God Particle Detected at CERN

Corkfeen · 13-12-2011 03:06PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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?

You could argue the exact same in relation to Nasa but that has resulted in many useful spin-offs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

ScumLord · 13-12-2011 03:08PM

opinion guy wrote: »

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).

But don't we base our advanced technology on things lie the quantum theory and other theory's and while they may work we could be missing out on faster speeds and smaller sizes with a better understanding of the fundamentals. Perhaps your very right, I don't really understand what's going on I'd just be of the opinion that we'll always gain something useful from this kind of knowledge even if we can't say what those benefits are from the start.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 03:13PM

opinion guy wrote: »

What you all don't seem to get is that we already understand physics well enough to understand the intricacies of that stuff.

So what if CERN discover other exotic particles never observed before?

To suggest we understand physics well enough is incredibly short sighted. We want to understand it all. Well enough is not good enough. That's the point of the LHC. It would be like me saying "God yeah, well i'll take your word for it that he exists". People need proof and evidence. Isn't that the purpose of science after all?

"Physics is the only real science. The rest are just stamp collecting."
-- Ernest Rutherford

44leto · 13-12-2011 03:15PM

opinion guy wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

I give an example James Clerk Maxwell gathered all the knowledge about magnetism and light in the late 19th century and he came up with a simple equation which meant electromagnetism is an electromagnetic wave, light in other words. The amount of applications to that understanding is almost the 20th century.

So maybe the collider will confirm the existence of the Higgs bosom, then that will lead to experiments to study its behaviour, then perhaps we may learn how to manipulate mass. Perhaps that would lead to a gravity drive,,who knows.

But quantum physics and mechanics can predict and understand, maths can do that. But its what is missing in the equations is what you get from experiments and observation. The unforeseen.

2 words has advanced science and humanity more then any others,,,"that's weird",, then the real ground breaking discoveries begin.

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 03:18PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

You could argue the exact same in relation to Nasa but that has resulted in many useful spin-offs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off

That's true but it doesn't mean that these spin-offs wouldn't have happened in the absence of NASA.

Also do the spin-offs justify the costs? NASA itself is a spin-off from the cold war albeit masquerading as a civilian operation. If you took all the resources, time, effort, energy and human capital that was wasted during the cold war the spin offs that NASA gave us are probably an incredibly heavy price to pay.

hooradiation · 13-12-2011 03:20PM

opinion guy wrote: »

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

so, your response is to make the same mistake he did, but use more words.

Genius.

We can do both, we are doing both and will continue to do so. When the researches at CERN start looking for the higgs boson work the world over doesn't cease on a cure for cancer, nor does construction work stop on hospitals. Or anything else you want to use to try and create a shitty dichotomy

Plus, if we're using the continued existence of problems facing the human race as the reason why work like what is being done at CERN is not 'needed' then we'll never be in a position to do that kind of work, seeing as we'll constantly have other problems that could be dictated as being of a higher need.

So how about you we all just drop any indulgence of this pretence that the work at CERN is somehow of less worth or importance or is less ethical than anything other field of science people would like to name.

seamus · 13-12-2011 03:22PM

opinion guy wrote: »

What you all don't seem to get is that we already understand physics well enough to understand the intricacies of that stuff.

You can't possibly make that affirmation.

It remind me of a quote from 1900 by Lord Kelvin

"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

Yes, better performing computers will clearly just help us get better at research in other areas, but understanding the basic forces behind particles may open up avenues besides computing which alter the way in which we interact with the universe.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 13-12-2011 03:24PM

Ah sure i created a load of those in my garage, i got an old food mixer and changed the gears inside to speed up the mixer to near the speed of light, then i threw a cup of atoms into the pot. Following the collision i knew the sub atomic particles were there as they had to be but i couldnt see them or measure them.

Ellis Dee · 13-12-2011 03:24PM

Misleading report, but those who write for the Star and know their readership are hardly going to serve caviare when swill is appropriate.:rolleyes:

All that has happened is that detailed analysis may reveal in the next few months that the elusive Higgs boson (nicknamed "God particle") has been detected.:cool:

At least we may be close to detecting the particle. Infinitely closer than we will ever be to detecting God, that's for sure.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 03:27PM

To me this is a non argument.

I will be 40 in 10 years time. At an age where cancer could rear it's ugly head.
Would I be right in saying that cancer researchers have egg on their face if I get diagnosed with it then? Considering the billions being spent now and in the intervening years?

If cancer is cured within that time frame, I could launch a counter argument suggesting "Yes, I am cancer free but look at ALL the billions you spent which could have been used to save the millions who have died in Africa!! Your cancer research is unethical blah blah:("

In short, let the physicists have their fun because it's all very interesting :pac:

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 03:33PM

44leto wrote: »

2 words has advanced science and humanity more then any others,,,"that's weird",, then the real ground breaking discoveries begin.

I can deduce that further to one word.

Why?

lcrcboy · 13-12-2011 03:33PM

So all I here really is how good it would be if they could confirm its discovery, but can someone here please explain to me what would happen if in the future it was confirmed to exist what exactly does it mean?? would it change anything in society?? or are everyday lives... this is a genuine question just trying to understand the implications if it is proven to exist.

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 03:34PM

hooradiation wrote: »

We can do both, we are doing both and will continue to do so. When the researches at CERN start looking for the higgs boson work the world over doesn't cease on a cure for cancer, nor does construction work stop on hospitals.

By the OTT tone of you post you seem to have some irrational emotional attachment to the LHC project.

When you put resources into one project that means resources are being diverted from other projects.

We're discussing whether using scare resources for LHC experimentation is better than using those resources for other projects that might have a real world tangible benefit.

We're looking at ever increasing oil prices so research into renewable energy and such would be an example of solving real world problems in the here-and-now rather than ploughing money into something that may have not return any benefit at all - or if it does it could be decades away.

RobbieTheRobber · 13-12-2011 03:36PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

To me this is a non argument.

I will be 40 in 10 years time. At an age where cancer could rear it's ugly head.
Would I be right in saying that cancer researchers have egg on their face if I get diagnosed with it then? Considering the billions being spent now and in the intervening years?

If cancer is cured within that time frame, I could launch a counter argument suggesting "Yes, I am cancer free but look at ALL the billions you spent which could have been used to save the millions who have died in Africa!! "

In short, let the physicists have their fun because it's all very interesting :pac:

Just because we are taking about cures for cancer now!

Awesome 17-Year-Old Girl Invents Nanoparticle That Kills Cancer Cells
http://jezebel.com/5867060/awesome-17+year+old-girl-invents-nanoparticle-that-kills-cancer-cells

I really like that headline above but the WSJ has a more realistic take on it

Zhang says it could take 25 years between clinical trials and other steps before her research is helping patients.

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP27e6b4fd88bf44e49660ba127407d5f4.html

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 03:37PM

lcrcboy wrote: »

can someone here please explain to me what would happen if in the future it was confirmed to exist what exactly does it mean??

I very much doubt it but I'm looking forward to seeing if someone can.

force eleven · 13-12-2011 03:39PM

Will this help pay my mortgage? How does this actually benefit anyone other than scientific egg heads?

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 03:40PM

lcrcboy wrote: »

So all I here really is how good it would be if they could confirm its discovery, but can someone here please explain to me what would happen if in the future it was confirmed to exist what exactly does it mean?? would it change anything in society?? or are everyday lives... this is a genuine question just trying to understand the implications if it is proven to exist.

It would explain why we, the earth, the sun, the galaxies don't fall down in a big heap. We're mostly made up of empty space (in fact taking away all the empty space from the atoms in the world's population, and we would all fit within a small apple, but the apple would still have the same weight as 8 billion people). Now try fitting everyone into that space as is. Scientists don't know why we have mass but they have theorys as to why we do.

hooradiation · 13-12-2011 03:43PM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

By the OTT tone of you post you seem to have some irrational emotional attachment to the LHC project.

No, I just have a low tolerance for the kind of nonsense you're peddling.
Who'd have thunk it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

When you put resources into one project that means resources are being diverted from other projects.

Yes, all those physicist not curing cancer, what jerks.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We're discussing whether using scare resources for LHC experimentation is better than using those resources for other projects that might have a real world tangible benefit.

No, you're not. You're trying to convince people that the work at the LHC has been to the detriment of people with cancer, or sick children, or kittens and puppies, which is nonsense.

Also, I'd love to know exactly what scare resources you think could be better used elsewhere?
Be specific.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

We're looking at ever increasing oil prices so research into renewable energy and such would be an example of solving real world problems in the here-and-now rather than ploughing money into something that may have not return any benefit at all - or if it does it could be decades away.

We can, and are, doing both.
The dichotomy you keep presenting is false, why is that?

DaveDaRave · 13-12-2011 03:44PM

force eleven wrote: »

Will this help pay my mortgage? How does this actually benefit anyone other than scientific egg heads?

This is to do with the entire existence of everything that existed and ever will exist. **** your mortgage.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 03:45PM

force eleven wrote: »

Will this help pay my mortgage? How does this actually benefit anyone other than scientific egg heads?

Sure what good is Relativity or Blackholes or Neutron stars? I'm not going into interstellar space in my lifetime am I? We are sentient beings who want to understand these things. Like a child who takes apart a toy to find out how it works.

Does a cow care what the grass is made of? Of course not, it just knows it needs it and it tastes good :-)

seantorious · 13-12-2011 03:46PM

force eleven wrote: »

Will this help pay my mortgage? How does this actually benefit anyone other than scientific egg heads?

If you said that 30 years ago about lasers and semiconductors you wouldn't have that lovely computer in front of you now. If you don't appreciate science great but don't complain about it. Technically your tv doesn't help you pay your mortgage but you still have one.

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 04:02PM

hooradiation wrote: »

so, your response is to make the same mistake he did, but use more words.

Genius.

We can do both, we are doing both and will continue to do so. When the researches at CERN start looking for the higgs boson work the world over doesn't cease on a cure for cancer, nor does construction work stop on hospitals. Or anything else you want to use to try and create a shitty dichotomy

Plus, if we're using the continued existence of problems facing the human race as the reason why work like what is being done at CERN is not 'needed' then we'll never be in a position to do that kind of work, seeing as we'll constantly have other problems that could be dictated as being of a higher need.

So how about you we all just drop any indulgence of this pretence that the work at CERN is somehow of less worth or importance or is less ethical than anything other field of science people would like to name.

Oh sorry forgive me I forgot about that infinite pile of money and resources we have to draw from. Oh....wait....

hooradiation wrote: »

The dichotomy you keep presenting is false, why is that?

Just because you decree it to be a false dichotomy does not make it true. Fact is it isn't a false dichotomy. The money had to come from somewhere, and if you recall at the time the project was given the go ahead years back there were massive arguments about it at the highest political levels.

Go read up on some economics. Specifically the topics: Supply and Demand, and Opportunity Cost

smegmar · 13-12-2011 04:04PM

tigger123 wrote: »

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

A neutrino walks into a bar.

A neutrino walks through a bar.....

totally undetected.

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 04:07PM

44leto wrote: »

I give an example James Clerk Maxwell gathered all the knowledge about magnetism and light in the late 19th century and he came up with a simple equation which meant electromagnetism is an electromagnetic wave, light in other words. The amount of applications to that understanding is almost the 20th century.

So maybe the collider will confirm the existence of the Higgs bosom, then that will lead to experiments to study its behaviour, then perhaps we may learn how to manipulate mass. Perhaps that would lead to a gravity drive,,who knows.

But quantum physics and mechanics can predict and understand, maths can do that. But its what is missing in the equations is what you get from experiments and observation. The unforeseen.

2 words has advanced science and humanity more then any others,,,"that's weird",, then the real ground breaking discoveries begin.

Did maxwell spend 7 billion farthings or whatever it was to do this ? No. That would have been unconscionable back then.

seantorious wrote: »

If you said that 30 years ago about lasers and semiconductors you wouldn't have that lovely computer in front of you now. If you don't appreciate science great but don't complain about it. Technically your tv doesn't help you pay your mortgage but you still have one.

Equally - the computer sitting in front of me is there thanks the captalism - not some doe eyed scientists trying to better mankind. Yes the laser was originally invented without a practical purpose (although there was theoretical purpose). But did it cost 7 billion ? No.

Ellis Dee · 13-12-2011 04:07PM

force eleven wrote: »

Will this help pay my mortgage? How does this actually benefit anyone other than scientific egg heads?

I bet the guy -- sorry person, don't want to be sexist - who invented the wheel got the same kind of grief from the other troglodytes.

What the fcuk use is a toy like that for killing a mastodon?

Chuck Stone · 13-12-2011 04:09PM

hooradiation wrote: »

No, I just have a low tolerance for the kind of nonsense you're peddling.
Who'd have thunk it.

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/3/calm-down.jpg

No, you're not. You're trying to convince people that the work at the LHC has been to the detriment of people with cancer, or sick children, or kittens and puppies, which is nonsense.

TBH I think you have a poor understanding of basic economics.

Scarcity is the fundamental economic problem of having humans who have unlimited wants and needs in a world of limited resources. It states that society has insufficient productive resources to fulfill all human wants and needs. Alternatively, scarcity implies that not all of society's goals can be pursued at the same time; trade-offs are made of one good against others

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

The fact that it cost 7.5 billion automatically means that that money was not used for something else.

You're dogmatically happy that the time effort and resources put into the LHC project is well directed.

I'm questioning whether it could have been spent on other projects or research.

If you can't accept that someone else has a different opinion to you on the matter then I can't help you there.

We can, and are, doing both.
The dichotomy you keep presenting is false, why is that?

You keep throwing up this 'false dichotomy' issue. I'm not saying it has to be either the LHC or a cure for cancer (that your fabrication). I'm merely pointing out that when you plough resources into one field of scientific endeavour some other fields will have less.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 04:11PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Equally - the computer sitting in front of me is there thanks the captalism - not some doe eyed scientists trying to better mankind. Yes the laser was originally invented without a practical purpose (although there was theoretical purpose). But did it cost 7 billion ? No.

If the Higgs Boson keeps tigers away then I want one.

foxyboxer · 13-12-2011 04:15PM

Anyone else finding it ironic that we are debating the merits of the work at CERN on a web browser? :pac:

seantorious · 13-12-2011 04:15PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Equally - the computer sitting in front of me is there thanks the captalism - not some doe eyed scientists trying to better mankind. Yes the laser was originally invented without a practical purpose (although there was theoretical purpose). But did it cost 7 billion ? No.

Didn't capitalism cost €34 billion a few years ago? I'd rather have the LHC than AIB.

opinion guy · 13-12-2011 04:17PM

seantorious wrote: »

Didn't capitalism cost €34 billion a few years ago? I'd rather have the LHC than AIB.

I can't argue with that

God Particle Detected at CERN

Comments