LHC and it's implications for particle physics and astronomy.

michaelmozina · Aug 21, 2008

<p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080820163243.htm</p><p>I have a philosophical question about the LHC and it's implications for both the fields of particle physics and for the field of astronomy.   As it relates to particle physics, the Higgs Boson seems to be the primary focus of attention.  As it relates to astronomy, the focus seems to be on finding viable candidates for SUSY oritented "dark matter". </p><p> I'm curious about whether or not these experiments are likely to falsify either idea?  In other words if there is no Higg's boson found in the LHC experiments, what then?  If LHC finds no new "stable" SUSY type particles that have a half life of more than a few seconds, then what?  Would either the physics community or the astronomy community be likely to consider these tests as a falsification of these ideas (assuming they don't find what they are looking for)?</p><p>Of course it's also possible that there could be confirmation of both concepts.  I guess I'm more curious about the implications of us not findig the evidence and confirmation that we are looking for.   </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Aug 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080820163243.htmI have a philosophical question about the LHC and it's implications for both the fields of particle physics and for the field of astronomy.   As it relates to particle physics, the Higgs Boson seems to be the primary focus of attention.  As it relates to astronomy, the focus seems to be on finding viable candidates for SUSY oritented "dark matter".  I'm curious about whether or not these experiments are likely to falsify either idea?  In other words if there is no Higg's boson found in the LHC experiments, what then?  If LHC finds no new "stable" SUSY type particles that have a half life of more than a few seconds, then what?  Would either the physics community or the astronomy community be likely to consider these tests as a falsification of these ideas (assuming they don't find what they are looking for)?Of course it's also possible that there could be confirmation of both concepts.  I guess I'm more curious about the implications of us not findig the evidence and confirmation that we are looking for.      <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>There is no need to speclate as to how data will be interpreted.  The interpretation will almost certainly depend on  what is seen or not seen and at what energy levels.  But all we have to do is wait just a little while and see what actually happens. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 21, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no need to speclate as to how data will be interpreted.  The interpretation will almost certainly depend on  what is seen or not seen and at what energy levels.  But all we have to do is wait just a little while and see what actually happens. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />God bless empirical science

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no need to speclate as to how data will be interpreted.  The interpretation will almost certainly depend on  what is seen or not seen and at what energy levels.  But all we have to do is wait just a little while and see what actually happens. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, there may be no great "need" I suppose, but I was still curious about how things might play out if we don't find what we're looking for in one or the other fields of science.   I willingly concede that anything is "possible".  A postive confirmation of the Higgs boson and *long lasting* (an important requirement) SUSY "dark" particles are of course a possible outcomes of these experiments.  That would be great of course and it would make things "easy" and might significantly bolster our understanding of the universe.</p><p>On the other hand, it is possible that one or both of these searches will bear no fruit in the LHC experiments.  I'm more curious about the later scenario.   What might the implications be for either field of science were our search to come up negative?  Would that change either field of science?  In other words might we be inclined to simply suggest we need a more powerful collider to find what we're looking for, or will we scratch our collective heads and look for different possible explanations for the things that we observe? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>God bless empirical science

<br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Indeed.  We absolutely all agree on that point. .

</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

derekmcd · Aug 21, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.On the other hand, it is possible that one or both of these searches will bear no fruit in the LHC experiments.  I'm more curious about the later scenario.   What might the implications be for either field of science were our search to come up negative?  Would that change either field of science?  In other words might we be inclined to simply suggest we need a more powerful collider to find what we're looking for, or will we scratch our collective heads and look for different possible explanations for the things that we observe? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I think it would be wrong to quit looking simply because you don't find what you predicted should exist.  Until someone comes up with a better solution that makes your prediction irrelavent, you keep searching.  I believe CERN already has plans in place to ramp up the energies of the LHC in either 5 or 10 years.</p><p>Should they come up unsuccessful, I don't think there will be some paradigm shift on the horizon, though I could definately see a potential shift of focus within segments of the scientific community.  In no way, though, do they just give up.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

BoJangles · Aug 22, 2008

What benefits to humanity does finding or not finding higgs field resolve into? could the money spent be better focused towards global warming, anti humanization? or is this just another way to build a bigger weapon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

centsworth_II · Aug 22, 2008

<p><font color="#333399"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What benefits to humanity does finding or not finding higgs field resolve into? could the money spent be better focused towards global warming, anti humanization? or is this just another way to build a bigger weapon <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></font></p><p>Knowledge is power that can be used for good or evil.  Some day our knowledge may destroy us, or it may save us. Discovering Higgs, or not, will let us know if we are on the right track to understanding reality, or not.  The better we understand reality, the better we can manipulate it to our ends.  </p><p>All the fantastic technology that we have at our disposal today is the result of the knowledge gained from pure science applied to everyday problems.  Something learned from the LHC may someday result in a solution to one of the global problems facing us today or in the future.  There is no way to know ahead of time. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

BoJangles · Aug 22, 2008

Sounds 50/50 if you ask me. what has technology doneso far? global warming, nuclear weapons, the plethora of chemicals that invade our environment,over population, maybe even the over harvesting of our natural resources <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds 50/50 if you ask me. what has technology doneso far?</DIV></p><p>You mean besides our cars, computers, the internet, television, radio, modern medicine, etc?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>global warming, nuclear weapons, the plethora of chemicals that invade our environment,over population, maybe even the over harvesting of our natural resources <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>Of course with all these modern problems, the average life expectency for human beings continues to climb.  I'll take the technology, even with the downsides. </p><p>IMO, win, lose or draw, the money spent on LHC is a great investment.  It will definitely pay dividends, one way or another. I'm just curious what a "negative" result might mean for science. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You mean besides our cars, computers, the internet, television, radio, modern medicine, etc?Of course with all these modern problems, the average life expectency for human beings continues to climb.  I'll take the technology, even with the downsides. IMO, win, lose or draw, the money spent on LHC is a great investment.  It will definitely pay dividends, one way or another. I'm just curious what a "negative" result might mean for science. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />I agree 100%. The world's population is far better off now than it was in the past, or it never would have grown so large.</p><p>Are there problems, sure! Lots of them and big ones. But sticking one's head in the sand so we don't learn more about the universe doesn't seem like a winning proposition to me.</p><p>The more the learn, the greater our <em><font size="2">potential</font></em> to make things better.</p><p>Whether humans will make use of that potential for good is a whole other philosophical ball of wax.</p><p>But without the exploration at the frontier of knowledge about how the universe works, we have no hope of progressing.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

derekmcd · Aug 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What benefits to humanity does finding or not finding higgs field resolve into? could the money spent be better focused towards global warming, anti humanization? or is this just another way to build a bigger weapon <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p>I think others have answered the question quite well, but I'll take a different angle.</p><p>First, the construction of the LHC is a multinational effort.  No single nation is footing the entire bill.  </p><p>Second, 6-7 billion dollars is pocket change in the grand scheme of things.  There's absolutely no reason funding towards the effort of fixing global warming and humanatarian aid can not <strong><em>also</em></strong> be accomplished.  Politics, not scientific funding, restricts these efforts.</p><p>Third, science and physics, including projects like these, have gainfully employed and educated millions of people over the last 100+ years.  Their employment supports economies. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 22, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Second, 6-7 billion dollars is pocket change in the grand scheme of things.</DIV></p><p>No kidding.  The US by itself blows more than 6-7B every single month in Iraq and what is the cost in terms of human suffering on all sides?</p><p>Investments in science have resulted in great strides in human civilization.  That is certainly not true of every choice made by governements around the world.  I have no problem with the government investing my tax dollars in science.  It's ususally when they deviate from scientific and humanitarian persuits that money gets squandered and humanity suffers the most.  I think human history would bear that out.  </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

BoJangles · Aug 23, 2008

I think that's a perfect example of why i shouldn't drink and blog at the same time

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#808080">-------------- </font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>Let me start out with the standard disclaimer ... I am an idiot, I know almost nothing, I haven’t taken calculus, I don’t work for NASA, and I am one-quarter Bulgarian sheep dog. With that out of the way, I have several stupid questions... </em></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1" color="#808080"><em>*** A few months blogging can save a few hours in research ***</em></font></p> </div>

UFmbutler · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sounds 50/50 if you ask me. what has technology doneso far? global warming, nuclear weapons, the plethora of chemicals that invade our environment,over population, maybe even the over harvesting of our natural resources <br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV></p><p> I'd just like to comment that nuclear weapons are not really a bad thing, as long as they continue to not be used.  The government, particularly at places like LANL, never really refers to them as weapons, but rather the "deterrent".  Nuclear weapons ended WW2, perhaps prevented all-out war with Russia during the Cold War(for now), and harnessing the power of the atom has opened up a whole area of energy resources.  Perhaps I have been brainwashed by seeing "Nuclear deterrent: 50 years of peace"(although they are a bit off on the "peace" claim...) bumperstickers on every car every day I went to work, but thats how I feel about them. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

l3p3r · Aug 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that's a perfect example of why i shouldn't drink and blog at the same time

<br /> Posted by Manwh0re</DIV><br />whew! lucky save

michaelmozina · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>whew! lucky save

<br /> Posted by l3p3r</DIV></p><p>It was pretty funny too.

   One slip of the tongue around here and 20 people comment on it.

</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

kyle_baron · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was pretty funny too.

   One slip of the tongue around here and 20 people comment on it.

<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Speaking of slips of the tongue, "Ignorance is Bliss".  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Speaking of slips of the tongue, "Ignorance is Bliss".  <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>Well, in science that is rarely if ever true.  Knowledge allows us to move forward scientifically whereaas ignorance does not.

   </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 23, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, in science that is rarely if ever true.  Knowledge allows us to move forward scientifically whereaas ignorance does not.

   <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Especially if it's deliberate... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

kyle_baron · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, in science that is rarely if ever true.  Knowledge allows us to move forward scientifically whereaas ignorance does not.

   <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><strong>I can agree with that, but does it make our lives any better?  How much scientific change is enough?  How many new drugs are really needed?  Not to mention over population + increased longivity.  Do we really want to live to be 120?  I don't.  Add to that, horrific traffic jams, and climate change.</strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

MeteorWayne · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can agree with that, but does it make our lives any better?  How much scientific change is enough?  How many new drugs are really needed?  Not to mention over population + increased longivity.  Do we really want to live to be 120?  I don't.  Add to that, horrific traffic jams, and climate change. <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV><br /><br />I guess that's a difference in our perspectives. I want to learn as much as I can about the universe before I die.</p><p>If I can live to 120, that would be great, because we will know so much more by then. I fear, however, that another decade is a reasonable goal....so I want to grok as much as I can by then.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I can agree with that, but does it make our lives any better? </DIV></p><p>Based on my computer, my car, my television, etc, I'd say "yes".  I tend to agree with Wayne on the points he made.  I too seek "enlightenment" wherever that path leads me.  You can't put the technological genie back in the bottle anyway.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How much scientific change is enough?</DIV></p><p>Suippose we had "stopped" before cellsphones or the internet? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  How many new drugs are really needed? </DIV></p><p>How many deseases are there?

</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not to mention over population + increased longivity.  Do we really want to live to be 120?  I don't.  Add to that, horrific traffic jams, and climate change. <br /> Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p>I'd be thrilled to live to be 220 if the quality of my life were anything remotely like it is today.  Age does in fact bring a bit of wisdom and sometimes a lot of happiness too.   There is a lot to learn about our universe and I feel like I'm just getting started. </p><p>I've seen technology transform my life in so many different ways, I've simply lost count. You and I couldn't even have this conversation 30 years ago because there were no browsers and no internet to speak of and not much in the way of personal computers for that matter.  Technology has helped humans live longer and richer (quality) lives too.   Ignorance doesn't bring much in the way of change for the better, whereas technological innovation has improved the quality of my life significantly over the years.  Ignorance is easy.  It's a given.  "Enlightenment" usually requres a bit of work and it usually comes with some obvious rewards. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · Aug 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Especially if it's deliberate... <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Indeed. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · Aug 24, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Speaking of slips of the tongue, "Ignorance is Bliss".  <br />Posted by kyle_baron</DIV></p><p> In that case I presume that you are in a state of pure rapture.  <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

LHC and it's implications for particle physics and astronomy.

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

BoJangles

Guest

UFmbutler

Guest

l3p3r

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page