Prev: Motionless Induction
Next: pulse counter
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 09:37
On Mar 22, 10:56 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
> > > more powerful than the collisions at CERN.  If so, why can't they
> > > study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
> > > facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
> > > they seek answers to.  Even if it does provide some insight, it will
> > > be obsolete in what, five, ten years?  Then they will be wanting to
> > > build a new one that circles the globe, right?
>
> > > Rick
>
> > The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
> > volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
> > but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
> > waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
> > impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
> > long - Gil
>
> For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...
>
> Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?

The LHC is not an experiment. It is a facility. It is a machine that
is capable of answering many questions. The big questions it MUST
answer include figuring out what happens at the 1 TeV energy scale. We
have only the Standard Model that has been tested so far, with superb
success, but we KNOW that the Standard Model breaks at this energy
scale, and something else has to kick in. There are a number of really
promising guesses as to what that something else is, and each of these
will be compared to experimental measurements to see which is the best
fit. It is also possible that none of them will fit, and we'll see new
phenomena that will point in the direction of a "something else" not
yet considered.



>
> Rick

From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 09:39
On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I just can't see the point of pouring so much money into a project
> that will likely raise more questions than it answers...

It would be a disaster if it did not.
If you thought that the objective of science was to lock things up and
figure it all out, so that we wouldn't have any more questions to ask,
I'm afraid you've missed the point.



From: rickman on 23 Mar 2010 11:13
On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...(a)ppllaanneett.nnll>
wrote:
> rickman wrote:
> > On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
> >>> more powerful than the collisions at CERN.  If so, why can't they
> >>> study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
> >>> facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
> >>> they seek answers to.  Even if it does provide some insight, it will
> >>> be obsolete in what, five, ten years?  Then they will be wanting to
> >>> build a new one that circles the globe, right?
> >>> Rick
> >> The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
> >> volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
> >> but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
> >> waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
> >> impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
> >> long - Gil
>
> > For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...
>
> > Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?
>
> > Rick
>
> They want to know about the whichness of why
> and unscrew some of the secrets of nature.

I think you are the only person who understands my questions. The
point is that this is the sort of theoretical research that does not
have a timetable. The questions that are being asked are really the
same questions we have always had and will never have answers to...
because they are unanswerable.

I don't suggest that we should never try to answer unanswerable
questions, I am saying that we need to apportion an appropriate amount
of our efforts to these areas.

I love reading my Scientific American and learning about the structure
of the cosmos, at the enormously huge scales as well as at the
enormously tiny scales. But I don't mind waiting a few more years to
find out that everything we knew was wrong and we now know a new
everything that will be wrong again someday.

This is entertainment, not science. No, I guess in reality, science
really is just entertainment.

BTW, did you feel that just now? I think it was exactly the vibration
a microscopic black hole would make as it breached the magnetic field
of an accelerator and plunged to the core of the earth!

Be afraid... very afraid!

Rick

PS Is Sjouke Burry your real name??? That looks like a name they made
up on SNL.
From: Sjouke Burry on 23 Mar 2010 12:58
rickman wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...(a)ppllaanneett.nnll>
> wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>> On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
>>>>> more powerful than the collisions at CERN. If so, why can't they
>>>>> study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
>>>>> facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
>>>>> they seek answers to. Even if it does provide some insight, it will
>>>>> be obsolete in what, five, ten years? Then they will be wanting to
>>>>> build a new one that circles the globe, right?
>>>>> Rick
>>>> The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
>>>> volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
>>>> but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
>>>> waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
>>>> impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
>>>> long - Gil
>>> For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...
>>> Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?
>>> Rick
>> They want to know about the whichness of why
>> and unscrew some of the secrets of nature.
>
> I think you are the only person who understands my questions.

Sorry, I am not that person.
I want them to let us all know about the whichness of why
and unscrew some of the secrets of nature for us.
From: PD on 23 Mar 2010 13:25
On Mar 23, 10:13 am, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:38 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...(a)ppllaanneett.nnll>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > rickman wrote:
> > > On Mar 22, 4:15 pm, gil_johnson <x7-g5W...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> On Mar 22, 12:40 pm, rickman <gnu...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> I guess one question is about the claim of cosmic rays being so much
> > >>> more powerful than the collisions at CERN.  If so, why can't they
> > >>> study cosmic rays rather than build a multi-billion euro/dollar/pound
> > >>> facility that may or may not be big enough to answer the questions
> > >>> they seek answers to.  Even if it does provide some insight, it will
> > >>> be obsolete in what, five, ten years?  Then they will be wanting to
> > >>> build a new one that circles the globe, right?
> > >>> Rick
> > >> The LHC can generate many collisions of known particles in a small
> > >> volume, inside a *massive* detector. Cosmic rays have been studied
> > >> but the information available with normal detectors is limited, and
> > >> waiting for a lucky collision inside a detector like that at CERN is
> > >> impractical - even graduate students couldn't be forced to wait that
> > >> long - Gil
>
> > > For the billions it cost to build and run the LHC, I could wait...
>
> > > Exactly what again is the question they are trying to answer?
>
> > > Rick
>
> > They want to know about the whichness of why
> > and unscrew some of the secrets of nature.
>
> I think you are the only person who understands my questions.  The
> point is that this is the sort of theoretical research that does not
> have a timetable.  The questions that are being asked are really the
> same questions we have always had and will never have answers to...
> because they are unanswerable.
>
> I don't suggest that we should never try to answer unanswerable
> questions, I am saying that we need to apportion an appropriate amount
> of our efforts to these areas.
>
> I love reading my Scientific American and learning about the structure
> of the cosmos, at the enormously huge scales as well as at the
> enormously tiny scales.  But I don't mind waiting a few more years to
> find out that everything we knew was wrong and we now know a new
> everything that will be wrong again someday.
>
> This is entertainment, not science.  No, I guess in reality, science
> really is just entertainment.
>
> BTW, did you feel that just now?  I think it was exactly the vibration
> a microscopic black hole would make as it breached the magnetic field
> of an accelerator and plunged to the core of the earth!
>
> Be afraid... very afraid!
>
> Rick
>
> PS Is Sjouke Burry your real name???  That looks like a name they made
> up on SNL.

A few comments.

First of all, the questions are not "unanswerable". Accelerators were
started in the 50's, and the Standard Model did not arise until the
1970's, so how particles behaved must have seemed just as
"unanswerable" in the 1950's and 1960's. But the Standard Model does
answer A LOT. Likewise here, we fully expect that the replacement for
the Standard Model will come at the hands of what we learn at the LHC,
and so it is in no way unanswerable. This does not mean that having an
answer causes further questions to cease. This is what I commented
previously.

Secondly, you characterize fundamental research (that is, research
that is done to find out "why" without so much of an eye to how to
apply it) is entertainment. For interested hobbyists, I'm sure that's
true, just as evolutionary biology might be to doctors or the search
for extrasolar planets might be to geologists. However, it is a
calling to people who are engaged in the work. This kind of R is the R
in R&D. The practical application of what we learn is the D. There is
a reason why R & D go hand in hand. Without R, D dries up after a
while. Without D, there is no practical benefit to the R. If you favor
D, then put yourself in a D profession, but don't question the value
of R if it's not the half you choose to do.

Third, I completely agree that the work should be funded
appropriately. This is precisely what the custodians of our tax
dollars are charged to do, and they ask people NOT ACTIVELY ENGAGED in
the work but who are sufficiently expert to provide advice on
priorities and balances. If you disagree with those priorities and
balances and would like to see more federal money spent on D rather
than R, by all means let your custodian know. I'll remind you that D
is supportable in private industry, because practical applications can
generate profit, but R needs a sponsor -- and this is the reason why
the federal government bears the burden where private industry is
unwilling. (Note this was not always the case.) I'll also remind you
that the LHC is a facility that will engage literally thousands of
physicists, all generating the usual complement of individual output.
So in terms of dollars per produced result, you'll discover that the
LHC is quite economical, compared to the work of solo investigators or
small university research teams.

PD
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Motionless Induction
Next: pulse counter