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

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#251

Post by wolfgke » Mon, May 11, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

beojan wrote: post #240

wolfgke wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to. You have no idea how management and funding of large-scale research projects works.

At the level of picking a field, people absolutely work on what they are interested in (and have expertise in). You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there (and they wouldn't be trained in it anyway).

> You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there

If I consider what kinds of crappy jobs some excellent physicists who could not find a position in research had to take, I am not so sure.

The truth in my opinion thus rather is: Because, as you wrote, "they wouldn't be trained in it anyway", they won't be allocated for "organic chemistry" in your example.

On the other hand, if they were, I really believe that they would prefer this job over the one that they had to take.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#252

Post by gerdesj » Mon, May 11, 2020, 11:52 PM UTC

analog31 wrote: post #221

gerdesj wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll take 77 K any day of the week, especially if you can run a magnet with it at that temperature. Note for the wider audience: 77 K is liquid nitrogen, vastly easier to produce and handle than liquid helium.

Quite right. The day when you can engage Heston Blumenthal to do your super conductivity experiment, is the day you have won!

(HB is an experimental chef who uses quite a lot of liquid N. Liquid He is probably not indicated for food prep)

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#253

Post by ChrisLomont » Wed, May 13, 2020, 1:28 PM UTC

Koshkin wrote: post #135

ChrisLomont wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Wouldn’t direct investment in these areas more efficient?

Often not, because you don't know what areas to choose. Having a big, hard goal to solve usually requires building pieces to solve the problem, and these pieces end up being useful in themselves. Plus the big goal is often achieved.

Mankind could have done a lot of the stuff discovered along the way to big goals, but didn't, until the big goals were attempted.

Plus, it's often easier to get funding as a nation-state for big goals. Little side projects are often not individually worth chasing. The internet is a good example - it could have been done by industry before the govt decided to chase it as a piece of a big goal.

Re: Finding new physics will require a new particle collider

#254

Post by ChrisLomont » Wed, May 13, 2020, 1:30 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #132

ChrisLomont wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yep - but that is not true for most high energy physics. The incredibly short lifetimes and low coupling of most new particles make them mostly unusable for anything we can forsee being useful.

Electrons were useful, because they have long lifetimes, are easy to make, and interact well. Higgs bosons are unlikely to be useful as technology ever since they are so ephermeral. And they're certainly not giving immediate benefits.