Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
LHC - new discovery
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-environment-16301908
Doesn't this finding show we were right to spend £bns in looking for these new particles not to mention the hundreds of scientists who have devoted enormous time and energy?
Doesn't this finding show we were right to spend £bns in looking for these new particles not to mention the hundreds of scientists who have devoted enormous time and energy?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Now can someone tell me what this will do for mankind?? I just have the strangest feeling that warfare may be involved in this, as America cannot afford to send any more shuttles, but someone with a deep pocket is throwing billions of dollars into a futuristic project that, taken a face value, will do nothing for the man in the street, just keep some scientists in work. something is going on,
pretty scary, have they had alien information and following some sort of plan?
I don't beleive in extra terrestrials etc, but this seems so strange.
why spend billions to find out the source of the universe? are they searching for God? no one, but no one, spends money without there being a pot of gold at the end. please don't anyone say that this is in the interest of science,
it is not.
pretty scary, have they had alien information and following some sort of plan?
I don't beleive in extra terrestrials etc, but this seems so strange.
why spend billions to find out the source of the universe? are they searching for God? no one, but no one, spends money without there being a pot of gold at the end. please don't anyone say that this is in the interest of science,
it is not.
Take the tin foil hat off and read this:
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/11839.aspx
http://www.lhc.ac.uk/About+the+LHC/11839.aspx
Not sure that there is a 'right' about it. Our knowledge is so advanced now that exploring physics by dropping canonballs off the leaning tower of Pisa, although considerably cheaper, will not teach us anything new.
The only way we can learn is to build extremely complex machines and devote large amounts of time. As we learn, that knowledge is put to use by mankind, sometimes to heal or make lives easier and sometimes to kill and control but then this has always been the way with knowledge.
The only way we can learn is to build extremely complex machines and devote large amounts of time. As we learn, that knowledge is put to use by mankind, sometimes to heal or make lives easier and sometimes to kill and control but then this has always been the way with knowledge.
-- answer removed --
In itself the Chi_b (3P) is not so important. It does help reinforce the Standard Model. I expect it doesn't last very long being a combination of matter and antimatter. No wonder it is in a very excited state.
Note the article refers to the Beauty Quark which is more rightly known as the Bottom Quark. The alternatives Truth and Beauty for the Top and Bottom Quarks are not standard nomenclature.
What seems more exciting to me is that evidence of a particle has been indicated at a mass around 125GeV with an error probability narrowed down to two percent. This is right in the range for the Higgs though a lot more data is yet required to reach the probabilities needed to accept its existence.
Note the article refers to the Beauty Quark which is more rightly known as the Bottom Quark. The alternatives Truth and Beauty for the Top and Bottom Quarks are not standard nomenclature.
What seems more exciting to me is that evidence of a particle has been indicated at a mass around 125GeV with an error probability narrowed down to two percent. This is right in the range for the Higgs though a lot more data is yet required to reach the probabilities needed to accept its existence.
I think it's remarkable how much times have changed.
In the early days of particle physics these sorts of meson particles were being discovered seemingly every week.
At one point a new one was discovered and an exasperated theorist said "Who ordered that?!"
Now thank's to a Murray Gell Mann (who deserves to be at least as well known as his neighbour Dick Feynmann ) we understand the combinations and it was just a matter of time before someone actually saw this one.
As for what use this is - well this is fundamental research - it's about understanding how the universe is constructed - you might ask what use it is that we know that the Universe is not just a few local stars - you might ask what use there is in teaching History.
But someone else once asked "what use it is?" he was a British Prime Minister being shown a wire spinning in a dish of Mercury.
It was the first electric motor and the scientist showing it was Michael Faraday
His response? "I have no idea sir but feel certain one day you will tax it"
If you're interested it looked like this
http://www.sparkmuseu...s/19th-century/92.jpg
In the early days of particle physics these sorts of meson particles were being discovered seemingly every week.
At one point a new one was discovered and an exasperated theorist said "Who ordered that?!"
Now thank's to a Murray Gell Mann (who deserves to be at least as well known as his neighbour Dick Feynmann ) we understand the combinations and it was just a matter of time before someone actually saw this one.
As for what use this is - well this is fundamental research - it's about understanding how the universe is constructed - you might ask what use it is that we know that the Universe is not just a few local stars - you might ask what use there is in teaching History.
But someone else once asked "what use it is?" he was a British Prime Minister being shown a wire spinning in a dish of Mercury.
It was the first electric motor and the scientist showing it was Michael Faraday
His response? "I have no idea sir but feel certain one day you will tax it"
If you're interested it looked like this
http://www.sparkmuseu...s/19th-century/92.jpg
-- answer removed --
Well Billy Peter Higg's theory was pretty cheap too!
(Checks no theoeticians are listening)
IMHO
Really theoreticians don't do "science" they do philosophy and maths
It doesn't really become science until you try to test it.
Philosophy and maths are cheap
Science is expensive
(I'll be off now I can hear pitchforks being sharpened in theoretical physics institutions all over the country.....Bye....)
(Checks no theoeticians are listening)
IMHO
Really theoreticians don't do "science" they do philosophy and maths
It doesn't really become science until you try to test it.
Philosophy and maths are cheap
Science is expensive
(I'll be off now I can hear pitchforks being sharpened in theoretical physics institutions all over the country.....Bye....)
The laser was the first device to use a Quantum Mechanical phenomenon. It was conceived theoretically by Einstein in 1917 and finally demonstrated in 1960.
At that time it was commented as "interesting but what would be the use of it."
Now there is no field in science, medicine or engineering where a laser has not resulted in a major practical advance. It is ubiquitious in our lives and an absolutely essential part of at least the manufacturing of every electronic device and functionally included in many.
It is not possible to know ahead what will become possible as a result of scientific endeavour but we do know that we won't find anything if we don't look.
A thorough understand of the fundamental principles of the deepest functioning of nature could well lead us to a practical implementation of cold fusion. This process was demonstrated in the 1940s but relies on short lived mesons called muons to catalyse the reaction. Currently making those muons takes more energy than the fusion reactions they can catalyse in their short existence.
Imagine if the research revealed an efficient way to produce muons. It would undoubtedly be the most important advance in the entire history of mankind.
At that time it was commented as "interesting but what would be the use of it."
Now there is no field in science, medicine or engineering where a laser has not resulted in a major practical advance. It is ubiquitious in our lives and an absolutely essential part of at least the manufacturing of every electronic device and functionally included in many.
It is not possible to know ahead what will become possible as a result of scientific endeavour but we do know that we won't find anything if we don't look.
A thorough understand of the fundamental principles of the deepest functioning of nature could well lead us to a practical implementation of cold fusion. This process was demonstrated in the 1940s but relies on short lived mesons called muons to catalyse the reaction. Currently making those muons takes more energy than the fusion reactions they can catalyse in their short existence.
Imagine if the research revealed an efficient way to produce muons. It would undoubtedly be the most important advance in the entire history of mankind.
1 to 17 of 17
