New data narrows hunt for God particle

Overmind One

Overmind One

Administrator
Staff member
Bluce Ree said:
The technical name for this particle is actually the Higgs boson particle. I thought it was interesting and funny that they refer to it as the God particle.

http://news.yahoo.com/data-said-narrow-hunt-god-particle-141155625.html
Click to expand...

More of the same old "analyze the splinters" methodology. It infuriates me that millions of dollars are spent every 5 years or so on supercolliders. I submit that VERY LITTLE can be learned by colliding particles and analyzing the fragments which are created in an effort to learn anything new about matter. They want to find a "god particle" by smashing together protons? I think they will find the SMASHED GOD particles that way, but not much else.

Its ludicrous to me. Its like blowing up a house and then analyzing the flaming, smoldering ruins to try and learn something about the people who lived in that house. Why so many colliders and so few reactors being built? I don't mean nuclear fission reactors, but reactors which could be filled with nebula-like gases to analyze how they coalesce under heat and pressure and form new elements. How about spending money on a device to create gravity (and thus show us how to repel/counteract it)?

This sort of stuff is a downer to me scientifically. :(
 
B

Bluce Ree

Tech Admin / Council Member
Overmind One said:
More of the same old "analyze the splinters" methodology. It infuriates me that millions of dollars are spent every 5 years or so on supercolliders. I submit that VERY LITTLE can be learned by colliding particles and analyzing the fragments which are created in an effort to learn anything new about matter. They want to find a "god particle" by smashing together protons? I think they will find the SMASHED GOD particles that way, but not much else.

Its ludicrous to me. Its like blowing up a house and then analyzing the flaming, smoldering ruins to try and learn something about the people who lived in that house. Why so many colliders and so few reactors being built? I don't mean nuclear fission reactors, but reactors which could be filled with nebula-like gases to analyze how they coalesce under heat and pressure and form new elements. How about spending money on a device to create gravity (and thus sow us how to repel/counteract it)?

This sort of stuff is a downer to me scientifically. :(
Click to expand...

I thought the purpose of super colliers was to simulate particle stress inside a star or black hole, which ideally lead to new elements being created.
 
Overmind One

Overmind One

Administrator
Staff member
Bluce Ree said:
I thought the purpose of super colliers was to simulate particle stress inside a star or black hole, which ideally lead to new elements being created.
Click to expand...

New elements are created by heat and pressure in nebulas, which themselves are created from the explosions of stars. Elements are "cooked up" in the thermonuclear reactions at the cores of stars, and the heaviest elements are created in that fashion. The other rare and trace elements are created in stellar nebulae. At best, a collider is only good for analyzing how specific particles fuse, or giving researchers a bunch of particle fragments (subatomic particles) to analyze. It yields very little in the way of usable data which can be applied to anything useful.

You know, there is a HUGE incentive to petition for research funding. MILLIONS of dollars, the involvement of universities, and creation of jobs for those specialized scientists who would be unemployed if it weren't for these type of projects. I mean, a God particle? And they will find it in a supercollider on earth? SERIOUSLY? Why can people get money to look for a "God particle"????? :facepalm:
 
S

shavedape

New member
Overmind One said:
New elements are created by heat and pressure in nebulas, which themselves are created from the explosions of stars. Elements are "cooked up" in the thermonuclear reactions at the cores of stars, and the heaviest elements are created in that fashion. The other rare and trace elements are created in stellar nebulae. At best, a collider is only good for analyzing how specific particles fuse, or giving researchers a bunch of particle fragments (subatomic particles) to analyze. It yields very little in the way of usable data which can be applied to anything useful.

You know, there is a HUGE incentive to petition for research funding. MILLIONS of dollars, the involvement of universities, and creation of jobs for those specialized scientists who would be unemployed if it weren't for these type of projects. I mean, a God particle? And they will find it in a supercollider on earth? SERIOUSLY? Why can people get money to look for a "God particle"????? :facepalm:
Click to expand...

How dare you! Dr. Rush has devoted his life to finding the God particle! It takes a lot of screaming and yelling and intense melodrama to get those particles to collide and you can't do that without money! Lots and lots of money! We don't have time or money to do things the logical way! Now, give us money!!!!!!!! :icon_twisted:
 
S

shavedape

New member
Overmind One said:
More of the same old "analyze the splinters" methodology. It infuriates me that millions of dollars are spent every 5 years or so on supercolliders. I submit that VERY LITTLE can be learned by colliding particles and analyzing the fragments which are created in an effort to learn anything new about matter. They want to find a "god particle" by smashing together protons? I think they will find the SMASHED GOD particles that way, but not much else.

Its ludicrous to me. Its like blowing up a house and then analyzing the flaming, smoldering ruins to try and learn something about the people who lived in that house. Why so many colliders and so few reactors being built? I don't mean nuclear fission reactors, but reactors which could be filled with nebula-like gases to analyze how they coalesce under heat and pressure and form new elements. How about spending money on a device to create gravity (and thus show us how to repel/counteract it)?

This sort of stuff is a downer to me scientifically. :(
Click to expand...

+1

Great points! I admit I don't understand the physics involved in these things but your suggestions make sense on the most basic level. They're all exciting ideas and it's sad that the scientific community doesn't share the enthusiasm. I mean, I don't see how there wouldn't be a moneyed interest in those experiments. It's a no-brainer.
 
Overmind One

Overmind One

Administrator
Staff member
shavedape said:
+1

Great points! I admit I don't understand the physics involved in these things but your suggestions make sense on the most basic level. They're all exciting ideas and it's sad that the scientific community doesn't share the enthusiasm. I mean, I don't see how there wouldn't be a moneyed interest in those experiments. It's a no-brainer.
Click to expand...

There is a reason: Albert Einstein.

That is why I rant so much about Einsteinian physics. Using his constants and the math behind general and special relativity has stunted all of physics. The mechanics of gravitation and its interactions with the strong and weak forces is still somewhat of a "mystery" in physics because the current math is screwed up by the current Einsteinian Era physics and its community. But there is a growing segment of physics students and scholars who reject Einsteinian physics and embrace quantum mechanics and other theories in an effort to break out of that. Count me in those numbers.

Gravitation is almost completely a mystery to modern physics. There is not even a viable theory to explain how it is "generated" or if it is an effect of something else. The reason is because physics took a left turn, and the good stuff is on the other road.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top