Great photos and an article in Nat Geo about the Large Hadron Collider being built and tested at CERN in Switzerland to search for the so called ‘God particle,’ the massive Higgs boson which is believed to exist, but no one has seen one yet. I like this description from the article about the difficulty in finding it:
Building a contraption like the LHC to find the Higgs is a bit like embarking on a career as a stand-up comic with the hope that at some point in your career you’ll happen to blurt out a joke that’s not only side-splittingly funny but also a palindrome.
Waste of money. On top of the colliders we have here which are also a waste of money. Thing is, I thought Clinton defunded the one in Texas to punish them for voting in a Republican Senator.
Even worse is that the scientists do not want their experiments to succeed! This might theoretically destroy the universe, but they are going to do it anyway just to see what happens when they fail (hopefully)
LOL the God particle. lol the palindrome joke. ahahahah. u know they are like 100 miles below the surface of a Swede suburb. lol what if their magnets are so powerful the earth rotates backwards?
what if they find the God particle… and hes angry!!!
Why is the Higgs boson called “God particle”? What does “God” have to do with inertia?
#1
It’s not a waste of money. All the technology we have today is based on the fundamental research of the past.
(btw: How could finding the Higgs boson destroy the universe?)
Ever play half life?
#3&4: Come on, guys. Read the article.
I have:
“The first thing you learn when you ask scientists about the God particle is that it’s bad form to call it that.”
I don’t know about finding the Higgs boson, but it’s called a collider for a reason. They are colliding particles at high speeds, and in theory this could cause very bad things.
“To find the Higgs is a bit like blurting out a joke that’s not only side-splittingly funny but also a palindrome.” In other word, that particle doesn’t exist.
The recently published E8 “theory of everything” predicts the existence of about 20 other fundamental particles we don’t know about. If some of them show up we have a confirmed theory of everything.
Pure science research is not a waste of time or money except to those who are afraid of the results.
Sadly, I’m not smart enough to understand any of this stuff and I remain only a casual reader of headlines in the field.
Still, seems to me the risk for harm is negligible–so, for those concerned, how could the universe end? You break things apart and they become tinier or they recombine with something else seems like all that can happen? Still–even an extremely localized event the “Universe” would not even notice, could take out the Milky Way with hardly a ripple?
BUT–I also think this is a waste of money. What specifically could be learned to what good use????? If this is not clear and worthwhile, then ALL SCIENCE should be used to find clean energy==or we are all DOOMED and this dandy research will be for nought.
I’d like to change my nick to “Neanderthal Jones” for this post.
The Higgs “probably” does exist, that’s the whole point. The Higgs just doesn’t like our universe as it is now, but it may have at one point in time.
The article and photography are amazingly cool and it gives a nice introduction to the history of particle physics over the last 100 years or so. As for this type of scientific inquiry destroying the world I would say that it’s already done it. Medical treatments for cancers, computer chips, high speed broadband, techniques for finding planets around other stars, and (my personal favourite) easy swallow aspirin.
For people who think this is a waste of time then think how shallow your life would be if you couldn’t download semi-nude pictures of Lindsay Lohan.
Read the rest of the National Geographic article, and you’ll find that, like the Space Program in the 60s, a lot of new technology has also come out of developing these colliders.
Specifically mentioned in the article was magnetic technology that resulted in the very small, very fast and sturdy hard disks that you’ll find in laptop computers and MP3 players like the iPod, Zune, and so forth. That wasn’t the only technology mentioned that came from solving problems with colliders, but that’s an example that most readers of DU have probably benefited from.
#12–QB==Intentional dodge? No one has said waste of time, 3-4 have said waste of MONEY as in we have limited resources and how should research funds be best spent? #13 gives us a clue.
#13–floyd==thanks for supporting my argument. Since you offer nothing substantive or responsive to what this project might bring, I take it you are reporting there are no probables, just hopes? But even your example of past products is laughable. Yes, people want magnetic technology rather than personal mobility devices (cars!) or heat in the winter, or air conditioning in the summer, and return of the Middle East to the desert they deserve.
ENERGY independence is what all countries of this world need. Not a pure science wanderlust.
The Higgs field hypothesizes that a lattice (like an electromagnetic field) fills the universe and affects the particles that move through it. It’s predicted to give all particles mass, as if that weren’t important enough for some replying here.
When an electron moves through a solid like copper, its mass increases. The same might be true in the Higgs field: a particle moving through it creates a little bit of distortion giving that particle mass.
Finding the Higgs boson will confirm or trash fundamental physics theories and make possible some interesting new devices.
Google is your friend: “Higgs Boson Cern.” Wear your math hat.
Intentional dodge? Not really since you even figured out what I was getting at.
Pure scientific research is often a waste of money, but then so is applied research. The amount of money being spent on particle physics research is miniscule compared to applied research, especially in North America these days. I’m worried that we’ll lose the lead in energy, biomedical, and environmental sciences simply because of the lack of “pure science wanderlust”.
Pure science needs applied research (or more specifically good old fashioned engineering). But, the applied sciences need pure scientific research to be successful in generating new avenues of solutions. It’s not an “either/or”, it’s a “both”.
#16–QB, and of course, always Bubba===I think we agree, but only in a vacuum. MONEY is a limiting variable in what is possible==both can be pursued but only at the expense of one or the other.
We need to SOLVE the energy crises NOW. No reason pure phsysics couldn’t wait a few decades. Note, that research would even be cheaper if we had free/cheaper energy???
Just because you get caught in a dodge BECAUSE the dodge is recognized, does not mean it was not a dodge.
Now, Bubba, since you seem to know==what specifically makes money spent on this collider so worth the expense? — “specifically?” —–
They call it the “God particle” for the same reason people called the iPhone the “God phone” – it’s the “ultimate” . (Although in the case of the iPhone, it turned out to be just a phone.)
“the massive Higgs boson which is believed to exist, but no one has seen one yet.”
– did they try looking under the cushions on the sofa?
Bobbo, I love the cute comparison operators that scream “I’m a programmer”.
Energy independence indeed. The US could do it in 10 years with existing technologies.
#1. Nuclear. Disposal of the radioactive waste is problematic but the French have a pretty good solution which interestingly enough came of out isotope decay research done CERN in the 70’s and 80’s at their particle accelerator.
#2. Coal Fired Generators. The US is up to it’s eyeballs in the best coal in the world. Stack emissions, especially hydrogen, can be cleaned and reused based on astronomy research into solar flares and now being tested Kuwait and France. Unfortunately no one is interested in Hydrogen power in NA so China and Saudi Arabia have bought it up and are doing the engineering and testing.
#3. Coal Conversion. Again the US has great coal reserves. Processing plants to convert coal to oil and associated liquids are running today in South Africa and India. The technology came from theoretical research into the properties of polymers and could use up the excess liquids from current conventional refineries. It would cost about $40 billion over 10 years to build enough plants. It’s also economically viable at $30-40 per barrel prices.
None of these will happen due to political and social pressures in the US. No one wants a nuclear plant or refinery near them. Also, congress is funding research into things like ethanol since most of the committee members live in the mid-west. It seems to me that none of these alternatives are politically popular so it won’t happen.
I just keep thinking of ‘Deep Thought’ 🙂
Perhaps it will provide the answer.
#19–QB==How luddite can you be? Your solutions are all “consume the earth with non-renewables.” But then, who knows what your portfolio is invested in eh?
Thought I read an article about how the French had NOT solved the waste problem?
Coal? hah, hah, good one. But I’m all for it. Is the research fully funded for all the good ideas, or is it being spent in Switzerland?
Yes, this country needs change, and a reordering of priorities before our edifice crumbles from within/from lack of energy. We need a WAR on energy insecurity–and when I say WAR, I mean all efforts aimed at it until it is won. Lets stop pussyfooting around with these neo-con Bush Oil boy concentric impediments.
Cool. I like your point of view. The US needs a little passion to get moving. What are you proposing? Wind, ethanol, tidal, geothermal (which actually has some legs but not enough sites). I’d really like to hear some positive ideas from you. Really.
Energy independence is a big problem for the US – maybe even more political than environmental. Unfortunately, it won’t be addressed in the next decade or so outside of conventional sources. That’s just life, research and engineering takes time.
Clean energy and reduced usage is a global problem. Honestly, I’m more hopeful than I was 5 years ago but I’m worried that the US (and Canada where I’m from) has stepped away amount spent on research as a percentage of GDP compared with India and the EU. It’s tough to lead when you’re dependent on others for solutions.
As for personally attacking me a Bush-like luddite, that’s funny. I’ve contributed a fair amount money to Greenpeace and African environmental reclamation projects. I support scholarships in the environmental sciences (and other areas) and I invest, and usually lose, money in small companies developing environmental technologies such as micro-generation and hydrogen reclamation. If you’re really serious, and I hope you are, invest 5% of your gross salary in what you believe in. It’ll be a better world if you do.
#22–QB==While I feel like I’m being pimped, I’ll still take the bait – why not?
1. The US (and the World) needs a lot of passion to get the vested interests out of the way.
2. Ethanol is totally out if it is food based. Waste based is ok. This still represents luddite thinking though in that it is a substitute fuel one step away from current failing technologies.
3. I’d look at all carbon free/pollution free technologies. It should be as distributed as possible. I think a true task force should be put together to make recommendations and monitor the “best known avenues for oil/energy replacement” and then go for it.
4. For cars–I kinda like the plug-in to grid hybrids that can act as distributed storage as well as cheap transportation.
5. As far as general power plants–I like the idea of large sterling engines working off oceanic thermal cline.
6. Nuclear power that would consume its own waste, if possible, could be considered but the non poisonous sources if developed would make this unneeded.
7. If we have to have space programs, I’d continue looking at the space elevator and energy beamed from space===lets be imaginative while keeping our feet on the ground?
and so forth. All generic basic stuff that simply realizes we are in a quagmire right now heading towards disaster and all our government has done for 30 years is promote it.
QB–I just read you last paragraph. Yeah, we are not known for “ourselves” but only how we post in a given thread and how others interpret that small bit of info.
I think all energy tech development stocks are too risky. Better to invest in Shell Oil, get out when it drops 10% and reinvest.
Hey I’m no saint. I get great tax breaks from charitable contributions – so I may as well put them into things I like. Scholarships are also tax deductible and maybe one of those smart students will one day call me up with an offer for director’s shares in some company and I’ll make a fortune. Same for those small companies – I’m still betting but it’s more fun than trying to figure out which way a bank’s stock will go.
Personally I want to make a crap load of money. I figure things like environmental sciences and micro-investment in poorer countries is way more fun than Shell or Deutsche Bank. I think the US can be energy independent with existing technologies and can be “somewhat” cleaner about it. I still think it’s politically unfeasible.
If you’re going to invest your money (time, resources, etc) look for people who have a strong background in “theoretical sciences”. The big breakthroughs come from there. Just ask early investors in Google.
Anyone else just a teensy bit nervous that CERN could create a black hole big enough to suck in the whole earth?
#26–Gee, that does sound serious. Do certain equations predict that==or is it just a free floating concern a la fears before the first H-Bomb that the explosion would just keep going?
Maybe it would also spark off another Big Bang Event in a new universe/dimension?
#26 – Greg – I know it doesn’t fit your job description; but, even a modicum of study of astrophysics (which is not what CERN is especially about) would calm your fear.
#15 – BubbaRay,
Of course, well said. Yes, the standard model of particle physics predicts the existence of the Higgs particle. If it doesn’t exist or has a mass too great to be found in this collider, there’s going to be some scrambling going on. Many expected it to be found in existing colliders by now.
Too bad String Hypothesis is still making no predictions. This would be a real chance for it to shine by getting the mass right. Oh well. That’s why I believe it should still be called String Hypothesis rather than String Theory.
There are also a number of other interesting bits that may come out of this. We may learn a lot if we (royal we, of course, I’m no particle physicist) happen to see Kaluza-Klein particles. That’d be really cool. We’d start to get an idea about A) whether there are extra dimensions and B) what form they take.
Given I have already declared myself totally incompetent, isn’t the thing about black holes that they consume everything within their gravitational pull and therefore the concern is NOT size of the black hole but rather one forms at all?
Then, as I take it, black holes form by the collapse of massive stars. Maybe they could form by the collapse of pico-angstrom size sub particles–but that wouldn’t be fair and I don’t think God would allow that to happen—but being only human, can’t say that absolutely positively.
Black holes have probably already been created in the US, or at least some physicists think so. I wouldn’t worry to much about it – they are not exactly stable.
Misanthropic Scott is dead on with his comments about string theory. It has been a dead end for any predictive hypotheses for the last 20 years but too many universities are enamored with it while searching for the perfect solution. Your speculation about Kaluza-Klein particles is also pretty spot on – it’s interesting that some physicists are starting to think this could actually create more questions than it answers. Anyways, interesting times…