No announcement yet.

Particle physicists want money for bigger collider

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Particle physicists want money for bigger collider

    Particle physicists want money for bigger collider
    Wednesday, January 16, 2019
    .. .
    What the Europeans will do is harder to predict, because
    a lot depends on who has influential friends in which ministry.
    But I think particle physicists have dug their own grave by giving
    the public the impression that the LHC would answer some
    big question, and then not being able to deliver.

    Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder
    Backreaction: Particle physicists want money for bigger collider

  • #2
    Tuesday, January 22, 2019
    Particle physics may have reached the end of the line
    CERN’s press release of plans for a larger particle collider,
    which I wrote about last week, made international headlines.
    Unfortunately, most articles about the topic just repeat the
    press-release, and do not explain how much the situation
    in particle physics has changed with the LHC data.

    Since the late 1960s, when physicists hit on the “particle zoo”
    at nuclear energies, they always had a good reason to build
    a larger collider. That’s because their theories of elementary
    matter were incomplete.
    But now, with the Higgs-boson found in 2012, their theory –
    the “standard model of particle physics” – is complete.
    It’s done. There’s nothing missing. All Pokemon caught.
    . . . .

    Particle physicists had a good case to build the LHC with
    the prediction of the Higgs-boson. But with the Higgs found,
    the next larger collider has no good motivation.
    The year is 2019, not 1999.

    Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder
    Backreaction: Particle physics may have reached the end of the line


    • #3
      False Claims In Particle Physics
      By Tommaso Dorigo | January 20th 2019
      '' . . . what does the idea of a "God particle" have to do with the Higgs boson?
      Very, very little.
      The Higgs boson is in fact the result of an almost magical mechanism,
      called in its non-trivialized version "electroweak symmetry breaking" (EWSB).
      . . .
      The universe "chooses" one among an infinity of possible
      minimum-energy states to be its vacuum, . . . ''

      "God particle" was the result of an* "electroweak symmetry breaking"
      (EWSB).* in an infinity minimum-energy states . . . of vacuum.
      a) If the Higgs boson ''completed the standard model'',
      then why do ''Particle physicists want money for bigger collider'' ?

      b) If '' the standard model' isn't completed, then . . . .

      c) CERN / LHC principles are -*
      1)* the higher energy and
      2) the deeper vacuum
      the stronger the* "electroweak symmetry'' can be broken and
      * more new particles can be discovered.
      But where is the border of this CERN's idea?
      Is it LHC around our Earth ?
      Or, maybe, the border of CERN's project is LHC between Earth and Moon ?
      Nobody asks of the CERN's border.


      • #4
        The funny thing, is we keep on looking for little hard balls, and they may not exist or just be shadows of twisting torsion geometry of fields in a sea of kinetic energy. --My unscientific opinion.

        It's like looking at pottery pieces and trying to understand the nature of how the came to be. Was it dropped on the ground or blown up with a hand grenade?

        While we don't know... let's build something stronger to make more pieces. I'm sure the answer will reveal itself with MORE!

        We don't even understand electricity to the level of Tesla.


        • #5
          In 1911 Rutherford studied structure of atoms, bombarding them
          with* a- particles and this idea helped him to understand the
          inner structure of atom.
          Then it was decided that accelerators are better source
          to bomb micro particles an to understand their inner structure.
          The results of this bombing was stunning: more than 1000 new
          strange particles appeared (from 1931) but nobody was possible
          to unite them and therefore most of them were thrown out and
          only a few (about 20) particles received permission to take
          part in ''The Standard Model of elementary particles''
          But . . .
          ''The Standard Model simply can't explain some of the most
          prevalent and fundamental features of the universe;
          . . . . . how gravity behaves at the subatomic,
          particle physics scales where quantum rules rule.''

          It is very strange, . . . to create gravity at LHC we don't need
          to bomb particles, we need to gather all 1000+ micro particles together.
          It seems that the LHC and ''The Standard Model'' never will be complected.
          Attached Files


          • #6
            Please don't think I place little value on the advancement of colliders in general. It has increased our understanding and re enforcing our point of view on atomic structure.

            My point is that we keep forging ahead with an approach to define the unseen, but yet our vision maybe looking through a tunnel without being on the other side.

            If we came up with a model that explained the anomalies in physics, like particle versus wave, or quantum entanglement instead of treating them like isolated red herrings... it might change our investigative approach.

            What if the relationships were multidimensional, then our 3D approach would be futile, as would be perceiving a cup of coffee in 2D.

            If quantum entanglement worked because interdimensionally particles share no distance, it would make sense. Particle collision would have no relevance to understand that.


            • #7
              Particle physics may have reached the end of the line
              Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder
              Backreaction: Particle physics may have reached the end of the line
              '' . . . more and more money for less and less knowledge
              about hypothetical specks of matter that go so far beyond the
              infinitesimal as to border on sheer nothingness.''
              / Ed Regis. Science writer./
              I agree with Sabine Hossenfelder and Ed Regis:
              Particle physics was reached its boundary,