11–20 of 38 posts
"The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X]
source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report
ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264
can anyone confirm my understanding of the basic physics here? they are observing a transition from one particle to another that involves a process whose probability depends on "all particles" in some weird sense, because it includes particle-antiparticle pairs (so is affected by vacuum fluctuations?). because of this, they have a weird situation where an experimental result depends on all possible particles (below s…
All that said, SUSY has about 100 free parameters in the model, and all of these LHC searches hoped to find SUSY in the easiest of places, even though there is no firm prediction from the theory. Simply put, for a long time to come, SUSY can be "tuned" to remain consistent with all existing physical data.
Useful links here: http://profmattstrassler.com/2012/11/12/first-news-from-kyot... http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=5264 Talk is here (follow password instructions): http://kds.kek.jp/getFile.py/access?contribId=61&session...
just for the record and to please the prospective downvoting mob, in order to warn any non-westerners: "The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X] source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1127343?l…
just for the record and to please the prospective downvoting mob, in order to warn any non-westerners: "The cost [...] has been evaluated, taking into account realistic labor prices in different countries. The total cost is X (with a western equivalent value of Y) [where Y>X] source: LHCb calorimeters : Technical Design Report ISBN: 9290831693 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/494264 http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1127343?l…
I've gotta say, you sound sort of like you think you have a point and that you think it might be controversial, but I have no idea what it might be.
Patience my good people. We all remember what happened the last time there was a rare particle delay...
Out of curiosity: what are you referring to?
Although it seems like the gp misread decay.
The cause of the jump though is not a bunch of people getting together, it's someone crazy enough to throw the first stone. It's someone crazy enough to question the structure science has created. It's someone daring enough to break it all apart, for the benefit of humanity, to let us rebuild and get closer to the correct path. One person starts a revolution. All the smart people look at all the pieces that broke and see how they can fit together in a new way.
I can't see this happening in 'new physics'. Yes, they are doing amazing things, things no one has ever been daring enough to do before. But quite frankly, they aren't diverse enough to solve their own problems they created. It's incredibly hard to solve the problems you made. There are no analogies to the problems physics is asking as of yet. To get analogies, you have to have people wander into your problem and say 'Hey! I was doing something like that for my Neuroscience research yesterday, maybe there's a connection!'. We aren't going to get that though, Physics has gone too far down the hole to relate to other fields. Unless they do what they always do, and just make new ones.
I would just like to take a moment here to draw attention to the fact that the planned Superconducting Supercollider would have been even more capable at probing supersymmetry than the LHC and had it not been cancelled it would have been operating for well over a decade by now.