Large Hadron Collider
-
@toxicvoxel said:
Remus,
You can take that position from the comfort of your personal circumstances.I'd like to think i would hold the same beliefs even if i lived in a less privileged society.
And just to throw some numbers out there, the LHC cost approx £5.14 billion, the NHS spends about £7 billion a year on medication and african debt is roughly £100 billion. As im sure you can see, if the LHC money was diverted to something more 'real' it would have very little lasting effect, compared to the huge advances possibe in our understanding with the LHC. Seems like a bit of a bargain really.
-
Oh, and chuck norris can just squeeze his fist closed really tightly, then sniff the results to look for higgs particles (and save the 5.14 billion quid for beer.)
-
@unknownuser said:
Seems like a bit of a bargain really
Remus,
I am very interested to know what the 'possible huge advances' are that you are talking about.
I challenge you explain in to us in technical detail what these benefits could be, seeing that you have quantified the yield of these in terms of the investment.Go on, convince me that you understand the underlying scientific issues that you so confidently support.
-
In respect of investment and return, one should not forget that the World Wide Web started at CERN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee
Collecting good minds together around a big project always yields long term results. This Forum is a good example.
The billions spent have gone into salaries, commerce, development, education and training, and not least of all the design and implementation of better and more efficient superconducting magnets. The spin-off of such developments could be huge for the power generation and distribution industries who cannot or won't invest in the necessary R&D.
Someone mentioned dog food? I think the UK alone spends over 1 billion a year on their pets. Personally, I would prefer to see that money going towards conserving endangered species, but that's not going to happen, is it. Three billion (?) on a new collider sounds good to me.
Regards,
Bob -
Well, it's been running for 30 minutes and I'm still here.
Actually, the benefits from this could be tremendous...we just have no idea what they might be at this point. The whole particle physics thing is at the very core of much high-end technology from the radio valve onwards. Without this seemingly esoteric research we simply wouldn't have stuff like transistors, microchips, scanners etc.
I'll bet that the investment isn't that much different proportionally from what was being sunk into Oak Ridge and Los Alamos in WWII. If people had known about that, they'd probably have thought the money would be better spent on bombers or aircraft carriers. -
Circumstantial evidence gentlemen. Demonstrate to me that you have a technical understanding of what is going on today.
Or are you supporting an idea that you do not understand? -
I fully admit that i dont have a technical understanding of the inner workings of the project, and i think youd be hard pushed to find more than a few thousand people who could give you the ins and outs of the LHC.
Enough people who actually understand the subject seem to think its a damm good idea, thats enough to convince me.
p.s. i could give you a rough overview of how it works, if thats enough to satisfy you.
-
Hi,
Alan, thanks for that link to the video.
That has to be the one and only time I have enjoyed listening to rap "music".I liked this comment that appeared there as well:
@unknownuser said:
I love hearing from Creationists who do not believe in the Big Bang warning us ,about creating ANOTHER Big Bang
I also prefer my money being spent on this type of scientific research which hopefully helps extend mankinds knowledge of who and what we are.
A far better investment better than all the billions given in foreign aid to corrupt regimes.Regards
Mr S -
Newsflash:
The LHC of Geneva, Switserland has just been started for tests (wednesday 9.30 am CET).
No incidents or black holes been spotted yet.The LHC will be at its full capacity somewhere in october. (source: Belgian newspaper website "De Morgen.be" 10 september) -
If you are still talking about money and hope to stop the issue here, the US military spends hundreds of billions of dollars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States. In light of recent events please tell me that that money is used wisely. Tell them to divert a few billion to education, medical care which i'm sure does't have budgets of such magnitude, there's your real world problems, not important scientific research which in the long run can help us create the wonderful things we dream of, no world hunger,no poverty, flying cars, space exploration etc, etc.
Another end of the world averted, now we still have to look forward to 2012 and the comming of the planet Nibiru with the Anunaki...and probably a few more dozens of end of the world theories.
-
First, the LHC is safe. The kind of reactions it is going to simulate happen throughout the universe and even regularly in our own atmosphere, if something terrible was going to happen it is reasonable to assume it would have happened in the last few Billion years. In comparison it is far more likely that a large, rogue asteroid will slam into the atmosphere and annihilate all life on Earth (something we would be powerless to stop, by the way).
Second, we may not know exactly what we are going to get from these experiments, but that does not mean they are not important. Without research into quantum physics and semiconductors we would not have the computers on which to have this discussion or, indeed, the vast majority of electronic devices today. Products from particle accelerators and nuclear reactors include isotopes used to treat cancer and the most important parts of smoke detectors and have therefore saved countless lives to date.
Computer development has also always been driven by scientific research; not just the high powered stuff (supercomputers are a key part of theoretical physics), but spin-offs, such as the web, which was invented at CERN as a way for scientists to share their data.
As long as the machine works, it does not matter what the results are, they will help us understand the universe better. Even failure can be useful, the Michelson-Morely experiment is one of the most famous scientific failures, but the importance of discovering that the theory of the ether (as in a fixed field the earth moved relative to, rather than the chemical compound) was the main reason Michelson was awarded the 1907 Nobel Prize. Any new information is useful, even if it shows that your theory is wrong.
Oh, and if you are worried that I just got everything from Wikipedia and New Scientist, then I should mention that my degree is in astrophysics and some of my friends are now working at CERN.
-
Wow James,
Nice first post, considering you've been a member for about half a year (if you don't mind me mentioning it)!
Also if you don't mind (and Jacob and the others this OT question); what brought you to the SU World? (Asking this as an also "non-related" person)
-
I get the feeling from this thread that this LHC thing is big news in Europe. Here on this side of the pond I hadn't heard of it until I saw this thread yesterday. To you European fans - would you care about this thing if it had been built in South America with non-European funding? I suspect this thing is rallying some pride in Europe - "look how we're cutting edge" - that gives it an emotional impact in Europe that is not happening here.
Today Google have featured it with their daily illustration.
-
Thats a good point ross, although i think its only fair really, as youve got the best space program
-
i just love the serendipity in science, that is what makes it such a wonderfully interesting subject.
anyone thinking this LHC is a bad idea is exceptionally naive.
penicillin, post-it notes, the microwave, the pacemaker, superglue.
all examples of small expeiments which have yielded more than the scientist was hoping for.
imagine what discoveries can be made from this experiment.personally, i am very excited by what could come of this, and i'm glad we live in a world where people are given the chance to experiment, learn, discover and inovate.
what if man had never discovered fire?mankind can only benefit from this, and we shall all be richer for the work these scientists have put in.
unless they do make a black hole, that would be a bummer.
pav
-
@remus said:
Thats a good point ross, although i think its only fair really, as youve got the best space program
Canada has a space program?
-
@unknownuser said:
I'am still here.....the particles they say are the size of a mosquito. So the thought of two mosquito's colliding together causing the world to end are pretty unlikely
They also say particles like these are always colliding anyway, without any bad side effects Hm... Neutrons are even smaller - and look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
I was thinking in terms of continents
-
Thanks Gaieus. Yes, I have just been lurking for a while, but someone asked for proof that people knew about the LHC, so I thought now might be the time to comment.
I have been into computers for some time and had to use them a fair amount at university (my project involved analysing 10GB of simulation data and I wasn't doing that by hand); I have also always had a bit of an interest in modelling (I used to do wargaming, but was mainly interested in converting the figures and making scenery), SU gave me a nice way to combine the two. As a big fan of automation I am also looking at Ruby, which I think I am starting to get the hang of.
Ross: I would still have been interested and would no doubt have read about it in Physics World, but it may have received less attention from the general media. I don't remember seeing that much about Fermilab over here, although I have a feeling there may have been something earlier in the year. Actually, in the scientific press I have read about Fermilab recently and I have to say that their financial situation is worrying, even more so that they are not alone.
-
Hi,
I think this provides an excellent answer as to "why".
@unknownuser said:
Q: Can you tell me why we are doing this experiment? I can understand that you are hoping to reveal the origins of mass by smashing tiny particles together but what advantages (besides increase in knowledge) do you expect to obtain from this?
@unknownuser said:
A: Experiment is the basis of the scientific method, without which there would be no modern world as we know it.
The quest to understand the smallest building blocks of nature and the forces that hold them together arguably began with the ancient Greeks, but it was only when we began to conduct experiments that we discovered the electron (1897), quantum mechanics (triggered by precision observations of the light emitted by elements when heated), X-rays, the atomic nucleus, radioactive decay... the list is practically endless.
Without these experimental discoveries, and the subsequent deepening of our understanding of the Universe, there would be no electronics, no silicon chips or transistors, no medical imaging technology, no nuclear power stations, no X-rays or chemotherapy treatments for cancer... again an almost endless list.
What this should teach us is two things. First, it is virtually impossible to deepen our understanding of Nature without experiments. Second, understanding Nature has never been a bad idea - indeed without the pioneers of the past century, our civilisation would be immeasurably poorer.
I do not know what the continuation of this long and illustrious quest will lead to, but I would be extremely surprised if a writer called upon to defend scientific enquiry at the turn of the 22nd Century does not point to the LHC as the foundation of a hundred new technologies, each considered essential to our quality of life.
Answer supplied by: Professor Brian Cox who is one of the LHC scientists at Cern.
A near perfect explanation in my view.
Oh boy, I really like this guy!
He finishes his interview with this gem:
@unknownuser said:
I am in fact immensely irritated by the conspiracy theorists who spread this nonsense around and try to scare people. This non-story is symptomatic of a larger mistrust in science, particularly in the US, which includes intelligent design amongst other things.
The only serious issue is why so many people who don't have the time or inclination to discover for themselves why this stuff is total crap have to be exposed to the opinions of these half-wits.
Regards
MR S
Advertisement