Finding new physics will require a new particle collider • Hacker News Board

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#101

Post by embwbam » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

djaque wrote: post #82

yummypaint wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My perception is that this is closer to the direction the field has been moving for the last half decade or so. Pushing the "energy frontier" was needed to experimentally find the higs and test supersymmetric theories. The higs was measured, and literally hundreds of proposed theories and particles, including very well-liked theories, have been eliminated. This is a big success. However, it turns out that some of the…

Oh, that's right. I wasn't really placing the electron ion collider (EIC) under the energy frontier umbrella, because they're moving in a different direction. I'm actually sort of involved with them too, but from a distance. I'm pretty sure it will happen, it's just a question of which of two proposals will succeed (more of a political question to be honest). My own interest isn't in colliders at all, but in building…

Huge segue, I'm a semi-retired web / data engineer just dipping my toes into research data software. I'm collaborating on a psychology paper, but I love physics. Can I ask you some questions? My email is in my profile.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#102

Post by yters » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

0xTJ wrote: post #58

yters wrote: post #56

Used to be breakthroughs could be made by a lens maker accidentally discovering micro biology or the president of the treasury thinking through the mathematics behind his observations and discovering the law of gravity or a patent clerk resolving contradictions between data and theory in his spare time to discover relativity or a barely employed artist describing in detail inventing concepts that would not be created…

What you've said makes no sense. Why shouldn't new tech be required? You're not even comparing similar science topics to modern physics. When you're pushing the boundaries of our knowledge of the universe, there's no human perception that can itself detect anything new.

It's always our theoretical perception that pushes the boundaries, regardless of what tech we have. I would say our theoretical imagination is lacking these days. Probably because scientists aren't trained in broad rigorous thought with philosophy. Instead, the memorize some mathematical formula and the latest tech, and go off trying different permutations thereof in order to get published and get grants. In my many years in academia I see very little imaginative original thought. In the commercial world there is more innovation, but not much deep understanding or theory beyond optimizing some market. Altogether, the leading thinkers are very narrow minded and short sighted.

Academia is also much less religious these days. Perhaps there is a correlation.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#103

Post by dasudasu » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #8

A counter point by Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-...

If you can stand his idiosyncrasies, Lubos Motls offers many direct counter points to Sabine:

https://motls.blogspot.com/2019/03/some-reasons-why-west-won...

https://motls.blogspot.com/2018/11/new-veins-of-science-cant...

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#104

Post by RandomTisk » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

djaque wrote: post #57

_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #8

A counter point by Sabine Hossenfelder: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/particle-physics-...

I post this every time someone links to Hossenfelder, but please take her opinions with a grain of salt. She seems more interested in attacking the "physics establishment" than in giving people a picture of the reality of our situation. Take a look at her articles on LIGO [1] for instance where she makes conspiracy theory level claims saying that the group is lying about their data and that "big physics" is in on it.…

I like her videos because she's refreshingly honest about what is known versus not known. Most (tv)physicists are not.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#105

Post by ChrisLomont » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #51

EastLondonCoder wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the late 19th century people that went into science where actively discourage to study physics since many believed there was nothing left to find out. Without quantum mechanics we would not have the transistor, there would be no computers. The immense economic value delivered by fundamental research makes a 10 billion usd investment look like a microscopic peanut crumb compared to the potential value it can give.…

Difference is, the discovery of quantum mechanics did not require billion-dollar investment in equipment and manpower (not until work began on nuclear weapon, anyway). Besides, current research in high-energy physics, while being expensive, only brings scientific value and not much at all in the way of practical application (except, perhaps, as a side-effect of building more and more sophisticated equipment - but tha…

Current high energy physics research brought us lots of big data advances, electronics advances, sensor advances, as well as the web itself. You dismiss too quickly the advances made when attacking large, hard problems.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#106

Post by thysultan » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

djaque wrote: post #75

thysultan wrote: post #61

Sounds like the particle collider people are having tunnel vision. "1 after the new particle collider": Guess what? we need an even bigger particle collider. What we really need is to build one on the moon.

It is not tunnel vision when the problem they're tackling is literally stuck in a tunnel. Bigger and bigger colliders are the only direct way we have to study high energy phenomena. It's not that physicists are lazy, it's that the problems they're studying are hard. I'm also seeing a lot resentment for the price tag of colliders in this thread. My personal opinion is that we shouldn't build a new one, but I'll point…

I'm all for building particle colliders, it'll just be a bit more exciting sell if they ventured into building one in the vaccum of space – like the moon.

It solves two issues with one stone*, and it'll provide leaps of advancement more than the minutiae incremental development cycle we're stuck in.

Particle colliders seem to have reached a moore's law threshold on earth, thus the connotation of tunnel vision.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#107

Post by adev_ » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:38 PM UTC

orbifold wrote: post #5

More likely than not the next collider will be build in China, quite a few particle physicist luminaries have already made their case there. I for one am glad that I stayed clear of the siren call to join the 3000+ grad student workforce at CERN. Sifting through the heap of data that was assigned to you is about as fun as it sounds I think. You get to look for the J/Psi, Pomeron, Dark Matter how exciting! In reality…

> In reality most of the detectors are barely functional, Alice for example doesn’t produce useful data for most of the runs.

Do you really expect a detector/machine of the size of a building to have 100% availability ?

This is the sciences world, boy, not aerospace engineering. These detectors are ''home-made' and much closer to an experimental prototype than to anything "engineered". We do not name them "CERN experiments" for nothing.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#108

Post by hpcjoe » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

As a (non-practicing) physicist, I've always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says. They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics.

It's not.

When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment. I've seen/experienced much of this during my time in research.

New physics not requiring an accelerator would include quantum computing; the real stuff of entangled qubits, and the pseudo-quantum stuff of adiabatically cooled circuits. More generally quantum mechanics interpretation and meaning. There are some unsettling things within QM, such as non-locality, and how to understand them.

There are many other examples, just listing 1 for brevity.

Basically, any text that begins with "the set of all physics is HEP physics" such as this article implies, is, pretty much by definition, incorrect.

I recall while the SSC was being built in Texas, that when the NSF asked for more money for researchers not involved in SSC, they were told that physics folks were getting enough. I remember my thesis advisor's grant that I was funded on, getting cut to help fund other things.

Equating the new physics with new HEP physics is, as Wolfgang Pauli once said, not even wrong. We don't need accelerators for most new physics.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#109

Post by culturestate » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:41 PM UTC

MiroF wrote: post #88

culturestate wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The home country matters...but it’s an international workforce. Given the current state of the world and the trajectory of the West's relationship with the Chinese government, it may have to be built by China if it's going to be built in China.

China has a lot of STEM expertise, I'm confident they could probably figure it out.

There's a difference between theoretical and practical expertise.

I don't know much about particle accelerators, but I do know a bit about advanced manufacturing and I think you might be surprised at the degree to which Chinese industry is still functionally dependent on foreign machinery and expertise.

This is a country that, until about two years ago, couldn't successfully produce an entire ballpoint pen using fully domestic processes.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#110

Post by djaque » Sun, May 10, 2020, 3:49 PM UTC

hpcjoe wrote: post #108

As a (non-practicing) physicist, I've always disliked the penchant of some in the HEP community to say what this article says. They (the HEP community) tends to equate physics with HEP physics. It's not. When this is pointed out to the people espousing this odd viewpoint, they usually respond with some passive aggressive comment. I've seen/experienced much of this during my time in research. New physics not requiring…

Well said. Whenever I bring up that point on physics subreddits I also get tons of passive aggressive comments. It's super toxic.

The HEP people in my own department also seem to believe that anything other than beyond the standard model physics isn't fundamental or isn't pure enough to care about.