From: Gc on
On 12 maalis, 22:29, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> 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:
>
> > >>>>>>I’m 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.

Why?

> 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.

Why It couldn`t happen that LHC finds Higgs and no trace of anything
else? Then there will be no next bigger collider for a long time. I do
not claim any expertise, but I`ve read the problem is that the
fermilab collider should have seen something beyond standard model if
it was not very unlucky or the energies of the new particles are in
some quite thin interval, simple because it has run so long time.

> Or don't you consider new knowledge about fundamental particle
> interactions new knowledge?

I consider nothing more important, but I think you can`t know a priori
if some project is a true success.