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

241–250 of 254 posts

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#241

Post by beojan »

rubidium wrote: post #26
beojan wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Other research areas could be more important to progress right now and we only have so many scientists available to do the work. Allocating those scientists to research areas is an incredibly hard task, but it’s a necessary one. That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to.

That’s... a bit to simplistic of an understanding. As a researcher, there are many problems I could find interesting and get passionate about working on, either with the right colleagues, funding, world implications, etc... The scientist oblivious to the world and only interested in their little niche is not the majority. Give a problem funding at the early stage of careers (grad school, new tenure grants) and it get…

If you're talking about allocating existing scientists, it's a bit late for funding something at the point where someone is deciding what to do in grad school (or even undergrad, in the European system).

kd5bjo seemed to be talking about allocating people to entirely different fields which they likely have no existing experience in.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#242

Post by mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE »

Wait, so fusion, solar panels, semiconductors, and anything practically important is not considered physics anymore? Well, people in HEP will necessarily use the definition "Physics=HEP" to get more funding. You can't have a meaningfull argument if your well being depends on its outcome.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#243

Post by mD5pPxMcS6fVWKE »

dnautics wrote: post #215
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…

I remember at the University of Chicago there was a researcher studying "breakfast physics" - what governs the peak angle of granular piles (like salt piles or grain or sandpiles), what happens at the singularity when a drizzle of honey goes from a hyperboloid of one sheet to a hyperboloid of two sheets. I think he also measured the effect of vacuum on fluid splatters. These are all quotidian problems in I guess "con…

My friend's thesis was about optimal mixing of granular matter. It's pretty hilarious physics and I was said also practically important in pharmaceutics and cosmetics industry.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#245

Post by gaze »

jessriedel wrote: post #219
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…

As a practicing physicist in quantum information, I can say (1) "New physics" is jargon understood by experts to mean new fundamental physics, i.e., new laws/forces/particles at the base of our theoretical edifice. This does not mean that non-fundamental physics is necessarily less important -- see for instance the late Phillip Anderson's "More is different" [ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 ] --…

Eh I disagree. I've never understood "new physics" to mean new fundamental physics. Anderson localization was "new physics." I mean, is discovering new Hadrons "new physics?" They're "just" new combinations of quarks. In that sense it's "just" quark chemistry! I think it's especially absurd since condmat systems can be interesting toy models for high energy systems.

But you know, whatever. The fact is that we as physicists are fighting over crumbs. We should instead be political outside our circle rather than fighting internally. The fact that our budget is orders of magnitude smaller than the defense budget is insane.

Also-also, there's plenty of tabletop fundamental experiments. Superconducting cavity based axion searches for instance.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#246

Post by jessriedel »

ncmncm wrote: post #238
hpcjoe wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Majorana fermion was just observed and reported this past year. Fundamental physics. Foundational physics. No accelerators needed. Bose-Einstein condensates have been observed and used in a variety of situations. No accelerators needed. And I could go on. The point is though, fundamental foundational physics is available and accessible in all the various sub-fields.

Recent results have often depended on observations of light flashes in large bodies of water or ice. These have sometimes involved an accelerator, but present accelerators suffice. Many people think gravitational wave observations matter. It would not be surprising if completely new, unanticipated plasma fluid phenomena turn up, when someone looks. People are still trying to understand superconductivity, and have not…

Neutrino experiments are a good example! A mistake on my part. I think you're right that the CKM parameters have been bounded more tightly with non-accelerator based neutrino experiments. (Of course, that's still HEP, and it still gets plenty of funding, so it doesn't detract from my point.)

On the other hand, superconductivity is not a good example. It's a still-confusing phenomenon, but the vast majority of physicists believe to follows directly from the known laws of non-relativistic quantum mechanics.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#247

Post by kd5bjo »

beojan wrote: post #241
rubidium wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s... a bit to simplistic of an understanding. As a researcher, there are many problems I could find interesting and get passionate about working on, either with the right colleagues, funding, world implications, etc... The scientist oblivious to the world and only interested in their little niche is not the majority. Give a problem funding at the early stage of careers (grad school, new tenure grants) and it get…

If you're talking about allocating existing scientists, it's a bit late for funding something at the point where someone is deciding what to do in grad school (or even undergrad, in the European system). kd5bjo seemed to be talking about allocating people to entirely different fields which they likely have no existing experience in.

We’re in a capitalist system, so I had assumed that allocation would happen via the free job market: people with money write job descriptions for scientists to work on particular things, and the scientists decide which of those offers to pursue. Central control of this sort of thing hasn’t historically worked out well (though I may be biased on this point from growing up in the US).

As for switching fields, one of the key parts of scientific training is how to learn things, so scientists have a better chance of successfully changing felds than many other people. It also isn’t necessarily as big a leap as physics to biochem, like you suggested in another comment. Moving from theoretical particle physics to tokamak design seems like it should be doable, for instance.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#248

Post by peteradio »

hpcjoe wrote: post #130
peteradio wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, let's "just" do that. But I guess we should make some restrictions: 1) Can't use the any of the theorists or experiementalists who had anything to do with the useless research of the LHC. 2) Can't use any of the hardware research required to make that discovery (all apparently useless): 2a) superconducting magnets 2b) high performance fpga computing 2c) particle detectors 3) Understanding of background physics (…

Superconducting magnets were in use well before their use in HEP colliders. FPGA computing was in use in industry well before it was in use in HEP colliders. Particle detectors have existed for more than 100 years. When was the first collider built? Seriously, this is one of the issues I take with HEP advocates claiming that their field yielded all of these advances. Works well with politicians they have to lobby for…

I never said these were invented by HEP, just that envelope pushing research was done as a byproduct of collider/detector requirements.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#249

Post by xvilka »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #138
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].

What about solar shielding? Doesn’t the magnetosphere deflect a lot of particles?

The good point hadn't thought about this.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#250

Post by jessriedel »

gaze wrote: post #245
jessriedel wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a practicing physicist in quantum information, I can say (1) "New physics" is jargon understood by experts to mean new fundamental physics, i.e., new laws/forces/particles at the base of our theoretical edifice. This does not mean that non-fundamental physics is necessarily less important -- see for instance the late Phillip Anderson's "More is different" [ https://science.sciencemag.org/content/177/4047/393 ] --…

Eh I disagree. I've never understood "new physics" to mean new fundamental physics. Anderson localization was "new physics." I mean, is discovering new Hadrons "new physics?" They're "just" new combinations of quarks. In that sense it's "just" quark chemistry! I think it's especially absurd since condmat systems can be interesting toy models for high energy systems. But you know, whatever. The fact is that we as phys…

Happy to agree that terminology may vary; for the purposes of my argument, I only need that a large fraction of physicists do use the term this way, and that that sense is meaningful and important.

> Also-also, there's plenty of tabletop fundamental experiments. Superconducting cavity based axion searches for instance.

Yes, sure, such experiments could find new fundamental physics. (And it should be funded!) But the Bayesian credence the overall field places on this happening is quite low, and certainly much lower than a next generation accelerator. No table-top experiments have found new fundamental physics in many decades.

(Of course, the accelerator is arguably a much worse deal given its extraordinary price.)

Post reply on HN