It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What should we expect from the upgraded LHC?

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I have read in other threads that the LHC is one of the most marvelous things Humankind has ever created. I have also seen it called a fantastic failure.
It confirmed the Higgs Boson, which rounds off the Standard Model of particle physics, and explains why most particles have mass. But, as was pointed out to me elsewhere, the Higgs Boson was theorized when The Beatles were the big new thing. It failed to produce any SuperSymmetric particles, which most theories predicted it should have at the energy levels of Run 1. It also failed to produce Dark Matter or the Graviton, which also were predicted by some theories to be accessible at the former energy levels.

But, is this a failure of the machine, or the theories. Disproving a theory is still science, and it tells us that we need to look in other directions for answers. The LHC, in the run-up to discovering the Higgs Boson, also produced every other particle in the Standard Model, offering further proof that the theory is sound.

I'm not looking to start a beseless scare thread, but I do want your opinions and theories as to what Run 2 will bring.




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
Well if you ask me, since they have not found the Higgs Boson...

"CMS and ATLAS have compared a number of options for the spin-parity of this particle, and these all prefer no spin and positive parity [two fundamental criteria of a Higgs boson consistent with the Standard Model]. This, coupled with the measured interactions of the new particle with other particles, strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson."

They are pretty sure but not 100%

So until they are absolutely positive then at this time the LHC has not given us much. If the Higgs can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then we can ask what wonders may come from an upgraded LCH.

As it stands the only wonders at this point is if it was worth it. I would need to read much more to see what applications are theorized from this discovery but alas I have not.

I know it is an exiting thing for physicists but for the average person they want to know how will finding that out help me or change my life. That is why you do not see as many people getting excited for these reports.


I personally would like to see great discoveries that lead the way to advance materials, some form of anti-gravity or energy generation.
edit on 4/8/2015 by Azdraik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Azdraik

While not specifically from the LHC, accelerator physics has greatly influenced everyday life. It kind of surprises me when most people are completely unaware of that. No, not saying you.
And yes, to be accurate, there's not 100% proof that it is the Higgs, but it is a very good fit.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

I agree it is more then likely the Higgs. Just do not want them building further upon something that is not 100% because if it ends up being false it would cause their foundation to crumble.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Azdraik

So, let's move on a bit. What do you think the energy upgrade will deliver?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I don't think it's nearly powerful enough.

If it were possible to safely observe particle collisions inside a black hole or a supernova/hypernova, you would observe something interesting. But not the LHC or the micky mouse Fermilab.

Dark matter, for example. Not a freaking chance of proving that one.

Oh sure, it exists right enough (computer simulations and gravitational lensing suggest very strongly it's out there somewhere) but it's a shy animal.

It's unreactive to the Nth degree and only seems to exert a gravitational effect at the macro level (stars).

It doesn't even influence planets in orbit.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The LHC is just a tool for science, they are not just looking for the Higgs Bosun, but looking at all the particles and what they are doing, how they react. Calling it a failure is much like calling a hammer a failure because you missed the nail.

Any information they get from the test, positive or negative, is a success for the LHC.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Mythos13

Precisely my view on it. And the hammer and nail analogy is great.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Black holes and strangelets.


On a more serious note, more power means more complex experiments can be carried out to help us define the nature of our Universe/Multiverse.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

New physics , particles and perhaps dimensions.
Failing that ... A Stargate.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: CJCrawley

To be able to observe anything inside the event horizon of a Black hole seems impossible considering the nature of the beast. That really would be something!



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I don't think it's nearly powerful enough.

If it were possible to safely observe particle collisions inside a black hole or a supernova/hypernova, you would observe something interesting. But not the LHC or the micky mouse Fermilab.

Dark matter, for example. Not a freaking chance of proving that one.

Oh sure, it exists right enough (computer simulations and gravitational lensing suggest very strongly it's out there somewhere) but it's a shy animal.

It's unreactive to the Nth degree and only seems to exert a gravitational effect at the macro level (stars).

It doesn't even influence planets in orbit.


I don't think dark matter exists. What we see is a result of space/time fabric NOT existing in the area between gravity wells. Such as the area between 2 galaxies that are not gravitationally interacting. In other words space/time only exists in areas that there is also gravity.

Light traveling through these areas where space/time does not exists is something I do not think anyone has ever pondered. Or that such areas exist at all. Imagine if you will that there is a limit to how far out from our galaxy that our galaxies gravity exists or reaches. The area just after that is what I am talking about.

What I am saying is if gravity is not there, neither is space/time. Light traveling between gravity wells would possibly instantaneously travel in between those areas where gravity/space/time do not exist or are so different that we have no clue as to how matter or photons would "be" or travel in such an area.

Maybe we would see the effects of these areas and call it "dark matter".



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: CJCrawley
I don't think it's nearly powerful enough.


I agree.

I need a Collider to collide quarks and verify my theory on preons:

The "Diamond" Phoenix Theory

But no colliders in the world can verify my preonic theory because no colliders in the world has enough energy to break up quarks.

And it'll probably be a long time before such collider comes into existence.




top topics



 
6

log in

join