God Particle Detected at CERN

skelliser

opinion guy wrote: »

ok let me break this down for you

Stating that the LHC is very expensive and questioning the cost/benefit of it DOES NOT EQUAL TO saying CERN is a bad thing.

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

hang on a minute!

you and others have constantly but forward the agrument that the money would be better spent on feeding the starving or cancer research.

You have clearly been shown that CERN as contributed alot more to the world then has been put in. Thus showing the cost/benefit has been worth it.

and now your saying its a good thing?

what exactly are you saying cause you seem to be contradicting yourself now.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

And so is the LHC. Just in different ways.

Of course, you've been trying to claim that it will only do one thing and nothing good will come of it, but you have nothing on which to base that claim.

You're just continually rehashing the, "Physics knows all it needs to know" fallacy without providing any sound basis on which to assert that the LHC is a waste of money.

I DID NOT say physics knows all it need to know. Please don't put that in quotes and attribute it to me.

"It could be better used now". Probably, but you could say the same for most things. LUAS cost €1bn to build. That could have been better spent on vaccinating children in sub-saharan Africa or fighting poverty in South America.

But LUAS has a pracitcal pay back.

The basis of deciding whether to spend money on something isn't, "Could we spend it somewhere else?". Because every time you ask that question, the answer will always be "yes". The decision is based on, "Is this a worthwhile endeavour?". And yes, the LHC is a worthwhile endeavour.

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

At the end of the day we might end up just being to tick a few boxes. But even that's surprisingly important. It's scientific verification. If you don't verify theories, then it's impossible to progress very far with future theories. You could go all the way back thousands of years and say that all science was a total waste of time. Sure we already had an answer - "God did it". Why did we waste our time and resources trying to verify any theories?

That is, we have our scientific model, but it's unverified. So in order to extrapolate further on that, we need to extrapolate along two lines - What if we're correct and what if we're wrong. As you try to extrapolate further, the level of uncertainty in your equations increases and your certainity in any part of decreases as you keep having to account for the "what if" scenarios every time.

However, if you verify a theory, you can discard the "what if we're wrong" line of reasoning and suddenly a whole pile of new theories can be formulated based on solid underlying calculations rather than calculations that may not be correct.

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

Seriously, you may as well say that we should abandon all research unless we can point to a definite outcome that will provide benefit to humanity. Why are we wasting money digging up old bones from Dinosaurs and prehistoric human sites? We know that evolution occurs, we don't need any more proof, so there's nothing of value to be gained by digging up a few bones, right?

I am absolutely not saying abandon all research. I'm saying prioritise reasearch that can make a difference in the real world. There is lots of practical use in paleontology. Its very informative for climate modelling -something of crucial importance today. Oh I also read they will attempt to clone a mammoth from some cells the found in a bone - which is simply awesome. Go forth my mammoth minnions!!! Go forth and conquer!!!!

opinion guy

foxyboxer wrote: »

....but a Large Hadron Collider has never been built before so costings were always going to be questioned.

I guess the rationale taken during construction was if you buy cheap, you buy twice as in "This collider isn't nearly powerful enough, we require a bigger one" therefore more funding.

It is still only operating at half it's capacity AFAIK and may have found the particle.

Isn't there a hadron collider aisle in Aldi ???:pac:

skelliser wrote: »

hang on a minute!

you and others have constantly but forward the agrument that the money would be better spent on feeding the starving or cancer research.

You have clearly been shown that CERN as contributed alot more to the world then has been put in. Thus showing the cost/benefit has been worth it.

and now your saying its a good thing?

what exactly are you saying cause you seem to be contradicting yourself now.

I'm saying you have failed to understand what we are saying and need to reread the thread.

laugh

What a debate, 7 billion is chicken feed for something as important as this.

skelliser

opinion guy wrote: »

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

ah, how about the advancement of the human race, knowledge, understanding how we got here so we can understand were we are going.
what is existence?
what is the nature of the universe?
how did it all start?
why?


simple questions like that!!

opinion guy

skelliser wrote: »

ah, how about the advancement of the human race, knowledge, understanding how we got here so we can understand were we are going.
what is existence?
what is the nature of the universe?
how did it all start?
why?


simple questions like that!!

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

skelliser

laugh wrote: »

What a debate, 7 billion is chicken feed for something as important as this.

its unbelievable!

Cú Giobach

opinion guy wrote: »

What was your point with your previous post ?

That I hope people who ask that money and other people's time and effort should be put into those endeavours are also doing it themselves.

opinion guy

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That I hope people who ask that money and other people's time and effort should be put into those endeavours are also doing it themselves.

And so I answered you. Where was your confusion ?

skelliser

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

facepalm!

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

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.

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.