God Particle Detected at CERN

tigger123 · 13-12-2011 12:19PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A neutrino was checking in for a flight and he was standing at the desk before anyone seen him arriving.

Gets coat.

The barman says "we don't serve neutrinos in here"

A neutrino walks into a bar.

marco_polo · 13-12-2011 12:20PM

seantorious wrote: »

Faster than light travelling particles and the higgs boson. In one year thats a good haul. Heres hoping for disease cures next year.

Well it would likely take the physists 6-7 years to earn a relevant biology/medical doctorate in order to do that, so I think next year is probably a bit optimistic.

hooradiation · 13-12-2011 12:21PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Undoubtedly.

I just have reservations and questions about those big prestige projects. Is the 7.5 billion cost of the LHC an ethical way of spending what is in effect the money of European tax-payers?

Would it be better used to research a cure for cancer? Or build and fund a children's hospital for, what, decades?

I don't know.

Maybe we could have spent that money teaching people that false dichotomies are bullshit.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 12:22PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Undoubtedly.

I just have reservations and questions about those big prestige projects. Is the 7.5 billion cost of the LHC an ethical way of spending what is in effect the money of European tax-payers?

Would it be better used to research a cure for cancer? Or build and fund a children's hospital for, what, decades?

I don't know.

In order to boost the proton packets to the energy levels required for the collisions which should detect the bosons requires an infratructure that big. And big aint cheap. It's the human nature aspect. We could simply accept the hypothesis of the boson and be done with it but our curiosity will win out and we'll require conclusive proof. The machines and tools being used which allow for cancer research we could argue have their origins in such pioneering reserch.

Son Of A Vidic · 13-12-2011 12:23PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would it be better used to research a cure for cancer?

There is too much profit to be made from the multiple drug treatment protocols for this to happen.

ScumLord · 13-12-2011 12:24PM

I was hoping they don't find the Higgs Boson.

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 12:39PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

There is too much profit to be made from the multiple drug treatment protocols for this to happen.

I don't think it could be stopped to be honest. There would need to be an intricate and massive conspiracy to hide a cancer breakthrough.

It just doesn't seem to stand to reason imo.

seamus · 13-12-2011 12:49PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would it be better used to research a cure for cancer? Or build and fund a children's hospital for, what, decades?

These aren't mutually exclusive goals. Discoveries at CERN will lead to improvements in medicine.

Think about it more objectively - imagine back in the 1940's and 50's that no world war happened and the US and Russia decided to pump all their money into building hospitals or researching cures for the flu rather than building computers.

Hundreds of millions of people who are alive today wouldn't be here if they'd done that.

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 01:28PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

There is too much profit to be made from the multiple drug treatment protocols for this to happen.

Even if we pretended for a minute that was true - the survival times for cancer sufferers are still dismal. It would be int he interests of corporations to greatly extend these survival times so people use their products for longer.

seamus wrote: »

These aren't mutually exclusive goals. Discoveries at CERN will lead to improvements in medicine.

Think about it more objectively - imagine back in the 1940's and 50's that no world war happened and the US and Russia decided to pump all their money into building hospitals or researching cures for the flu rather than building computers.

Hundreds of millions of people who are alive today wouldn't be here if they'd done that.

You analogy is flawed. Computers are a highly practical research project with obvious dividends to be paid (as well as not as obvious ones). Research into the Higgs boson has no chance of having a practical application for many lifetimes. Its purely theoretical research.

Think of it this way - look at the sheer effort and expense and energy required to merely even detect IF the things exist or not. Now imagine they did confirm their existence. Then what ? How could you possibly do anything practical with a Higgs boson. Supposing one could conceive of technology to somehow use the Higgs boson - how much time, expense and energy would you need to do that. Draw a parallel between say, the development of electronics. Based on the relatively easy to detect electron. Or the developing field of photonics. Decades and decades of work put into the tech we have today. IF you managed to discover a Higgs boson, the tech to use it (for what? exactly) would take decades to centuries to conceive, would consume half the planet to build, and likely require the power of a star to actually run.

How would discoveries at CERN lead to breakthroughs in medicine. What possible application could a higgs boson have in medicine ?

hooradiation wrote: »

Maybe we could have spent that money teaching people that false dichotomies are bullshit.

I think thats quite a facetious response to chuck stones post.

Lets put this another way. We need cures for cancer, we need childrens hospitals. We need more energy efficient technology. We need alternatives to gasoline. We don't need to discover the existence of the higgs boson. Its nice and all - but we don't need it. Pretty much all the problems we have these days that we need to solve are a) created by ourselves and b) solvable with existing technology and conceivable incremental improvements upon that technology.

That said the discoveries have been exciting to read about.

I do wish they would not use the term 'God particle'. That's just asking for the intelligent designers to come up with some bull****.

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 01:32PM

Good post. ^^ You said what I'm thinking better than I did.

seamus · 13-12-2011 01:32PM

opinion guy wrote: »

How would discoveries at CERN lead to breakthroughs in medicine. What possible application could a higgs boson have in medicine ?

None. The improvements would be indirect. It's not just about finding the particle, it's about the ramifications for our understanding of the universe and the simple forces which bind it. The more we know, the more we can control them, the more technological leaps we can make.

Paco Rodriguez · 13-12-2011 01:35PM

So religion is already claiming the rights to this particle is it?

ScumLord · 13-12-2011 01:35PM

opinion guy wrote: »

You analogy is flawed. Computers are a highly practical research project with obvious dividends to be paid (as well as not as obvious ones).

Which is the point, they where developed for one particular task and their worth became apparent in other fields. There are hundreds and thousands of inventions that have crossed into other fields, it happens constantly so it's fair to assume that anything discovered at cern could go on to affect peoples lifes in all sorts of unexpected ways.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 01:37PM

But the Standard Model is incomplete without it. And people like things complete. It would be like a crossword puzzle with 2 missing clues for example. :pac:

If it takes over £7 billion to complete the model then it would be worth the effort and expense. Alternatively, it will be worth the effort and expense to prove they the boson doesn't exist and the Standard Model will need to be reconsidered which is a big deal for Physics.

Take the Aviva or Dundrum Town Centre. Do we need that space for watching sport or shopping on land which could be used for a Childrens Hospital?

Of course not. There is other land. As there is money for cancer research. The problem is those that have it in adundance spend it on other things like wars etc.

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 01:42PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Which is the point, they where developed for one particular task and their worth became apparent in other fields. There are hundreds and thousands of inventions that have crossed into other fields, it happens constantly so it's fair to assume that anything discovered at cern could go on to affect peoples lifes in all sorts of unexpected ways.

But you are missing my point. Computers may have discovered lots of niche tasks by accident, but they were developed with at least one task in mind. The effort put in had a tangible realworld payback fromthe the very beginning (i.e. not getting killed by the nazi's).

Discovering the Higgs Boson has no conceivable realworld payback for decades to centuries - unless you happen to be a particle physicist or astrophysicist - in which case the realworld paybacks are fame, money and women. But there is no conceivable practical technological payback in the near to long term future. Other than, you know, its nice to know and all - which might be good for Trivial Pursuit players, but apart from that it isn't really all that important for the vast majority of us.

ejmaztec · 13-12-2011 01:45PM

Paco Rodriguez wrote: »

So religion is already claiming the rights to this particle is it?

God help us if they start fucking around with it.:eek:

120_Minutes · 13-12-2011 01:58PM

In before creationists calling it "just a theory"

Son Of A Vidic · 13-12-2011 02:01PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

There would need to be an intricate and massive conspiracy to hide a cancer breakthrough.

I have worked on both sides of the coin - the clinical and business end of cancer treatment, it has nothing to do with conspiracies and more to do with business priorities and profit.

The pioneering research taking place at CERN is crucial for all of us. I wouldn't be to concerned about the money spent on such a project. Unlike the billions we have wasted on incompetent bankers.

ScumLord · 13-12-2011 02:07PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Discovering the Higgs Boson has no conceivable realworld payback for decades to centuries -

I don't know how you can be so sure, what if there is no higgs boson?

44leto · 13-12-2011 02:08PM

Its not about the expense of the collider. Its about what is needed to advance physics. Although the other sciences are important and do net benefits. Physics is the base of them all. Understand physics and you would be well on your way to understanding the intricacies of molecular biology, medicine and drugs treatments, chemistry, meteorology, its endless.

So understand physics and you understand the universe and to know a thing is a means to exploit a thing and hopilly for all mankind. In my opinion this is money well spent.

jonnyfingers · 13-12-2011 02:10PM

44leto wrote: »

So understand physics and you understand the universe and to know a thing is a means to exploit a thing and hopilly for all mankind. In my opinion this is money well spent.

I completely agree. Discovery is what drives us as a species, we need to invest fully in it. CERN are doing great work, most of it goes way over our heads, but in the next century I'm sure the work being done there will benefit our lives directly.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 02:32PM

opinion guy wrote: »

But you are missing my point. Computers may have discovered lots of niche tasks by accident, but they were developed with at least one task in mind. The effort put in had a tangible realworld payback fromthe the very beginning (i.e. not getting killed by the nazi's).

Discovering the Higgs Boson has no conceivable realworld payback for decades to centuries - unless you happen to be a particle physicist or astrophysicist - in which case the realworld paybacks are fame, money and women. But there is no conceivable practical technological payback in the near to long term future. Other than, you know, its nice to know and all - which might be good for Trivial Pursuit players, but apart from that it isn't really all that important for the vast majority of us.

It did though in socio-economic benefits through those employed to construct it. Thousands of jobs created.
If CERN decided that the LHC wasn't powerful or big enough and decided to build a new one in Ireland that is 40km in circumference requiring thousands of employees to construct it, would we be against it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Large_Hadron_Collider

Loanshark Blues · 13-12-2011 02:39PM

opinion guy wrote: »

You analogy is flawed. Computers are a highly practical research project with obvious dividends to be paid (as well as not as obvious ones). Research into the Higgs boson has no chance of having a practical application for many lifetimes. Its purely theoretical research.

The particle accelerator uses super-conductive magnets which are kept cool using helium which is at a temperature of almost absolute zero. CT scanners uses the same process, and were developed as a result of these types of particle accelerators. So saying this research has no chance of having a practical application is kind of stretching it..

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 02:45PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't know how you can be so sure, what if there is no higgs boson?

If there is no higgs boson then a bunch of theoretical physicsts will have egg on their face, a bunch of highly abstractional theories will have to be rewritten, and other expensive experiments will be invented. (On a side note - I hope there is not higgs boson cause frankly from an academic point of view thats more interesting).

44leto wrote: »

Its not about the expense of the collider. Its about what is needed to advance physics. Although the other sciences are important and do net benefits. Physics is the base of them all. Understand physics and you would be well on your way to understanding the intricacies of molecular biology, medicine and drugs treatments, chemistry, meteorology, its endless.

What you all don't seem to get is that we already understand physics well enough to understand the intricacies of that stuff. It just requires lots better computers than we got yet and ongoing experimentation. But the physics of that stuff more or less fell out of quantum theory. This Higgs Boson stuff is several levels below all of that and several levels of mental abstraction away from anything that could be tested for the last 30 years. Knowing there is a Higgs boson or not won't change things like molecular biology all that much, but it will change some highly complicated theories about stuff that happens at subatomics levels underlying the chemistry.

And who knows, maybe I am wrong. But I'm not that wrong. In other words there might in many decades time come some practical use from all of this, but the second aspect of my point is - so what. We have other problems now that need solving now.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing these experiments ever. I'm saying we should solve the practical problems first the cause daily miseries before solving the esoteric ones that entertain physicists.

So understand physics and you understand the universe and to know a thing is a means to exploit a thing and hopilly for all mankind. In my opinion this is money well spent.

Except to know a thing is not necessarily giving you a practical way to exploit it. If we confirm a theory that tells us we need the entire output of the sun for a year to build a time machine or a warp drive is that useful to us in any practical way ? No, not really.

c_man · 13-12-2011 02:46PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

If CERN decided that the LHC wasn't powerful or big enough and decided to build a new one in Ireland that is 40km in circumference requiring thousands of employees to construct it, would we be against it?

Probably. Ireland aren't members of CERN because the population here are totally brainwashed against anything which even hints at the word 'nuclear'.

Contribute to a grand project like the LHC? Nah, we'd rather spend billions on buying NAMA housing estates. Much more worthwhile.

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 02:49PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

It did though in socio-economic benefits through those employed to construct it. Thousands of jobs created.
If CERN decided that the LHC wasn't powerful or big enough and decided to build a new one in Ireland that is 40km in circumference requiring thousands of employees to construct it, would we be against it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Large_Hadron_Collider

Thats a facetious argument. Of course it created jobs. But spending x million on anything creates jobs. You could spend x million on a paper plane aeronautics laboratory and create jobs.

Loanshark Blues wrote: »

The particle accelerator uses super-conductive magnets which are kept cool using helium which is at a temperature of almost absolute zero. CT scanners uses the same process, and were developed as a result of these types of particle accelerators. So saying this research has no chance of having a practical application is kind of stretching it..

I didn't say we shouldn't have particle accelerators. I'm saying we shouldn't have this one, for this price at this time.
CT scanners DO NOT use particle accelerators, they DO NOT use superconducting magnets, they DO NOT use helium. They are sophisticated x ray machines made possible by the semiconductor industry. They take sequential x rays in sequential locations and use the power of computers to reconstruct an image.

witty username · 13-12-2011 02:56PM

Loanshark Blues wrote: »

The particle accelerator uses super-conductive magnets...

Magnets. Is there anything they can't do?....

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 03:00PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

Take the Aviva or Dundrum Town Centre. Do we need that space for watching sport or shopping on land which could be used for a Childrens Hospital?

Unlike the LHC a shopping center isn't deciding what to spend your money on. The Aviva will probably be a profitable business that has a here-and-now return both financially and for those who use it.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The pioneering research taking place at CERN is crucial for all of us.

Crucial? I disagree. People are talking about the poetntial spin-offs in some far flung future. That's hardly crucial.

If you take a project like the Mars rover mission which has cost approximately $1Bn to date you can see a tangible awe-inspiring scientific project that everyone can feel part off.

The LHC though?

Loanshark Blues · 13-12-2011 03:00PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Thats a facetious argument. Of course it created jobs. But spending x million on anything creates jobs. You could spend x million on a paper plane aeronautics laboratory and create jobs.

I didn't say we shouldn't have particle accelerators. I'm saying we shouldn't have this one, for this price at this time.
CT scanners DO NOT use particle accelerators, they DO NOT use superconducting magnets, they DO NOT use helium. They are sophisticated x ray machines made possible by the semiconductor industry. They take sequential x rays in sequential locations and use the power of computers to reconstruct an image.

Sorry I got mixed up, it's MRIs that use magnets cooled by helium.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 03:01PM

opinion guy wrote: »

(On a side note - I hope there is not higgs boson cause frankly from an academic point of view thats more interesting).

Which is why physicists need the LHC. In order that they may discover that a theoretical particle which is part of the Standard Model does not exist. Therefore the particle remains a theory and isn't real. It would imply the model is flawed and needs to be re-worked. If that is the case then we can thank the £7bn spent to confirm that.

It's like landing on the moon. There's nothing there of note. It's simply symbolic. Yet, the engineering experience derived from the goal and from which we benefit today was worth the billions spent on that goal.

God Particle Detected at CERN

Comments