to accomplish nothing. >> >>>That depends on what you mean by "accomplish nothing." Do you consider >>>fundamental research that is done purely for knowledge and without an >>>eye to application to be accomplishing nothing? >> >>No new knowledge. > > > On the contrary, we KNOW the Standard Model of particle interactions > has to break down at the energy scale probed by the LHC. There are > many possibilities here, some of them more likely than others. > Whichever of these outcomes turns out to be right, or if something > else entirely shows itself, we are *guaranteed* a dramatic revision of > our understanding of nature. This is about as sure a bet as you can > have, in terms of new knowledge. > > Or don't you consider new knowledge about fundamental particle > interactions new knowledge? The results will be inconclusive as usual. There would be offered 10 explanations why, published 10000 papers, and, after passionate discussions at symposiums, everyone will agree that the LHC design was wrong and insufficient and yet larger colider has to be built. This time it must be a break through, we know this for sure, etc. etc. VLV
From: PD on 12 Mar 2010 15:00 On Mar 12, 1:55 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > PD wrote: > > On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >>PD wrote: > > >>>On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > > >>>>Tim Wescott wrote: > > >>>>>Magnetic wrote: > > >>>>>>>>Im scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. > > >>>>>http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html > > >>>>No, not like this. LHC is a special kind of black hole which attracts > >>>>money. Just another monstrous project doomed to accomplish nothing. > > >>>That depends on what you mean by "accomplish nothing." Do you consider > >>>fundamental research that is done purely for knowledge and without an > >>>eye to application to be accomplishing nothing? > > >>No new knowledge. > > > On the contrary, we KNOW the Standard Model of particle interactions > > has to break down at the energy scale probed by the LHC. There are > > many possibilities here, some of them more likely than others. > > Whichever of these outcomes turns out to be right, or if something > > else entirely shows itself, we are *guaranteed* a dramatic revision of > > our understanding of nature. This is about as sure a bet as you can > > have, in terms of new knowledge. > > > Or don't you consider new knowledge about fundamental particle > > interactions new knowledge? > > The results will be inconclusive as usual. There would be offered 10 > explanations why, published 10000 papers, and, after passionate > discussions at symposiums, everyone will agree that the LHC design was > wrong and insufficient and yet larger colider has to be built. This time > it must be a break through, we know this for sure, etc. etc. What would constitute conclusiveness to you? A final theory? Why? No one has ever said that the Tevatron design was wrong and insufficient. It did exactly what it was intended to do, and it also produced more physics than what was ever anticipated at the time it was built. Nevertheless, what we learned as a *result* of the Tevatron pointed us clearly toward the new physics that would have to be found at the LHC. Is it your aspiration that one day we would be DONE, having nothing further to learn, and so nothing more to explore? Why on earth would you want that? PD
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on 12 Mar 2010 16:37
PD wrote: > On Mar 12, 1:55 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > >>PD wrote: >> >>>On Mar 12, 1:14 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>>PD wrote: >> >>>>>On Mar 12, 1:00 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>Tim Wescott wrote: >> >>>>>>>Magnetic wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>Im scared, but can not do anything, - all ways lead to catastrophe. >> >>>>>>>http://www.cyriak.co.uk/lhc/lhc-webcams.html >> >>>>>>No, not like this. LHC is a special kind of black hole which attracts >>>>>>money. Just another monstrous project doomed to accomplish nothing. >> >>>>>That depends on what you mean by "accomplish nothing." Do you consider >>>>>fundamental research that is done purely for knowledge and without an >>>>>eye to application to be accomplishing nothing? >> >>>>No new knowledge. >> >>>On the contrary, we KNOW the Standard Model of particle interactions >>>has to break down at the energy scale probed by the LHC. There are >>>many possibilities here, some of them more likely than others. >>>Whichever of these outcomes turns out to be right, or if something >>>else entirely shows itself, we are *guaranteed* a dramatic revision of >>>our understanding of nature. This is about as sure a bet as you can >>>have, in terms of new knowledge. >> >>>Or don't you consider new knowledge about fundamental particle >>>interactions new knowledge? >> >>The results will be inconclusive as usual. There would be offered 10 >>explanations why, published 10000 papers, and, after passionate >>discussions at symposiums, everyone will agree that the LHC design was >>wrong and insufficient and yet larger colider has to be built. This time >>it must be a break through, we know this for sure, etc. etc. > > > What would constitute conclusiveness to you? A final theory? Why? > > No one has ever said that the Tevatron design was wrong and > insufficient. It did exactly what it was intended to do, and it also > produced more physics than what was ever anticipated at the time it > was built. Nevertheless, what we learned as a *result* of the Tevatron > pointed us clearly toward the new physics that would have to be found > at the LHC. > > Is it your aspiration that one day we would be DONE, having nothing > further to learn, and so nothing more to explore? Why on earth would > you want that? Yea, yea. Pyramids and stonehenges were built in attempt to get better mutual understanding with gods. The best minds of those days stongly advised temporal rulers to invest into that; besides, it seemed like they are accomplishing some result. On the contrary, most if not all important discoveries were done with very limited resources and without monstrosity and pomposity. What I am saying is Standard Model got stuck; there is a need for new ideas. VLV |