Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 254 posts

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#131

Post by jbay808 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #84
achillesheels wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate on QM being necessary for the transistor? Was it necessary for its invention in Bell Labs?

It isn't that we wouldn't have transistors but that we wouldn't understand them. We wouldn't have the good transistors necessary for modern technology. There is a similar debate around Newtonian physics. How far might the industrial revolution have gone without a perfect understanding of how things move? You don't need newton to build complex machines. Look at any early windmill or waterwheel. You need newton to unde…

You can build a windmill without Newton, but he makes it much easier!

Newtonian physics lets you work out loads with free body diagrams, derive Euler beam theory, and that's how they built the Eiffel tower.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#132

Post by erikpukinskis »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #105
Koshkin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Have you considered some of the large, hard problems whose solutions also have immediate benefits?

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#133

Post by achillesheels »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #125
marcosdumay wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hum... That thread goes a long way about diodes, but I couldn't find any such claim about transistors. Yeah, somebody would probably invent them at some point. Somebody would probably even invent FETs, even if it took many decades more. MOSFETs are a completely different matter, I don't think anybody would invent them without understanding how they work. What everybody seems to forget is modern chemistry, material en…

MOSFETs are simpler than bipolar transistors. Putting it very crudely, MOSFETs are based on the same space charge principles as vacuum valves, except they happen to use doped silicon instead of free electrons. Bipolar transistors are more complex, but they still work by controlling the bulk geometry of moving charge. None of this requires QM, except in the very simple sense that you need to know what a bandgap is and…

So it really is where the particle phenomenon breaks down, thanks. Do you know if there are any kind of harmonic oscillator models used in this domain? I’m curious about a frequency-dependent characterization of the “energy” transport.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#134

Post by erikpukinskis »

Gatsky wrote: post #49
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #8

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

It will be impossible to get an extra 10 billion dollars invested into science without a project like this. In other words probably 10% or less of that money would end up going into other fields of research. Considering all the other things governments spend money on, that is a good enough reason to do it in my book.

It’s interesting to see capitalism’s influence here. Like in many other areas of the economy, capitalism requires a concentration of control in science too, as a prerequisite for allocation of capital. Trapping us in a local minimum of narrow hierarchies.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#135

Post by Koshkin »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #105
Koshkin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why kid ourselves that “we are doing physics,” then? Wouldn’t direct investment in these areas more efficient?

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#136

Post by jariel »

People have failed to mention the fact that the LHC has turned out to be kind of a failure, at least it hasn't given the populist soundbites needed to support its' success. Nothing really 'new' came out of it and it was very expensive.

People seem to be ignorant that everything has a populist aspect, and very expensive things always do.

The politicians who foot the bill are thinking "We just spent bazillions and what did we get? Now we have to convince the proles to spend billions more?"

If LHS gave us some really fundamental new insights, the Round B would be easy. But right now it's like a startup with no 'product market fit' it's going to be hard.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#137

Post by Ancalagon »

xvilka wrote: post #92

The interplanetary space is probably the best place to build a particle collider - you won't need compensation fields and giant tube[s].

I believe the vacuum inside particle accelerators is actually much higher than your average cubic meter of solar system space.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#139

Post by Random_ernest »

ganzuul wrote: post #123
Random_ernest wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The higher the frequency, the steeper the gradient. Losses also scale with frequency. And while other acceleration principles have higher voltage gradient, they still can't reach TeV of collision energy, since you either can't concatenate them, or you can't control the beam sufficiently well. As I wrote in another comment, stuff like plasma wakefield accelerators need to get better by a factor of 1000 before they r…

I'll excuse you trying to make this personal and focus on the tangibles... Losses in a waveguide are miniscule because plasma is almost as good a conductor as a superconductor. Most of the energy is carried in the dielectric anyway. Technology is already being developed as ASIC PHYs for commercial applications as THz MIMO radios for the next generation of mobile networks. No doubt the next generation of accelerators…

It's a little hard to discuss when you don't actually read my comments and just skim over them.

> Technology is already being developed as ASIC PHYs for commercial applications as THz MIMO radios

Cool, unfortunately that has nothing to do with the discussed topic: accelerators for high energy physics experiments...

> No doubt the next generation of accelerators will rely heavily on beam-forming, perhaps already in wakefield accelerators.

I never argued against that (though I don't really believe it). I said that for experiments in high energy physics, there will be only SRF in the next 10 years (my opinion). Simply since there is no option but high collision energies, which no other acceleration technique solves. Also don't forget that the techniques you mention are partly 40+ years old, there are articles from the 90s that this is the new way particle accelerators will be built in a few years, didn't happen as you are well aware.

None of the other topics you discuss after that, has anything to do with what we are currently discussing.

Just ask yourself this: Can any of these techniques accelerate charged particles (not just electrons, but also heavier particles) to collide with several TeV of energy? Not just in theory, but right now, in practice. The answer is: maybe in a few years (rather decades), but currently no, far from it (several orders of magnitude from it).

> I'll excuse you

Wow, I guess you're fun a parties... I'll excuse myself from this pointless discussion since you made up your mind before it started.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#140

Post by pacala »

kochthesecond wrote: post #95
Koshkin wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think its too dismissive to claim it will have 0 practical applications. Often this type of fundamental research take decades to result in something useful in an unexpected way. We can only go where the roads lead us, who are we to dismiss the roads not taken.

The method itself, smashing ever more energetic particles into each other, makes it highly unlikely that any discovery will be applicable to human sized energy regimens.
Post reply on HN