God Particle Detected at CERN

opinion guy

skelliser wrote: »

facepalm!

once again, CERN has lead to new advances in diagnostics and imaging to help the war on cancer and other medical illnesses.

Double faceplam.

Once again I DID NOT SAY CERN!!!!!!!!


do you have a basic reading comprehension deficit ?

We are talking about the LHC. NOT CERN.The two things are not equivalent.

seamus

opinion guy wrote: »

Of course its a good thing. Christ its unbeleivable how badly you all are missing the point

Don't take offence to this, but you'll find that if people are missing your point after you've repeated yourself a number of times, then you're either failing to explain yourself properly or simply ignoring their point of view.

opinion guy wrote: »

Satisfying the curiousity of some boffins doesn't justify 7billion.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother wasting any more time here. I hear The Star are looking for more journalists. Seems like your opinions might be more appreciated there.

skelliser

opinion guy wrote: »

We are talking about the LHC. NOT CERN.The two things are not equivalent.

omg! you really are a foolish person!

lets break it down for you.

CERN is the organisation which built the LHC.
There are many accelerators there.
the LHC is the evolution of the previous particle accelerators that are based there.

skelliser

tell me do you just have a problem with the LHC?
how about the previous accelerator, or other accelerators in other countries, which probably cost similar when you factor in inflation etc?

opinion guy

skelliser wrote: »

omg! you really are a foolish person!

lets break it down for you.

CERN is the organisation which built the LHC.
There are many accelerators there.
the LHC is the evolution of the previous particle accelerators that are based there.

I understand that. Whats your point ?

skelliser wrote: »

tell me do you just have a problem with the LHC?
how about the previous accelerator, or other accelerators in other countries, which probably cost similar when you factor in inflation etc?

Did they cost as much ? Prove that please.

Cú Giobach

opinion guy wrote: »

And so I answered you. Where was your confusion ?

You asked me if I do, why did you ask me that? I'm not the one telling others what they should do. I only said I hope they do, because if they're not then they are being hypocritical.

Moaning about people exploring the universe around us (and yes the very small is as much part of the universe as the very big) is quite silly, as it is this very desire that has given us the world we have around us today, and is very much part of what makes us human. You may as well tell people to stop breathing as tell them to stop exploring.
Regarding the waste of money why not get the real wastes of money and resources ie: military spending and corporate greed, to name just two, sorted out. Picking on one aspect of scientific study is like trying to save money by putting a single CFL bulb in your house while ignoring 200w bulbs and electric heaters in every room.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

Don't take offence to this, but you'll find that if people are missing your point after you've repeated yourself a number of times, then you're either failing to explain yourself properly or simply ignoring their point of view.

Well myself and Chuck have said the same thing over and over in different ways, only to be called Luddites and science-haters (Chuck are you a creationist or something cause I know I'm not ?) I don't know what more you expect.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother wasting any more time here. I hear The Star are looking for more journalists. Seems like your opinions might be more appreciated there.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time

skelliser

opinion guy wrote: »

Did they cost as much ? Prove that please.

there are currently 6 working accelerators at CERN.
im not sure how many accelerators they have had in total on the site.
Its been in existence for over 60 years.
It employs thousands of people.

you can be sure that many times the cost of the LHC has been spent to date.


its not as if some scientist draw a plan of it on the back of a beer mat and then went off and got 7 billion
off the gov.


its possible that in another 30 years we will need a bigger faster accelerator again.

opinion guy

skelliser wrote: »

there are currently 6 working accelerators at CERN.
im not sure how many accelerators they have had in total on the site.
Its been in existence for over 60 years.
It employs thousands of people.

you can be sure that many times the cost of the LHC has been spent to date.

I'll be sure when you show me the figures.
But nevertheless - this doesn't change the fact that knowing whether there is a Higgs boson or not is not useful.
You can go on about spin off companies, employment and technologies all you want, but I repeat my earlier point. If you give me €7billion to buil a paper aeroplane aerodynamis improvement research centre, I guarantee you there will be spin off companies, employment and technologies out it also. Its probably actually a more useful goal than saying whether there is a Higgs boson or not. I mean after all we might in many years to come be able to build transatlantic paper airplanes

opinion guy

skelliser wrote: »

its possible that in another 30 years we will need a bigger faster accelerator again.

Who's we ? A street merchant in indonesia or a particle physicist ?

foxyboxer

This 'debate' is simply going around in circles.




See what I did there? :pac:

aidan24326

opinion guy wrote: »

Not justifiable reasons when we have HIV, cancer, climate change etc to deal with. Sort that **** out first, then we can find the Higgs

You're completely missing the point. Fundamental research drives future advancement. Always has. You have to figure out the underlying theoretical framework before you can even think about applications. Who could have thought at the time that the discovery of atomic structure would lead to, for example, modern chemistry and electronics?

The work being done at CERN now may lead to the wonders of the future, just like those 19th and early 20th century scientists such as Faraday, Rutherford, Bohr etc made discoveries that ultimately lead to the technology we have today.

skelliser

opinion guy wrote: »

I'll be sure when you show me the figures.
But nevertheless - this doesn't change the fact that knowing whether there is a Higgs boson or not is not useful.

how do you know its not useful?

when they built the first accellerator in the 50's did they know that a spin off from it would help in the fight against cancer?

skelliser

you just making broad sweeping claims about stuff you dont understand.

and anyways money wont solve the worlds problems.

the best way out of poverty is not through money but through knowledge!

hooradiation

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Because you in your infinite wisdom and incredible powers of reasoning and logic get to decide what is a real argument and what isn't.

Well, it's been fifteen pages. Holding out any hope for something more than what's been offered seems like a fools errand.
But feel free to raise your game at any point.

foxyboxer

Requiring the Higgs Boson to be practical is instant gratification in the extreme.
So it won't be able to feed the world, but it's discovery and it's completion of the standard model will set the foundations of Particle Physics for future generations. You wouldn't start a car journey unless you were sure all the bolts in the wheels were screwed tightly.

I love the exchange that took place between Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr. Heisenberg was distraught at the fact that mankind may never understand the atom. Bohr quipped that mankind may need to re-define the meaning of understanding.

Love that.

FootShooter

opinion guy wrote: »

But LUAS has a pracitcal pay back.

Why is it worthwhile ?
I'm still waiting for someone to justify 7billion.

Satisfying the curiousity of some boffins doesn't justify 7billion.

Clearly you haven't really understood what finding the Higgs boson is all about. It's about getting a deeper understanding of the universe. By finding the Higgs boson science would be the closer they've ever been to a testable theory of everything,a unification of the four forces of nature.

One of the main reasons we're so technologically advanced as we are today, is because of the research science has done to get a deeper understanding of nature and the universe. For example the transistor which came about thanks to quantum theory of solids. The PET scan, comes from discovering the Positron in 1932. Also, the only reason you're able to write your post, is because of CERN who invented the world wide web back in 1990.

The LHC could discover the origin of mass in the universe and dark matter. And what's to say that the new particles that might be discovered won't contribute to some astonishingly new inventions that could change life entirely for all humans? And in fairness, 7 billion isn't that much considering how many countries have contributed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6uKZWnJLCM

brimal

opinion guy wrote: »

Not justifiable reasons when we have HIV, cancer, climate change etc to deal with. Sort that **** out first, then we can find the Higgs

Why should the field of physics have to suffer because the field of biology hasn't solved biology's unsolved issues such as cancer and HIV?

They are two different branches of science and one shouldn't have to suffer because the other hasn't solved their problems.


And saying 'what's the point in spending all this money if we don't get a return in our generation' made me laugh. You really don't get science/discovery do you?

Science is done ultimately for the advancement of the human race. There is no time limit on when a discovery should or shouldn't yield personal gain for us.

As for the price - you do realise the energies that are needed for these experiments? We are entering uncharted territory here. The LHC is an absolute beast of a machine. The cost was always going to be larger compared to previous experiments, this is unavoidable.

Podge_irl

opinion guy wrote: »

Particle physics cures cancer - great. I didn't say "don't do particle physics" - no-one is saying that.

Yes you are, you may not mean to be saying that but the effect is the same. The LHC is the required next step in particle physics. It's an absolute necessity to continue experimental research in the area.

opinion guy wrote: »

Hmm I coming to the conclusion that none of the people here realise how insanely esoteric and distant from everyday life the Higgs Boson, if it exists is.

Well, you're wrong. I'm a theoretical physics post grad.

opinion guy wrote: »

People keep throwing up other stuff from physics like electronics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism etc. This experiment isn't anything like any of that.

Yes it is. QM was utterly useless when first discovered. As, for that matter, was GR. Electronics and GPS respectively wouldn't work without them though. There were plenty of physicists who thought they understand essentially everything, with just some tidying up needed, before those two things came along.

opinion guy wrote: »

I can demonstrate the wave-particle duality of light and hence evidence of the quantum world with a lamp and a diffraction grating.

No you can't.

Electronics and magnetism have been demonstrable using everyday crap lying about the place for at least 150 years.

Yes, but modern electronics wouldn't work without QM. Thankfully those who researched it so thoroughly in the early 20th century didn't consider it pointless at the time.

Even gravity, one of the weakest forces of nature was observable from everyday events

I don't get your point here at all. So what? GR isn't remotely observable from everyday events yet people still researched into it.

It is soooooooooooooooooooooo far from any applicability as to be pointless

Right now, yes. However, a) we don't know how far from any applicability it is as we simply don't understand it well enough (which is kind of the point of doing the experiment), b) that is spectacularly missing the point.

Its clear from some of the posts here that people think this will mean space travel, or some new energy source, or hoverboards or Star Trek will come true or somehow or other to. It won't mean any of that.

No, it will mean a better understanding of the fundamental make-up of the universe. Who knows where that could lead?

Chuck Stone

seamus wrote: »

Don't take offence to this, but you'll find that if people are missing your point

The point is being shouted down by a cacophony of dogmatism bordering on blind faith more befitting of an evangelical preacher than someone who admires scientific endeavour.

I hear The Star are looking for more journalists. Seems like your opinions might be more appreciated there.

A parting shot ad hominem. How noble.

foxyboxer wrote: »

This 'debate' is simply going around in circles

It's a smashing debate with an unpredictable outcome. DUCWIDT?

aidan24326 wrote: »

Who could have thought at the time that the discovery of atomic structure would lead to, for example, modern chemistry and electronics?

I'm pretty sure that chemistry and electronics (which begins with electricity) predates the pinning down of atomic structure.

The work being done at CERN now may lead to the wonders of the future,

don't stop there, we could end up with ponies and romance and flowers too! Ya never know

just like those 19th and early 20th century scientists such as Faraday, Rutherford, Bohr etc made discoveries that ultimately lead to the technology we have today.

Much of it without resorting to spending billions of dollars.

skelliser wrote: »

you just making broad sweeping claims about stuff you dont understand.

That's the essence of the argument for the LHC in this thread. Broad sweeping statements on things people haven't a bull's notion about and yet justifying the cost.

hooradiation wrote: »

But feel free to raise your game at any point.

A statement of childish bravado. Meet me behind the sheds so we can sort out the mysteries of the universe with an ol' punch up.

skelliser

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that chemistry and electronics (which begins with electricity) predates the pinning down of atomic structure.

and tell us, what is electricity?

Chuck Stone

skelliser wrote: »

and tell us, what is electricity?

It's what's in the sockets.

RichieC

"References to the concept of atoms date back to ancient Greece and India."

skelliser

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It's what's in the sockets.

?

Chuck Stone

Podge_irl wrote: »

Well, you're wrong. I'm a theoretical physics post grad.

Your appeal to authority doesn't invalidate the questioning of allocating resources to the LHC.

If anything you will have a strong bias favouring allocating resources to this type of research seeing as it increases demand for people with qualifications such as yours.

skelliser

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that chemistry and electronics (which begins with electricity) predates the pinning down of atomic structure.

.

also explain what atomic structure is and how was it discovered?
how was atomic structure "pinned" down?

which facility has had the most success in the last 60 years at "pinning" down atomic structure?

skelliser

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If anything you will have a strong bias favouring allocating resources to this type of research seeing as it increases demand for people with qualifications such as yours.

and let me guess, your qualification is in "we should not spend money on things i dont understand"

Podge_irl

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're appeal to authority doesn't invalidate the questioning of allocating resources to the LHC.

If anything you will have a strong bias favouring allocating resources to this type of research seeing as it increases demand for people with qualifications such as yours.

It wasn't an appeal to authority. I was explaining that I am perfectly well aware of how "esoteric and distant from everyday life" the Higgs Boson is. Of course the same could be said for innumerable areas of physics.

I'm not going to be working in any area related to the LHC either so it's of no direct benefit to me.

RichieC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're appeal to authority doesn't invalidate the questioning of allocating resources to the LHC.

pointing out he is educated in particle physics is not an appeal to authority.

Chuck Stone

skelliser wrote: »

and let me guess, your qualification is in "we should not spend money on things i dont understand"

I'm questioning whether the money spent on the LHC could have been better spent on other fields.

People seem to have a knee-jerk response that 'of course it was because in 300 years time we will herp de derp'.

Ultimately the decision to fund the LHC was a political decision. Made by politicians who represent and have access to the resources of the people of their respective countries.

Is it not healthy that people question what their representatives fund on their behalf?

I would say not questioning what your reps do leads to tyranny.