Anyone physics-savvy enough to offer opinions on the LHC? By my very limited understanding, this massive particle accelerator may offer new insites into the creation and makeup of the universe, or it might create a mini black hole along the border of France and Switzerland. In any case it should do SOMETHING interesting. Just curious if others think it will be worth the x billion euros it took to put together, and if so, why.

lol

That black hole theory is like saying "because you can't prove otherwise, the flying spaghetti monster just may have created what we know as reality."

There's very little actual numbers to support the doomsday scenarios out there.

I think others better suited toward the debunking of those theories made their arguments over here.


...or you could ask Lithos what he thinks about it all.

More contentious is whether or not they're going to see the Higgs Boson. My favorite physicist (experimental), Leon Lederman ("The God Particle") says probably.

Stephen Hawking (theoretical physicist) ("A Brief History of Time") says probably not.

If they find Higgs, that will be big news in that they can pinpoint it's energy. If they don't find Higgs, it might even be bigger news. They're making a huge jump in energies with the LHC, carving out a lot of potential hiding places for Higgs. If they don't find Higgs, a lot of people are wrong about a lot of stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
Stephen Hawking (theoretical physicist) ("A Brief History of Time") says probably not.

And he put some money down on it.

quote:

If they don't find Higgs, a lot of people are wrong about a lot of stuff.

Not sure if that would equate to the theory of the Higgs particle and the entire Standard Model of physics being incorrect, or if it would just mean that their experiments geared toward sussing out the particle would be proved ineffective.

Just a side note, we were arguing at work whether if a black hole was created and if it swallowed the earth, would it swallow the moon, or even say the international space station. I was of the opinion that the mass of the black hole wouldn't be any greater than that of the earth, so it's grav force would be the same as the earth, and the moon and ISS would remain in orbit.

I've heard that the current consensus, such as it is, is that the LHC should reach energies where there is evidence of the Higgs particle. If it does not find the Higgs, that doesn't necessarily mean the Standard Model is completely off, but it does mean that the "expected" energy of the Higgs is wrong, or, more interestingly, perhaps the Higgs doesn't exist at all and the theory of what makes mass is off.

It may also point to the way to physicists finally throwing up their hands in disgust and saying, "Aw, fuck it. It's turtles all the way down."

I think Hawking's main reason for making the bet is because he hopes the LHC will throw a wrench in the Standard Model, therefore making things more interesting.

He said as much when he made the bet. He's hoping to learn more. the weirdo.

And finding out if the Higgs exists/does not exist means...?

quote:

Originally posted by shake:
Just a side note, we were arguing at work whether if a black hole was created and if it swallowed the earth, would it swallow the moon, or even say the international space station. I was of the opinion that the mass of the black hole wouldn't be any greater than that of the earth, so it's grav force would be the same as the earth, and the moon and ISS would remain in orbit.

hmmm.... The center of mass would remain the same, but it's extent would be greatly reduced. I dunno.

I think you're right.

quote:

Originally posted by shake:
Just a side note, we were arguing at work whether if a black hole was created and if it swallowed the earth, would it swallow the moon, or even say the international space station. I was of the opinion that the mass of the black hole wouldn't be any greater than that of the earth, so it's grav force would be the same as the earth, and the moon and ISS would remain in orbit.

OK, I think what's supposed to happen is that the black hole drops through the center of the Earth, eating stuff as it goes, bouncing back and forth, turning the Earth into Swiss cheese* in the process. Eventually it would settle down in the core and suck the rest of the planet down at its leisure. The mass of the thing would be the same as the Earth, but perhaps the process of collapse would be somewhat... er... energetic, which might... um... interfere with the orbits of the Moon and ISS.

OR, I could be blowing smoke out my ass.

_{* How appropriate.}

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:
And finding out if the Higgs exists/does not exist means...?

We can disprove the creationists, for one thing.

Jeez, Boog, for someone who's so adamant about the non-existence of a god/gods, you seem awfully desperate for proof...

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:
And finding out if the Higgs exists/does not exist means...?

The LHC can't prove it doesn't exist. Just that it doesn't exist within the range of the LHC's energies. There's a bunch of calcs based upon different theories (where symmetry breaks and does not, for instance, and whether neutrinos have an oh-so-slight mass) that point to different energies where Higgs should be found. If it's found and it's mass (energy, same thing) identified, then that will also validate whichever theories predicted that energy.

If it's not found within the LHC's range, then there's a problem with those theories.

Desperate because my country has been hijacked by fundamentalist fear mongers.

Cutting out their tongues and binding their hands is a lifelong dream of mine.

You got a second amendment there, Boog - why not use it?

quote:

If it's found and it's mass (energy, same thing) identified, then that will also validate whichever theories predicted that energy.

Ah. Good. Will validate theories. Worth it, then.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:
And finding out if the Higgs exists/does not exist means...?

We can disprove the creationists, for one thing.

I can disprove the creationists with one sentence:

Electricity exists, therefore the universe is much much much older than 6000 years-old.

I can make that work with a series of connections, logic, all proven fact. Their arguments against that statement would require faith at the first and all subsequent connections.