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

201–210 of 254 posts

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#201

Post by hpcjoe »

jjdredd wrote: post #170
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…

SM/beyond SM is the only field in fundamental physics though. Everything else is either a consequence of those models or applied physics.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with the label "fundamental" here.

One can observe anti-de Sitter spaces in superfluid systems. Is that not more "fundamental" than zoology of particles and their interactions? That has, literally to do with the metric tensor of space. Seems to be a bit more fundamental to me than things interacting in that space.

Put another way, the "fundamental" argument is very weak, and everyone outside of HEP knows this.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#202

Post by hpcjoe »

codethief wrote: post #188
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on whether you regard quantum gravity as SM/beyond SM or not. Even if you don't, though, there's still cosmology and black hole physics.

…and (if I may add) foundations of quantum mechanics (which may or may not be related to quantum gravity). And dozens of open questions in relativity alone (that have little to do with black holes).

I personally find the entropy connection with information theory and black holes fascinating.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#203

Post by hpcjoe »

tobbykop wrote: post #145
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…

We already have quantum computers, at this point that’s not new physics it’s engineering. And if the well established frameworks don’t settle your thirst for understanding quantum mechanics, thats about philosophy not physics.

Well ... no. We have several interpretations of QM, one of which has been dominant for most of the last century. But the other interpretations have been getting deeper looks due to things that the current interpretation "hand waves" (particle wave duality, etc.)

We are generally willing to accept the interpretation, as long as we don't look to closely at it. Once we do, we have to start asking questions of nature as to which (set of) interpretation(s) are more likely correct. As in provides an understandable model, and provides correct calculation capability for predicting features given experiments.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#204

Post by siscia »

embwbam wrote: post #101
djaque wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would suggest to ask publicly your questions.

Lot of people from physics read HN.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#205

Post by siscia »

Ancalagon wrote: post #137
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.

And the vacuum in LHC is not THAT big as a problem. The real problem are the magnets.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#206

Post by fsflover »

hpcjoe wrote: post #199
fsflover wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say the same during invention of quantum mechanics: "They are looking at the effects on the scale of single atom/electron, hardly ever useful in our everyday life." Or about going to the space. You can never know what new discoveries bring.

Non-sequitur. Quantum mechanics didn't require $10B (or whatever the equivalent would be in 1930-ish currency) to create. The "inventors" of QM were trying to explain measurements that were already made, quite inexpensively, that did not fit the model of nature that we had at that time. Basically, the experiments were done, measurements made. Now the theorists were trying to understand what they needed in order to be…

I agree that it is too expensive and therefore probably should not be done. But this is a totally different argument than "probably useless".

Also, look at the military budget and think what is potentially more useful...

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#207

Post by gerdesj »

godelski wrote: post #190
agumonkey wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> semiconductors even after decades of massive use ?

Oh yeah. In fact, that's exactly where there needs to be more research.

Get superconductivity working at say 0 deg C and you will be able to pick your accolade and price. Get it working at 100 deg C and you will have won the world.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#208

Post by SiempreViernes »

djaque wrote: post #194
SiempreViernes wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs. There was at one point truly a fight about the relative importance of the various fields, but the condensed matter people won that. Just look at lightsources.org again, tha…

> The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs. And that's based on what? The number of lightsources in the world? There's dozens of research groups studying quantum computing. I guess they should just pack up and move…

That's based on you calling for HEP to be defunded in favour of X-ray sources, pretty heavily implying that CERN somehow blocks the x-ray field.

I'm just pointing out they it seems to be doing pretty well for itself, three dozen international facilities with commercial customers doesn't sound like particularly lean times.

If mere over-subscription is to be given such weight, then I call for x-ray sources to be fully commercialized and the public money going to build medium energy gamma ray satellites! We ain't got even one of those flying at the moment so we basically don't know what happens in the sky at those energies. Hows that for reasonable?

In reality the HEP people mostly actively chose that field in competition with atomic and molecular physics et al, and if you kill HEP for generation most of the new students will keep choosing something else.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#209

Post by SiempreViernes »

xyzzyz wrote: post #161
SiempreViernes wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The field of x-ray light sources seems to be pretty well developed, lightsource.org lists 30 of them world wide, so adding one more doesn't look like it's going to critically impact anything except maybe the local community getting the extra jobs. There was at one point truly a fight about the relative importance of the various fields, but the condensed matter people won that. Just look at lightsources.org again, tha…

> that protein structure isn't as sexy for the public as the search for beyond the standard model physics. You mean, looking for a cure for cancer isn’t as sexy for the public as some arcane things with strange particles nobody understands?

Doesn't seem like it, cure for a certain type of cancer is a pretty clear utilitarian goal after all: you either do it or you don't type of thing.

Also, lab coats are pretty famously not very flattering for your figure.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#210

Post by magicalhippo »

magv wrote: post #200
jcims wrote: post #169

Complete physics moron here, is there no way to use particle/anti-particle annihilation to drive collision energy up? Also, i think if we invested the money for a new collider into an effort to develop what we've learned so far into a useful technology that inspires the general public, the funding for the next collider would take care of itself.

LEP was annihilating electrons with positrons; LHC does not, as it only accelerates protons. FCC will have the option to do both: the plan includes two separate pipes in the same tunnel, one for protons, one for electrons. This however does not increase the collision energy significantly: a single electron-positron pair has the (rest) energy of ~1MeV -- this is what is released during the annihilation, but the energi…

LHC smashes protons together, and for comparison the rest mass (energy) of a proton[1] is just shy of 1GeV.

So that's still 4 orders of magnitude below the collision energy of the LHC.

[1]: http://pdglive.lbl.gov/DataBlock.action?node=S016M&home=BXXX...

Post reply on HN