|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 14, 2011 13:13:37 GMT 1
No consequence? Same goes for a lot of science. But ever since we started to try and explain what atoms were made, with Rutherford chucking alpha particles at them, and being astounded that some came right back (discovery of the nucleus), we have investigated that which we cannot see directly.
If chaps hadn't messed about with electron beams in evacuated glass envelopes, we wouldn't have had the CRT that until recently was most TVs. We wouldn't have the electron synchrotrons that are used routinely in studies in surface science, material science, biology, chemistry etc.
WHy bother? Well, if people in the past hadn't bothered studying what at the time was seen as purely theoretical, we wouldn't have much of the technology we use today. But it would be a sad day for humans if we only studies what might have some consequence. Abstract knowledge, thank you very much -- like studying cosmology, so we know where the universe came from, and particle physics so we known where mass came from, and why the universe is made from what it is made of. I can't think of a nobler intellectual achievement, even if some people want us to just stick to designing a better mouse trap, or a smaller mobile phone..................
|
|
|
|
Post by robinpike on Feb 14, 2011 14:48:25 GMT 1
As regards leptons, the evidence from those same accelerators that some try to deride is that they are pointlike as far as we can discern. STA, if the particle accelerators cannot reveal any structure to the electron, what would be wrong in trying to deduce if it has an internal structure or not? |
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 14, 2011 16:59:45 GMT 1
Except string theory (which views all particles as vibrating strings) does just that -- that is the internal structure.
Except it's a different thing to the internal structure of, say, a proton, where the fact that it is composed of quarks (even if we can't see them isolated on their own) is much clearer, from the number of excited states of the proton (the hadron zoo) if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 14, 2011 19:30:25 GMT 1
Abacus,
You ask about the LHC
The 'experiment' consist as I said of crashing tiny pieces of matter into each other at very high speeds, and analysing the trajectory of the even tinier bits that fly off.
This 'experiment' goes on day and night in these various single purpose machines, collecting the pictures of millions on millions of collisions.
Since the early machines, there have been subsequent generations of these devices each faster than the last.. only to have produce the result "we need a faster machine"
It is worth noting that at this stage of the proceedings, where we have billions of picture of collisions and trajectories of flying bits that have no existence beyond submicroseconds, and therefore have no real consequence to humanity .. there now is an existential question
hanging over this whole 'particle-race'.
Indeed, other than to feed the competition between compulsive bullshitters ...it is hard to see any reason to pour resources into this activity when other areas of science await.
So in summary, to answer your question; these devices are observing the same phemomenon a billion times, and the only variable is the speed of the collision.
So, when the LHC has spend a month or so collected the million or so photos at the highest power setting ... that's the end of the experiment, and the LHCwil now be redundant and ready for recycling.
Then having spent a few years poring over the photos, you can bet that the physicists will cry "we need a bigger one". But this time, the answer is likely to be .. 'piss off'
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Feb 15, 2011 15:30:23 GMT 1
Actually, there are PLENTY of reasons.
Abstract knowledge for one.
I have to thank CERN for this quote from a Socratic dialogue:
Let's not forget interesting spin-offs, like the fact that it was some geezer at CERN who invented the internet (in order to enable researchers to share information).
Then we have the technical spin-offs in terms of synchrotrons as basic tools in biology, materials science etc. We have uses in cancer therapy. We have the basic particle detectors, which have led to advances in many fields, and have industrial uses. Except no one was going to fund the development without CERN, once they have been developed then industry works out how they can use that technology to make money. Data processing, computing etc as above, given that the whole point about CERN is that there are VAST amounts of data that are regularly collected and have to be stored and analysed.
Then we have the spin-offs in terms of the trained personnel and graduate students. Many grad students will do a PhD there because it is sexy science, but then rather than staying as researchers, find that they have actually gained lots of transferrable skills that make them employable in many fields.
I think the point is you would get the same spin-offs from spending funds on many similar large-scale scientific projects, just that you need to have one that enough people are passionate about to get the really best people, and the investment of time and commitments spanning years that you get at CERN.
The basic point is that the money spent at CERN has many long and short term benefits, over and above the basic knowledge that we gain. It is of general economic utility.
|
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 18, 2011 0:24:07 GMT 1
STA, all well and good, but beside the point .. which was that the LHC is the grand terminus for this branch of science ... the culmination of a catherdral-building craze if you like like. It has served its purpose, and the flow of funds from taxpayers pockets will be better directed to other areas of science.
|
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Feb 18, 2011 0:35:07 GMT 1
What concerns me is that whatever the outcome of the LHC's experiments they will inevitably give rise to further theoretical questions which will become well beyond our ability to test. I think what will tend to happen is that particle physics will become more of a hobby than a practical pursuit for intellectuals and increasingly become more divorced from everyday reality. Perhaps we need less scientists and more plumbers!  |
|
