Prev: Do I need a window?
Next: carrier synchronization for CPFSK demodulation
From: Richard Dobson on 23 Mar 2010 06:54
On 22/03/2010 17:40, rickman 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...
>

But that is the whole point, surely. Or do you really want to tie up
physics knowledge in a pretty little packet and say like Lord Kelvin all
those years ago "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now"?

Richard Dobson
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.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Do I need a window?
Next: carrier synchronization for CPFSK demodulation