God Particle Detected at CERN

opinion guy

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

Well personally I'd rather have seen the funding put into further work on quantum computing, quantum entanglement (this I think is mindbogglingly intersting and something we've barely scratched the surface of and alot cheaper to research and potentially practical), fusion research to name but a few. What about room temperature superconductors we were prmised in the late 80's ?

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

So the LHC then is a potential emplyoer for you in a tight emplyoment market - how can we trust your objectivity on this stubject. You have a vested interest (well at least one)/

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.

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.

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.

Ok by GR do you mean general relativity ? I'm assumign you do. anyhow my point with all this was that the effects of these things were observable. The planets motions were observable. People knew that Keppler's Laws didn't quite add up. Electicial and magenitic phenomena were readily observable. The quantum world was hinted it by experiments with light. The point is - all of this was cheap and at no great expense to the resources of society at a whole.

No you can't

Well yes I oversimplyified. I was referring to Youngs double slit experiment. Which of course was the starting point of a series of experiments leading to a two slit experiment using a single photon source which confirmed both the wave and particle duality of light.
My bad.
However the point was - this **** was CHEAP.

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.

Suppose we confirm the higgs. Then what. Is it suddenly mean we can cheat conservation of energy ? No. So that means any further experiments on the Higgs will be EVEN MORE expensive and power hungry and time consuming than the LHC. That is impractical. Therefore I say that knowledge of the Higgs is useless in the near future. Except for guys like you whose livelihoods depend on it.

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

At a time when we are at or past peak oil, consuming resources at a unsustainable rate, climate change proceeds at scary pace - should satisfying our curiosity about something so esoteric justify spending 7billion ? This is my f**king point. This experiment is unlike any before because it is the first one to significantly consume societies resources without any conceivable practical payback in a useful time-frame.

Some people posted earlier 'well we will be able to use if in future ....if we survive that long'. Here's a f**king thought - lets solve the survival problems first, then we can worry about the Higgs boson.

Only justification for this, now, I can see would be if it would tell us how to make fusion work. Will it do that ? I don't hear any physicists saying it will. No because its a level of theory below that which fusion is supposed to work at - which you guys figure you already understand

Chuck Stone

RichieC wrote: »

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

Did he not try to override what OG said because he claimed to be qualified, ergo, an authority on the subject.

If I'm wrong I will stand down on that comment.

RichieC

Who says we're past peak oil? prisonplanet? (ad hominem) :pac:

skelliser

completly hypocritical stance!

your perfectly open to questioning spending the money but you do realise that your posting on the internet from a computer which uses electricity.

All of which would not exist if it not for our understanding of atomic struture.

And you still havent answered my questions!!

opinion guy

Podge_irl wrote: »

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.

But it is of indirect benefit by expanding the jobs market for your competitors so you have less competition in your own field

opinion guy

RichieC wrote: »

Who says we're past peak oil? prisonplanet? (ad hominem) :pac:

I don't get your prisonplanet and ad hominem stuff

Well we may have been saved from peak oil by the recession. But if we are not at it we are damn close

RichieC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Did he not try to override what OG said because he claimed to be qualified, ergo, an authority on the subject.

If I'm wrong I will stand down on that comment.

opinion guy said this:

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.

as part of his reply he mentioned his qualifications. appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. none of which I saw in the post you quoted.

skelliser

opinion guy wrote: »

Well personally I'd rather have seen the funding put into further work on quantum computing, quantum entanglement (this I think is mindbogglingly intersting and something we've barely scratched the surface of and alot cheaper to research and potentially practical), fusion research to name but a few. What about room temperature superconductors we were prmised in the late 80's ?

wtf are you on about!!

our understanding of particle physics is the building blocks for quantum computing!!

by your reason we should build the internal combustion engine first before we then figure out what fuel to burn in it!

RichieC

opinion guy wrote: »

I don't get your prisonplanet and ad hominem stuff

jokes is all. jokes.

Chuck Stone

skelliser wrote: »

completly hypocritical stance!

your perfectly open to questioning spending the money but you do realise that your posting on the internet from a computer which uses electricity.

I'll tell you what - PM me with your physical address and we will continue our subset of this debate in writing.

I insist that we make our own paper and writing implements to avoid hypocrisy.

You get the picture?

And you still havent answered my questions!!

I'm flattered by your interest in my knowledge of physics but I really couldn't be bothered taking part in a pointless quiz for which I can google the answers if I get stuck.

opinion guy

skelliser wrote: »

wtf are you on about!!

our understanding of particle physics is the building blocks for quantum computing!!

by your reason we should build the internal combustion engine first before we then figure out what fuel to burn in it!

We already know how to do quantum computing. We don't need Higgs for that. What we do need is more funding in the area.

Seachmall wrote: »

To be honest the arguments here seem like they can be summed up quite easily:

We cannot anticipate any immediate benefits therefore we should not invest.

The flaws there are quite staggering and self-evident.

Of course money should be spent on today's issues but we must also invest in the future development of technologies, otherwise we're just rats on a wheel.

But never before has sooo much been spent on a theory when resources are so scarce. I'm all for this kind of research. Just not right now (although I'm not saying stop now that we have started as that would be more wasteful)

foxyboxer

http://annewhitaker.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/large_hadron_collider.png

Chuck Stone

Seachmall wrote: »

To be honest the arguments here seem like they can be summed up quite easily:

We cannot anticipate any immediate benefits therefore we should not invest.

It still remains more probable that we could do a better job of anticipating advances in things like gene therapy, stem sell research, efficient engines, renewable energy etc rather than what the hogs bassoon will return in some distant future.

headmaster

It's really amazing that scientists are looking for something that has never made an appearance in any form. What exactly is it that they hope to find? Answer = .! I hope everybody is happy now, I worked it all out on my ownie oh. Lessons and talks can be arranged through my agent, you'll find him in the mystery pages, not available for googling;)

Seachmall

opinion guy wrote: »

Just not right now

I can get with that.



(By the way, I deleted my original post as it's not really a discussion I want to get into).

opinion guy

42 !?!?!

smokingman

Why are we looking for the Higgs Boson?
So we can finally understand gravity.....then build warp drives :pac:

RichieC

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It still remains more probable that we could probably do a better job of anticipating advances in things like gene therapy, stem sell research, efficient engines, renewable energy etc rather than what the hogs bassoon will return in some distant future.

How does gaining a better understanding of the physical building blocks of everything you just mentioned here act against them?

this is fundamental stuff...

Cú Giobach

headmaster wrote: »

It's really amazing that scientists are looking for something that has never made an appearance in any form.

Logic fail.

Chuck Stone

RichieC wrote: »

opinion guy said this:

as part of his reply he mentioned his qualifications. appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. none of which I saw in the post you quoted.

But he tried to refute the point by making an appeal to his being an authority on the subject by saying

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

without a satisfactory explanation i.e. I'm right because I say so not because of any proof I've offered.

No?

opinion guy

smokingman wrote: »

Why are we looking for the Higgs Boson?
So we can finally understand gravity.....then build warp drives :pac:

Finding the Higgs Boson will not explain gravity and will not let us build warp drives.

The standard model does not include a full explanation of gravity (nor od dark energy for that matter)

Podge_irl

opinion guy wrote: »

But it is of indirect benefit by expanding the jobs market for your competitors so you have less competition in your own field

No it isn't. The LHC could disappear in a black hole tomorrow and it would make zero practical difference to me or my career.

Well personally I'd rather have seen the funding put into further work on quantum computing, quantum entanglement (this I think is mindbogglingly intersting and something we've barely scratched the surface of and alot cheaper to research and potentially practical), fusion research to name but a few. What about room temperature superconductors we were prmised in the late 80's ?

All those things get funding. Quite a deal more then most areas of physics. As was pointed out, about 10 billion is going into a fusion reactor somewhere. There is also the issue that the scientists working on the LHC and on the data that comes from it aren't quantum computing experts or fusion experts. And finally, it took 80 years after QM was discovered to even think about quantum computers.

Whoever promised room temperature superconductors in the 80s must have been on crack.

Ok by GR do you mean general relativity ? I'm assumign you do. anyhow my point with all this was that the effects of these things were observable. The planets motions were observable. People knew that Keppler's Laws didn't quite add up.

Yes, but what practical difference did it make to people in 1900 that Keppler's laws didn't add up? Absolutely none, and it wouldn't for 70 years.

Also, the need for the Higgs is observable (or something like it). The current observed standard model doesn't "add up".

However the point was - this **** was CHEAP

Yes it was, but the days of the garage scientist are over (unfortunately). Of course, the added cost of these experiments is offset by the fact that there is a massive global effort behind them and so the costs are spread. There is also thousands of scientists working on the LHC - if they were all off doing their own "cheap" research the costs would still add up. Not to the same figure granted.

Suppose we confirm the higgs. Then what

I don't know. That's the beauty of it. Not finding it would have been as interesting as finding it of course. Now we begin to research its properties. MAybe they'll be different from what we expected. Maybe we'll spot something new that will throw the whole thing into disarray again.

Therefore I say that knowledge of the Higgs is useless in the near future.

Yes it is. But again, so was knowledge of GR in the early 20th century. That you could see evidence of it cheaply is irrelevant - it was utterly useless. No it's vital to several areas of our lives. Not studying something because it is utterly useless in the near future is just crazy reasoning. It's also incredibly short-sighted - perhaps not individually but as a whole for the human race.

Only justification for this, now, I can see would be if it would tell us how to make fusion work. Will it do that ? I don't hear any physicists saying it will.

Because it won't.

should satisfying our curiosity about something so esoteric justify spending 7billion ?

Yes. You can keep calling it esoteric as often as you like, but it's about understanding one of the most fundamental building blocks of our universe. The pursuit of knowledge should never be hamstrung by necessity for immediate payback. This is a great example of countries coming together to try and expand our deepest understanding of the universe - which is a significantly nobler goal then starting wars, bailing out banks or the other myriad things that countries normally come together for. Also, 7 billion over 20 years simply is not that much money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHGK96-WixU

Podge_irl

Chuck Stone wrote: »

But he tried to refute the point by making an appeal to his being an authority on the subject by saying



without a satisfactory explanation i.e. I'm right because I say so not because of any proof I've offered.

No?

OG said he was starting to assume people didn't know anything in detail about the Higgs. I was simply saying I did. I haven't offered any proof because I'm not about to go into a detailed explanation of the esoteric maths behind the Higgs as it would take hours.

aidan24326

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

Yes, but the modern advances that we have in a number of technologies would have been impossible without it

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

You just don't get it do you.

Much of it without resorting to spending billions of dollars.

You're not comparing like with like and you know that. Things like the double slit experiment didn't require large amounts of money no, but they were primitive experiments by today's standards (though no less important). The LHC is probing the foundations of matter at massive energy levels never before attained or even attempted. That's inevitably going to be costly. Saying the money should be spent on HIV or cancer research or the like is nonsense. Those research indutries are in a separate field already funded to the tune of billions of dollars.

headmaster

Cú Giobach;76001574]Logic fail.
That my dear old boy, is your problem. I deal in "fact".

Seachmall

headmaster wrote: »

Cú Giobach;76001574]Logic fail.
That my dear old boy, is your problem. I deal in "fact".

I've never seen a black swan, do black swans exist?

Chuck Stone

Podge_irl wrote: »

And finally, it took 80 years after QM was discovered to even think about quantum computers.

Is that not a case of technological advancement catching up to a point where QM can play a part rather than QM driving the technology in that direction?

Yes it was, but the days of the garage scientist are over (unfortunately).

Were almost 20 pages in and someone finally comes up with the bones of a decent argument (imho).

Do you think that any further advancement will require huge injections of resources in a 'localized' field of expertise?

Yes. You can keep calling it esoteric as often as you like, but it's about understanding one of the most fundamental building blocks of our universe.

That doesn't make it any less esoteric to 99.99% of the population of the world but point taken

opinion guy

Podge_irl wrote: »

No it isn't. The LHC could disappear in a black hole tomorrow and it would make zero practical difference to me or my career.

You may believe that but if there was no LHC there woudl be 10,00 extra physicists looking for work.

All those things get funding. Quite a deal more then most areas of physics. As was pointed out, about 10 billion is going into a fusion reactor somewhere.

Those things are practically useful. Put 17billion into fusion so.

There is also the issue that the scientists working on the LHC and on the data that comes from it aren't quantum computing experts or fusion experts. And finally, it took 80 years after QM was discovered to even think about quantum computers.

a) Don't care
b) many of the skills are transferable. Many of the scientists working there aren't theoretical phsycists. Also peopel change fields all the time.

Whoever promised room temperature superconductors in the 80s must have been on crack.

Haha or maybe it needs more funding. Certinaly more useful than a higgs boson lasting a femtosecond or whatever it is

Yes, but what practical difference did it make to people in 1900 that Keppler's laws didn't add up? Absolutely none, and it wouldn't for 70 years.

Thats not the point. The point is they could see it didn't add up. It didn't cost anything to improve things. So if it doesn't cost anything go ahead knock yourself out.

Also, the need for the Higgs is observable (or something like it). The current observed standard model doesn't "add up".

I don't care that your model doesn't add up. The wet dreams of physicist should not justify 7billion in expenditure.

Of course, the added cost of these experiments is offset by the fact that there is a massive global effort behind them and so the costs are spread. There is also thousands of scientists working on the LHC - if they were all off doing their own "cheap" research the costs would still add up. Not to the same figure granted.

Offset those costs by the random and varied stuff they woudl achieve

I don't know. That's the beauty of it. Not finding it would have been as interesting as finding it of course. Now we begin to research its properties. MAybe they'll be different from what we expected. Maybe we'll spot something new that will throw the whole thing into disarray again.

I',m not saying its not intersting - it is. Its just not a urgent.

Yes it is. But again, so was knowledge of GR in the early 20th century. That you could see evidence of it cheaply is irrelevant - it was utterly useless. No it's vital to several areas of our lives. Not studying something because it is utterly useless in the near future is just crazy reasoning. It's also incredibly short-sighted - perhaps not individually but as a whole for the human race.

I'm not saying don't study something becuase its utterlly useless. I'm saying dont' do it NOW because its fr*gging expensive as well as useless. Oh and there are lots of other problems that may mean we won't survive to this wonderful future people are imaging if we don't solve them caose we were too busy pondering things.

Because it won't.

We agree on something. Now, as you are a physicist, tell the various folk on here that this won't mean warp drives, hover boards and time machines, please.

Yes. You can keep calling it esoteric as often as you like, but it's about understanding one of the most fundamental building blocks of our universe. The pursuit of knowledge should never be hamstrung by necessity for immediate payback. This is a great example of countries coming together to try and expand our deepest understanding of the universe -

Don't care. Esoteric. Useless.

which is a significantly nobler goal then starting wars, bailing out banks or the other myriad things that countries normally come together for.

Agreed. No argument there.

Also, 7 billion over 20 years simply is not that much money.

I beg to differ. I know people who could do alot of good with as little as 50 -100k

Cú Giobach

headmaster wrote: »

Cú Giobach;76001574]Logic fail.
That my dear old boy, is your problem. I deal in "fact".

You said it was odd that people were searching for something they hadn't found, what would be odd would be if they were looking for something they had found.

If you don't know what "fact" is you can't deal in it.

Podge_irl

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Is that not a case of technological advancement catching up to a point where QM can play a part rather than QM driving the technology in that direction?

It's a combination of things. I don't know when the first thought of using superpositioned quantum states for computing came around (it's not my area) but I can guarantee it wasn't in the first 40 years after QM was discovered. People were too busy trying to understand what the hell it was all about. I also don't actually know what technology is involved in physically building a quantum computer.

Do you think that any further advancement will require huge injections of resources in a 'localized' field of expertise?

Yes. And that's not a phenomenon localised to physics. Unfortunately there are huge advancements made by individuals in theoretical physics, but the physical equipment and engineering required for the experiments is only going to get worse and worse. But that's like complaining a house costs more to build today then in Viking times when they were made of sticks and mud.

That doesn't make it any less esoteric to 99.99% of the population of the world but point taken

No it doesn't, but then I doubt very many people understand exactly what's going on in cancer treatment drugs either...